Loading...
09/07/2021 - Formal Meeting - Meeting Materials oro. ; a�4 tam R ��n1■��i/n�=�� rimg s o i.I II cc._ (////NI I \\\\\ s4*non 0.0 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FORMAL MEETING September 7, 2021 Tuesday 7:oo PM This Meeting Will be an Electronic Meeting Pursuant to the Chair's Determination. SLCCouncil.com CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Amy Fowler, Chair James Rogers,Vice Chair District 7 District i Dennis Faris Chris Wharton Ana Valdemoros District 2 District 3 District 4 Darin Mano Dan Dugan District 5 District 6 Generated: 16:2o:12 This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Chair's determination. As Salt Lake City Council Chair, I hereby determine that conducting the Salt Lake City Council meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present, and that the City and County building has been ordered closed to the public for health and safety reasons. Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings.We want to make sure everyone interested in the City Council meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the City Council meetings,they are available on the following platforms: • Facebook Live:www.facebook.com/slcCouncil/ • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings • Web Agenda:www.slc.gov/council/agendas/ • SLCty Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Formal Meeting for the Public Hearings or general comment period,you may do so through the Webex platform.To learn how to connect through Webex, or if you need call-in phone options,please visit our website or call us at 8o1-535-7607 to learn more. As always,if you would like to provide feedback or comment,please call us or send us an email: • 24-Hour comment line: 801-535-7654 • council.comments@slcgov.corn More info and resources can be found at: www.slc.gov/council/contact-us/ Upcoming meetings and meeting information can be found here: www.slc.gov/council/agendas/ 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 Amy Fowler will conduct the formal meeting. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 4. The Council will approve the work session and formal meeting minutes of Tuesday, August 24, 2021 and meeting minute excerpts relating to the Intention to Designate Central Business Improvement Area 2022 actions from Tuesday, July 20, 2021. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Items Bi — B3 will be heard as one public hearing. 1. Grant Application: 2021 Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Grant — Utah Office for Victims of Crimes The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Police Department to the Utah Office for Victims of Crime. If awarded, this grant would continue to fund the Victim Advocate positions. The grant application also covers funding for costs associated with Rita, the Police Facility Dog.Additionally, there are costs related to supplies for the program, emergency funds for assisting victims, and training for Advocate staff included in the application. 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, September 7, 2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 2. Grant Application: 2021 Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Police Department to the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. If awarded, this grant would fund training for employee wellness and peer support teams, instructor fees for family wellness workshops, chaplain uniforms, program evaluation, overtime, marketing materials, and class supplies. 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, September 7, 2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action- n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 3. Grant Application: 2022 State of Utah Asset Forfeiture Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Police Department to the State of Utah, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice. If awarded, this grant would fund confidential informant funds to enhance investigations in narcotics-related cases. 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, September 7, 2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 4. Resolution: Intention to Designate Central Business Improvement Area 2022 The Council will accept public comment about a resolution of intention to designate Central Business Improvement Area 2022 (CBIA-22). The area is made up of about 5o city blocks and is currently managed by The Downtown Alliance under a contract with the City that expires April 2022. The resolution is the first step in establishing a funding tool for downtown marketing, promotion,business advocacy, and initiatives such as The Blocks, The Farmer's Market, holiday lighting, and other programs. This resolution would re-establish a special assessment on commercial property in the boundary area (same boundaries as 2019) for a three-year period as well as designate a separate assessment area for holiday lighting. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday, July 13, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday, July 20, 2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment-Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday, July 20, 2021 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 5. Ordinance: Rezone at Nielsen Estates at 833 West Hoyt Place and 834 West 200 North The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning map pertaining to two parcels located at 833 West Hoyt Place and 834 West 200 North. The proposal would rezone the parcels from R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) and R-1/7,000 (Single- Family Residential District), respectively, to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District). The applicant would like to rezone the properties for a future Planned Development that would include the preservation of the existing home and add six new single-family attached homes with access coming either from Hoyt Place (private street), or 200 North. However, the request is not tied to a specific development proposal at this time. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No.: PLNPCM2o18-00877 FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing-Tuesday,August 17, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,August 17, 2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday, September 21, 2021 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 6. Ordinance: Permitting Restaurants in the Public Lands Zoning District The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend Section 21A.33.o70 of the Salt Lake City Code to allow restaurant uses in the Public Lands District. The purpose of the Public Lands zone (section 21A.32.o70) is to delineate areas of public use and control the potential redevelopment of public uses,lands, and facilities. If amended, restaurants would adhere to the same regulations as other permitted uses in the zone, which requires permitted and conditional uses to be located on lots with a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 75 feet. Petition No.: PLNPCM2o2o-00503 FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,August 17, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,August 17, 2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment-Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday, September 21, 2021 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 7. Ordinance: Amending City Code Pertaining to Fence,Wall, and Hedge Height Requirements The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning ordinance regulations to remove the Special Exception process that allows for over-height fences (Chapter 21A.52.o30) and to define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and approved by right (Chapter 21A.40.120). The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and hedge height to four feet (4') in front yards and six feet (6') in the side or rear yards for all zoning districts, except for a few specific instances. Those instances include when a residential district abuts a nonresidential district, manufacturing and extractive industries zoning districts, public facilities and recreation facilities where a greater height is necessary to protect public safety, private game courts, and construction fencing.Additionally, the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission would have the authority to grant additional fence, wall, or hedge height as part of a land use application. The amendments proposed to Chapter 21A.4o will affect all zoning districts throughout the City. Petition No.: PLNPCM2o2o-oo511 FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,August 17, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,August 17, 2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment-Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday, September 21, 2021 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 8. Resolution: Public Benefits Analysis -Authorizing the Waiver of Lease Fees to Facilitate the Operation of an Airport Military Service Members Lounge The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution that would authorize a waiver of lease fees at the Salt Lake City International Airport to facilitate the operation of an Airport Military Service Members Lounge operated by United Service Organizations (USO), a nonprofit corporation. The USO lounge would feature comfortable furniture, donated snacks, beverages, entertainment, and free Wi-Fi to active duty, Reserve, and Guard service members and their families at no charge, 365 days per year. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing-Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment-Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday, September 21, 2021 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). C. POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: NONE. D. COMMENTS: 1. Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2. Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.) E. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Motion: Meeting Remotely Without an Anchor Location The Council will consider a motion to ratify the Chair's determination to continue meeting remotely and without an anchor location due to the health and safety of the people who may be in attendance, and considering the continued closure of the City and County Building to the public. 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- n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider motions. 2. Resolution: Authorizing the Pledge of Supplemental Sales and Use Tax Revenues to the Payment of the City's Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would authorize the pledge of supplemental sales and use tax revenues to the payment of the City's sales and excise tax revenue bonds and providing for related matters. The 0.5% supplemental sales and use tax increase was enacted in 2018 as part of the Funding Our Future initiative. 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 - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action-Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance: Racial Equity in Policing Commission The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend section 2.07.020, section 10.02.040, section 10.02.110 and enacting chapter 10.06 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission. These changes will formalize the Commission as a permanent body, similar to other City boards and commissions. It is charged with advising the Mayor and Council on matters related to eliminating racial discrimination in policing practices in Salt Lake City, among other powers and duties. The Commission completed its first year of work under a joint resolution of the two branches, and in June issued formal recommendations on Police Department policies and practices, officer training, and school safety. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment- n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 2. Ordinance: Renaming of People's Freeway Park to Ballpark Playground The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would rename the People's Freeway Park, located at 156o South West Temple to the Ballpark Playground. The Public Utilities Department owns the property, and it is managed by the Public Services Department, Parks Division. Both departments support the name change. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment- n/a TENTATIVE Council Action-Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 3. Resolution: Utah State Infrastructure Bank Loan Application The Council will authorize an application for a Utah State infrastructure bank loan for a neighborhood parking structure between 40o West and 50o West and 60o South and 700 South. The loan would be used to allocate public parking and allow for an improved design that contemplates future diminished need for vehicular traffic in the neighborhood. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date- n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment- n/a TENTATIVE Council Action-Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). G. CONSENT: 1. Grant Holding Account Items (Batch No.1)Associated with BAM No.2 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 The Council will consider approving Grant Holding Account Item (Batch No. 1) for Fiscal Year 2021-22 Associated with Budget Amendment No. 2. 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- n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Staff Recommendation -Approve. 2. Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 554 and 56o South 300 East The Council will set the date of Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of property at 554 and 56o South 30o East from RO (Residential/Office District) to R-MU(Residential/Mixed Use District), and would amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The applicant is proposing to amend the Master Plan to designate the subject sites as High Mixed Use land use designation, which provides for spaces medium to high density residential and higher intensity commercial uses. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No.: PLNPCM2o2o-00604/00712 FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment-Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action- Tuesday, October 19, 2021 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 3. Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 461 South 400 East The Council will set the date of Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of property located at 461 South 40o East from R-MU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use District) to TSA-UN-C (Transit Station Area Urban Neighborhood Core District), and would amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The proposal to rezone the site is to accommodate a future redevelopment of the site to include residential, retail, and live/work units while eliminating the parking structures which front 50o South and Denver Street. The proposed amendment would also change the Master Plan Future Land Use to High Density Transit Oriented Development. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No.: PLNPCM2o2o-00804/00806 FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment-Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday, October 19, 2021 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 4. Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 203 East 2100 South, 221 East 2100 South, and 1991 South 200 East The Council will set the date of Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of properties located at 203 East 2100 South, 221 East 2100 South, and 1991 South 200 East from RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District) to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District) and would amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The intent is to allow development of a mixed-use project which includes multi-family housing on the subject parcels. Mixed-use is not allowed under the current RMF-45 zoning. No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this time. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No.: PLNPCM2o2i-00029 and PLNPCM2o2i-oolo4 FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment-Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday, October 19, 2021 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 5. Ordinance: Elm Avenue Alley Vacation The Council will set the date of Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would vacate a portion of City- owned alley situated adjacent to properties at 968 East Elm Avenue, 974 East Elm Avenue, 98o East Elm Avenue, and 2188 South moo East. The applicants identify public safety and lack of use of the public right-of-way as the main reasons for the request. Petition No.: PLNPCM2o2o-00999 FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing-Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment-Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday, October 19, 2021 Staff Recommendation- Set date. 6. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.2 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 The Council will set the date of Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2021-22. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City's budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications, among other items. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday, September 14, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment-Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action-TBD Staff Recommendation - Set date. 7. Board Appointment: Planning Commission — Mike Christensen The Council will consider approving the appointment of Mike Christensen to the Planning Commission for a term ending September 7, 2025. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment- n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Staff Recommendation -Approve. 8. Board Appointment: Art Design Board —Alejandro Moya The Council will consider approving the appointment of Alejandro Moya to the Art Design Board for a term ending September 7, 2024. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Staff Recommendation -Approve. 9. Board Appointment: Art Design Board — Colour Maisch The Council will consider approving the appointment of Colour Maisch to the Art Design Board for a term ending September 7, 2024. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Staff Recommendation -Approve. io. Board Appointment: Arts Council Board — Josanne Glass The Council will consider approving the appointment of Josanne Glass to the Arts Council Board for a term ending September 7, 2024. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment- n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Staff Recommendation -Approve. 11. Board Appointment: Arts Council Board — Sarah Longoria The Council will consider approving the appointment of Sarah Longoria to the Arts Council Board for a term ending September 7, 2024. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing-Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Staff Recommendation -Approve. 12. Board Appointment: Historic Landmark Commission — Carlton Getz The Council will consider approving the appointment of Carlton Getz to the Historic Landmark Commission for a term ending September 7, 2025. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing-Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment- n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday, September 7, 2021 Staff Recommendation-Approve. H. ADJOURNMENT: CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:oo p.m.on ,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-1-7oi, 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. CINDY LOU TRISHMAN 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. 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@slcgov.com, 8o1-535-7600, or relay service 711. Salt Lake City, Utah August 30, 3021 A regular meeting of the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,was held on Tuesday, July 20, 2021, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. via electronic means, at which meeting there were present and answering to roll call the following members who constituted a quorum: Amy Fowler Chair James Rogers Vice-Chair Dan Dugan Councilmember Ana Valdemoros Councilmember Dennis Faris Councilmember Darin Mano Councilmember Chris Wharton Councilmember Also present: Erin Mendenhall Mayor Katherine Lewis ity Attorney Cindy Lou Trishman Recorder Absent: Thereupon the following proceedings amo others, were duly had and taken: Resolution 25 of 2021 was introduced in wri , was read by title, and Councilmember Rogers moved its adoption: Councilmember Dugan seconded the motion to adopt the foregoing resolution. The motion and resolution were unanimously adopted on the following recorded vote: AYE: Councilmembers FarDugan, Mano, Rogers, Fowler, Valdemoros, Wharton NAY: None After the conduct of other business not pertinent to the above, the meeting was, on motion duly made and seconded, adjourned. [SEAL] By: Chair ATTEST: By: City Recorder MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 PENDING MINUTES—NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,met in Work Session on Tuesday,August 24, 2021 in an Electronic Meeting,pursuant to the Chair's determination. The following Council Members were present: Darin Mano, Dennis Faris,James Rogers,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Chris Wharton, Daniel Dugan Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Executive Director;Jennifer Bruno, Deputy Director; Lehua Weaver,Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall; Rachel Otto,Chief of Staff; Lisa Shaffer,Chief Administrative Officer Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis—City Attorney,Amanda Lau—Public Engagement&Communication Specialist, Brian Fullmer—Constituent Liaison, Policy Analyst,Nick Tarbet—Senior Public Policy Analyst, Sam Owen—Public Policy Analyst,Andrew Johnston—Director of Homelessness Policy and Outreach, DeeDee Robinson—Deputy City Recorder, Bill Wyatt—Airport Director, Chief Mike Brown—Police Chief, Laura Briefer—Public Utilities Director, Lorna Vogt—Public Services Director,Nick Norris —Planning Division Director, Stephanie Duer—Public Utilities Water Conservation Program Manager,Allison Rowland— Public Policy Analyst, Kaletta Lynch—Chief Equity Officer, Kristin Riker —Director of Public Lands Department,Taylor Hill—City Council Staff Full Meeting Audio Meeting Packet Material Councilmember Amy Fowler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 3:47 pm. 1 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 Work Session Items i. Informational: Updates from the Administration gl . — 3:45 p.m. • iaM. 20 min. The Council will receive an update from the Administration on major items or projects, including but not limited to: • COVID-19,the March 2020 Earthquake,and the September 2020 Windstorm; • Updates on relieving the condition of people experiencing homelessness; • Police Department work,projects, and staffing, etc.; and • Other projects or updates. FYI—Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing-Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date- n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment-n/a TENTATIVE Council Action-n/a Minutes: Mayor Mendenhall provided information regarding: COVID-19 Updates • K-12 mask requirement issued on Friday,August 20, 2021(direct support received from majority of SLC School District Board of Education). • Current metrics: Salt Lake County in"High transmission"level,statewide cases,seven day average,etc. • Child metrics: 246 positive since Monday,963 in the past week. • West Side vaccination rates(Citywide average 6o%fully vaccinated). • Countywide vaccination demographics. • Vaccination events (Neighborhood House, SLC School District, and Operation Warm). Andrew Johnston provided information regarding people experiencing homelessness, including: • Shelter capacity/bed availability. • Kayak Court rescheduled to Cottonwood Park due to weather and rescheduled for September. • Camp cleaning/abatement was on hold due to weather and would resume this week. Councilmember Valdemoros inquired how to measure impacts/metrics regarding mask requirements.Mayor Mendenhall said the State's previous thresholds were being used to guide, data would be used from SL County Health Department,vaccination rates would be considered as well as community spread rate. 2 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 2. [nformational: Updates on Racial Equity and Policing The Council will hold a discussion about recent efforts on various projects City staff are working on related to racial equity and policing in the City.The conversation may include issues of community concern about race, equity,and justice in relation to law enforcement policies, procedures,budget, and ordinances.Discussion may include: • An update or report on the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing; and • Other project updates or discussion. FYI— Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing-Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date- n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment-n/a TENTATIVE Council Action-n/a Minutes: Kaletta Lynch(Chief Equity Officer)provided information regarding: • Equity&Inclusion Team; introduction of team members,city-wide equity plan was underway. • Racial Equity in Policing Commission;goals of the commission,recently submitted final Phase I report,proposed ordinance details and requested changes. Allison Rowland provided information regarding ordinance being on upcoming agenda for approval, and upcoming dates for interviews/advice and consent for commission members. Mike Brown provided information regarding: Salt Lake City Police Department(SLCPD) traffic safety efforts(focusing on education,enforcement, and engineering), details on the first event; Capitol Hill vehicle noise reduction effort(launched August 13, 2021),excessive vehicle noise statistics(August 13-15: 3o vehicles stopped/citations issued,August 20-22: 20 vehicles stopped/citations issued), details regarding Street Racing Reduction efforts(began early summer 2021)in various locations with various elements to prevent racing, 154 people in the most recent recruitment class(first day of academy August 23, 2021-20 candidates);with diversity percentage at 5o%. Lorna Vogt said there were efforts underway to provide permanent solutions for City streets to prevent street racing. Council Members Wharton and Faris expressed gratitude on efforts by the Police Department to curb street racing,noting the community was grateful for the initial work. 3 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 3. esolution: Capital Improvement Program Projects Follow-up —4:25 p. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP)which involves the construction,purchase or renovation of buildings,parks,streets or other physical structures. Generally,projects have a useful life of five or more years and cost $5o,000 or more.The Council approves debt service and overall CIP funding in the annual budget process,while project-specific funding is approved by September 1 of the same year. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing-Tuesday,June 1, 2o2i;Tuesday,July 13, 2o2i;Tuesday,July 20, 2o2i;Tuesday, August 17, 2021; and Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date- Tuesday,June 8, 2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment-Tuesday,July 13, 2021 at 7 p.m. and Tuesday,August 17, 2021 at 6 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action-Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Minutes: Councilmember Fowler indicated that no discussion was required for this item at this time. 4 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 4. formational: Northpoint Small Area Master Pladat 4:45 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive an update about the Northpoint Small Area Plan.The Planning division is providing this update early in the planning process so the Council has a good understanding of the scope of work,the project budget,project timeline, and any barriers.Additionally,this is the opportunity for the City Council to provide input on the public engagement process, stakeholders,and provide other information to the consultants that may help improve the outcome of the planning process. FYI—Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing-Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date- n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment-n/a TENTATIVE Council Action-n/a Minutes: Nick Tarbet provided an introduction and indicated Council input was sought. Nick Norris and Megan Moore(Senior Associate, Logan Simpson Design)provided information regarding: overall process and schedule(previous plan adopted in 2000, addressing increasing development pressure along 2200 West Corridor and interest in annexations of adjacent unincorporated land),what the update would include(identify appropriate land use,infrastructure requirements,elements to support transportation,etc.), process timeline was in initial stages—feedback to be gathered over the next few months with draft plan to come early next year(2022),early feedback included determining success/ways the project could be successful,and next steps included: one-on-one interviews,online questionnaire available to the public,and determining existing conditions and mapping. 5 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 5. rdinance: Renaming of People's Freeway Park to Ballpar laygroun 5:05 p.m. io min. The Council will receive a briefing about a request that the People's Freeway Park,located at 1560 South West Temple,be renamed the Ballpark Playground.The Public Utilities Department owns the property,and it is managed by the Public Services Department,Parks Division. Both departments support the name change. FYI— Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing-Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date- n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment-n/a TENTATIVE Council Action-Tuesday,September 7, 2021 Minutes: Brian Fullmer provided an introduction to the proposal and detailed the requirement for the Council to be notified regarding renaming major City assets,and the Mayor's requirement to approve renaming minor City assets. Kristin Riker(Director, Public Lands)said the Ball Park Community Council initiated the request and had been discussed with Public Utilities(with positive support received from both entities). 6 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 6. Resolution: Public Benefits Analysis-Authorizing the Waiver of Lease Fees to Facilitate the Operation of an Airport Military Service Members Lounge 5.15 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution that would authorize a waiver of lease fees at the Salt Lake City International Airport to facilitate the operation of an Airport Military Service Members Lounge operated by United Service Organizations(USO), a nonprofit corporation.The USO lounge would feature comfortable furniture,donated snacks,beverages,entertainment,and free Wi-Fi to active duty, Reserve,and Guard service members and their families at no charge,365 days per year.The Council will discuss and consider the proposal,which would exempt the group from paying for the space at the airport. FYI—Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing-Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date- Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment-Tuesday,September 7, 2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action-Tuesday, September 21, 2021 Minutes: Sam Owen provided an introduction to the proposal,history of the United Service Organization(USO), and considerations within the State law. Bill Wyatt introduced Bob Kurkjian, USO Regional President and Shane Andreason, Director of Airport Administration,provided information regarding: charging the USO $1.00 a year for the service lounge,benefits of the lounge, etc. Bob Kurkjian(Regional President, USO)expressed excitement for the USO to be returning to Utah. Council Members Rogers, Fowler, and Dugan expressed gratitude to the Mayor and Mayor Staff and Bill Wyatt for their efforts to provide this service here in Utah and for the benefits it would provide to service members. 7 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 7. astructure Bank Loan Application 3o p. . I ..• The Council will hold a discussion and consider obtaining a$7,000,000 loan from the Utah State Infrastructure Bank(SIB)to finance a neighborhood parking structure, a 926 stall garage, located between 40o and 50o West and 60o and boo South.The loan would be used to allocate public parking and allow for an improved design that contemplates future diminished need for vehicular traffic in the neighborhood. FYI—Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing-Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date- n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment-n/a TENTATIVE Council Action-TBD Minutes: Jennifer Bruno provided an introduction to the proposal,indicated no City dollars would be used to pay the loan back, and said this was the first time the City utilized this tool. Rachel Otto reiterated this funding was never applied for before and provided details on benefits the project would provide to the area. Councilmember Dugan expressed concern on adding more parking when car-use was determined to be more limited. Councilmember Fowler requested more information regarding who would be using the parking garage and how or if affordable housing was incorporated into the considerations of use. Mayor Mendenhall reminded the Council of the RDA's future plan for a parking garage on this property and detailed the public benefits surrounding the project. 8 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 8. 1 formational: Public Utilities Update The Council will receive an update from the Department of Public Utilities about the City's water shortage contingency planning,including the stages of water use restrictions related to drought circumstances.The Department will also discuss the recently-adopted Water Conservation Master Plan and the status of its implementation. FYI—Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing-Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date- n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment-n/a TENTATIVE Council Action-n/a Minutes: Sam Owen provided an introduction to the item. Laura Briefer and Stephanie Duer provided information regarding: • 2021 Drought Response&Water Supply Demand Planning,including: drought response results(details on meeting goals of water shortage contingency plan— 15%reduction since July 1—more than 90o M gallons saved). • New development supporting growth(Water Supply&Demand Plan through 2060 —addressing regulatory/legal requirements,land use changes/growth,and climate change impacts—considering water resources,water demand,conservation,infrastructure,and risk). • Population projected increase of ioo,000 by 206o in SLC's service area. • Land use changes in the Northwest Quadrant(NWQ) • Peak/annual water supply and demand projection scenarios—source/catastrophic source loss and climate change impacts). • Being in exceptional/extreme drought throughout the State. • 2020 Water Conservation Program highlights including: differences between Conservation Program and Drought Planning,outreach(water saving programs to incentivize reducing water use),economic programming(Localscapes&Flip Your Strip programs,rebates on irrigation devices,low-water turf seed program, etc.),utility(improvements and repairs to City facilities using water—water audit/loss control program in progress),law and policy (landscape/water waste codes survey in progress),research and metrics(Golf Turf Study and water use analysis ongoing). 9 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 9. Advice and Consent: Director of 911 Dispatch Department- Stephe Meyer — 6:2o p.m. A .n. The Council will interview Stephen Meyer prior to considering appointment as Director of the 911 Dispatch Department. FYI—Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing-Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date- n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment-n/a TENTATIVE Council Action-Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Minutes: Interview was held. Councilmember Fowler said Stephen Meyer's name was on the Formal agenda for Advice&Consent. Councilmember Valdemoros commented on being able to previously informally interview Mr. Meyer and said she was impressed/excited with concepts he proposed and welcomed him to the City. Councilmember Rogers asked that Lisa Shaffer share information on the hiring/interview process for the position. Lisa Shaffer said she was on the hiring panel and shared details of the process and noted Mr. Meyer distinguished himself in all of his interviews. Councilmember Fowler said she looked forward to Mr.Meyer and the experience he was bringing to the City,specifically his responses regarding an alternative response model and his attention to mental health within the 911 Dispatch Department. 10 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 Standing Items 10. IMMITIThe Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. Minutes: Item not held. 11. Reportd Announcements from the Executiv irector Report of the Executive Director,including a review of Council information items and announcements.The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business,including but not limited to scheduling items. Minutes: Item not held. 11 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 12. • tative Closed Sessio The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session.A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including,but not limited to: a. discussion of the character,professional competence,or physical or mental health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase,exchange,or lease of real property,including any form of a water right or water shares,if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration;or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property,including any form of a water right or water shares,if: (i)public discussion of the transaction would: (A)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration;or (B)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale;and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel,devices,or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code§78B-1-137,and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Minutes: Item not held. 12 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 Meeting adjourned at 6:26 pm. Minutes Approved: City Council Chair City Recorder This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as other items may have been discussed; please refer to the audio or video for entire content pursuant to Utah Code§52-4-203(2)(b). This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held Tuesday,August 24, 2021. 13 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 PENDING MINUTES —NOT APPROVED The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Formal Session on Tuesday,August 24, 2021 in an Electronic Meeting,pursuant to the Chair's determination. The following Council Members were present: Dennis Faris, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano,James Rogers,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros, Chris Wharton Present Legislative leadership: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Director;Jennifer Bruno, Deputy Director; Lehua Weaver,Associate Deputy Director Present Administrative leadership: Mayor Erin Mendenhall; Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff; Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Present City Staff: Katherine Lewis—City Attorney, Cindy Lou Trishman—City Recorder, DeeDee Robinson — Deputy City Recorder,Amanda Lau— Public Engagement&Communication Specialist, Brian Fullmer— Constituent Liaison, Policy Analyst, Sylvia Richards— Public Policy Analyst,Taylor Hill—City Council Staff Full Meeting Audio Meeting Packet Material Councilmember Fowler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 7:04 pm. 1 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 A. OPENING CEREMONY: 1. Council Member Amy Fowler will conduct the formal meeting. Minutes: Councilmember Fowler welcomed attendees and detailed the remote meeting format. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Minutes: A moment of silence was held while the American Flag & Pledge were displayed. 3. Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. Minutes: Councilmember Fowler presented the rules of decorum. 4. The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of Tuesday, March 16, 2021. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Wharton, seconded by Councilmember Faris to approve the work session meeting minutes of Tuesday, March 16, 2021. AYE: Dennis Faris, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, James Rogers, Amy Fowler, Ana Valdemoros, Chris Wharton Final Result: 7—0 B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 1. Grant Application: 2022 Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (RMHIDTA) Grant— Salt Lake Metro Narcotics Task Force The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Police Department to the Office of National Drug Control Policy. If awarded, this grant would fund equipment/supplies, technical assistance training, and two full time employee positions. Funding will also support overtime for outside agencies that participate in the task force. The Salt Lake City Police Department has assumed fiduciary responsibilities for the Salt Lake Metro Narcotics Task Force and applied for the funding to help support the task force for calendar year 2022. 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,August 24, 2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 2. Grant Applications: 2021 School-Age Program Summer Expansion Grant — State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Division of Youth and Family Services to the Utah Department of Workforce Services. If awarded, this grant would fund YouthCity 2021 summer programming for youth five to twelve years old at Fairmont Park, Liberty Park, Central City, Ottinger Hall, Sorenson Unity Center, and Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center. 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,August 24, 2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action- n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 3 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 3. Grant Application: 2019 Utah Department of Public Safety Division of Emergency Management/State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Emergency Management to the Utah Emergency Management. If awarded, this grant would fund projects in the following areas: law enforcement, terrorism prevention, planning, training and exercise, communications, special operations equipment and sustainment, information sharing and management, emergency response equipment and sustainment, and emergency recovery planning for the City. 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,August 24, 2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. 4 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 4. Grant Application: 2021 Utah State Office of Education Summer Food Service Program —YouthCity Summer Snack Program Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Division of Youth and Family Services to the Utah State Board of Education. If awarded, this grant would provide a daily nutritious snack to youth participating in the YouthCity 2021 summer programming at Central City Recreation Center, Fair Park, Fairmont Park, Liberty Park, Ottinger Hall, Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center, and Sorenson Unity Center. 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,August 24, 2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action- n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. Minutes: Sylvia Richards provided an introduction to grant Items Bi through B4. There were no public comments. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan, seconded by Councilmember Valdemoros to close the public hearing and refer Items Bi through B4 to a future Consent Agenda. AYE: Dennis Faris, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, James Rogers, Amy Fowler, Ana Valdemoros, Chris Wharton Final Result: 7—0 Pass 5 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 5. Resolution: Honorary Street Name "Pastor France Davis Way" The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution that would add the honorary street name "Pastor France Davis Way" on the block of Harvard Avenue between State Street and Main Street, south of Calvary Baptist Church. This honorary street name would recognize Reverend France A. Davis, who served as the Pastor of Calvary Missionary Baptist Church, a predominately African American congregation, for over forty years. Reverend Davis was and still is actively involved in community affairs, serving on numerous state and local boards, providing counsel to community leaders, and serving as a bridge builder to the various entities that make up the community. He is one of the Core Commission Members of the City's Commission on Racial Equity in Policing. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing-Tuesday,August 17, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,August 17, 2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment-Tuesday,August 24, 2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Staff Recommendation- Refer to motion sheet(s). Minutes: Brian Fullmer provided an introduction to the proposed resolution. There were no public comments. Pastor France Davis was present and thanked the Council, Mayor, and others for the dedication. Councilmember Fowler thanked Pastor Davis for his service. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Dugan, seconded by Councilmember Rogers to close the public hearing and adopt Resolution 28 of 2021. AYE: Dennis Faris, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, James Rogers, Amy Fowler, Ana Valdemoros, Chris Wharton Final Result: 7—0 Pass C. POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: 6 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 1. Ordinance: Goshen Street Alley Vacation The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would close and vacate a portion of a City-owned alley at approximately 74o South Goshen Street between Goshen Street and approximately 1075 West as a public right-of-way. The applicant owns the adjacent lot north of the alley and would like to incorporate the alleyway with that lot. Petition No.: 400-06-05 FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday, July 13, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,July 13, 2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment-Tuesday,August 17, 2021 at 6 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Staff Recommendation- Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Rogers, seconded by Councilmember Dugan to adopt Ordinance 47 of 2021. AYE: Dennis Faris, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano,James Rogers,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros, Chris Wharton Final Result: 7- o Pass 7 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 2. Ordinance: Rosewood Park Street and Alley Vacation at 1400 North 1200 West The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would vacate five unimproved City-owned alleys and six unimproved City-owned streets, situated within Rosewood Park located at approximately moo North 1200 West. The proposal would allow for the consolidation of property to simplify the permitting process for future improvement projects. Petition No.: PLNPCM2o19-01036 and PLNPCM2o19-01037 FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday, July 20, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday, July 20, 2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment-Tuesday,August 17, 2021 at 6 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action- Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Rogers, seconded by Councilmember Valdemoros to adopt Ordinance 46 of 2021. AYE: Dennis Faris, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano,James Rogers,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Chris Wharton Final Result: 7— o Pass 8 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 3. Ordinance: Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning ordinance pertaining to appeals of administrative decisions.Administrative decisions are those made by the Planning Commission, Historic Landmark Commission, or the Zoning Administrator in the administration of the zoning ordinance. The amendments primarily clarify what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer,who can appeal decisions, and when an appeal can stay a decision, modify City Code to align with State law, related case law, and make other clarifications to the appeals chapter of the zoning ordinance, including: • Clarify that the City Appeals Hearing Officer can only make decisions regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of Salt Lake City Code, not provisions regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of the Utah State Code, the Utah Constitution, Utah common law or federal law. • Modify the list of allowed appellants to the land use applicant, City board or officer, or"an adversely affected party" to comply with new State Code. • Eliminate automatic stays of decisions.An appellant would have to specifically request and justify a "stay" (a hold on further proceedings on a matter) when appealing an administrative decision. The proposed amendments affect Chapter 21A.16 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition. Petition No.: PLNPCM2o2o-00352 FYI - Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday, July 20, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday, July 20, 2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment-Tuesday,August 17, 2021 at 6 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Wharton, seconded by Councilmember Dugan to adopt Ordinance 48 of 2021, and include language requiring a hearing officer to make reasonable efforts to respond to a stay request within io days of the appeal being deemed complete. If a stay is requested, the hearing officer shall make reasonable efforts to determine whether a stay is appropriate within io days of the appeal being deemed complete. If the hearing officer does not decide a request for a stay within io days of the appeal being deemed complete,the request shall be presumed denied. No stay will be authorized for incomplete appeals or appeals filed after the appeal deadline. AYE: Dennis Faris, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano,James Rogers,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros, Chris Wharton 9 Final Result: 7- 0 Pass MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 4. Resolution: Capital Improvement Program Projects The Council will consider adopting a resolution for project funding allocations in the Capital Improvement Program, which involves the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures. Generally, projects have a useful life of five or more years and cost $50,000 or more. The Council approves debt service and overall CIP funding in the annual budget process, while project-specific funding is approved by September 1 of the same year. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday, June 1, 2021; Tuesday, July 13, 2021; Tuesday, July 20, 2021; Tuesday, August 17, 2021; and Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday, June 8, 2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday, July 13, 2021 at 7 p.m. and Tuesday, August 17, 2021 at 6 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Motion: Moved by Councilmember Rogers, seconded by Councilmember Wharton to approve Resolution 27 of 2021, adopting the Capital Improvement Program project-specific allocations for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 as shown on the attached Exhibit A Funding Log. AYE: Dennis Faris, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano,James Rogers,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros, Chris Wharton Final Result: 7- o Pass D. COMMENTS: 1. Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. Minutes: There were no questions. 10 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 2. Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.) Minutes: Daniel Schelling spoke regarding Phase II of the Foothills Trails Master Plan (study) and thanked the Council for including it within the annual budget. He said it was important to conduct ongoing studies for stewardship of the land, provide adequate funds for outside consultants/studies (habitat study areas). Alice McHugh spoke regarding the Inland Port and the associated impacts of pollution (traffic to/from/within the port) and indicated the neccessity for a traffic study to determine the risks the Port poses to human health. Liesa Manuel spoke regarding the Inland Port Authority,lack of environmental protections, climate change impacts, etc. Polly Hart spoke of being an avid user of City/Utah trails and urged the Council to prioritize the environment when considering the Foothill Trails. Beverley Cooper thanked the Council for their support regarding City trails, said there was a lack of funding to study environmental issues and requested that funding be earmarked for necessary studies. Eric Edelman spoke regarding City trails and expressed concern regarding the master plan presented (the plan did not include existing trails, insuficient funding, etc.), and recommended not to introduce dense switchback laden trails on the City-facing mountain fronts. Hilary Jacobs (member, Save Our Foothills) spoke regarding the City's trails, the importance of environmental impacts/studies to preserve the natural environment. Sarah Bennett spoke regarding the City's trails,her early involvement in the project (master plan study), and the importance of caring for the landscape/wild communities of plants and animals. Brian Hutchinson spoke regarding the Capitol Hill traffic calming project and thanked the Council and Mayor for their involvement in the implementation. Lance Lavizzo spoke regarding the community benefits of Capital Improvement Projects and thanked the Council for considering the repairs the to the basketball court at Liberty Park. Allison Musser spoke regarding the previously discussed subdivision application for Swaner property(Northpoint Small Area Master Plan), noted the master plan was out of date (last updated 2000), did not represent current needs/state of the community, and proposed a further moratorium to ensure thoughtful future development. 11 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 12 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 E. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Advice and Consent: Director of 911 Dispatch Department- Stephen Meyer The Council will consider approving the appointment of Stephen Meyer as Director of the 911 Dispatch Department. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment- n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Staff Recommendation- Suspend the rules and consider options. Motion: Moved by Councilmember Rogers, seconded by Councilmember Wharton to approve the appointment of Stephen Meyer as Director of 911 Dispatch. AYE: Dennis Faris, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano, James Rogers, Amy Fowler, Ana Valdemoros, Chris Wharton Final Result: 7—0 Pass F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. 13 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 G. CONSENT: 1. Resolution: Public Benefits Analysis -Authorizing the Waiver of Lease Fees to Facilitate the Operation of an Airport Military Service Members Lounge The Council will set the date of Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution that would authorize a waiver of lease fees at the Salt Lake City International Airport to facilitate the operation of an Airport Military Service Members Lounge operated by United Service Organizations (USO), a nonprofit corporation. The USO lounge would feature comfortable furniture, donated snacks,beverages, entertainment, and free Wi-Fi to active duty, Reserve, and Guard service members and their families at no charge, 365 days per year. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment-Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday, September 21, 2021 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 2. Ordinance: 2020 Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan The Council will set the date of Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider an ordinance that would adopt the 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan. Some major changes in the proposed plan include adjustments to how the City chooses lighting in public spaces based on pedestrian activity and transportation needs, as well as identifies new street lighting standards for retrofit and new construction. The plan was reviewed by the Council previously and has since been reviewed by the City's Planning Commission as well. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday, March 2, 2021 and Tuesday,August 17, 2021 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,August 24, 2021 Hold hearing to accept public comment-Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action- TBD Staff Recommendation - Set date. 14 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 Motion: Moved by Councilmember Rogers, seconded by Councilmember Faris to approve the Consent Agenda. AYE: Dennis Faris, Daniel Dugan, Darin Mano,James Rogers,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros, Chris Wharton Final Result: 7— o Pass 15 MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 24, 2021 H. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 7:5o pm. Minutes Approved: City Council Chair City Recorder This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as other items may have been discussed; please refer to the audio or video for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203(2)(b)• This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Formal meeting held Tuesday,August 24, 2021. 16 Items I31-B3 n, vv` r •, MOTION SHEET Mai g m trj CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY ry ,,,,, n m ,,••• TO: City Council Members Project Timeline: FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst Public Hearing: Sept. 7, 2021 Potential Action:TBD DATE: September 7, 2021 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR GRANT PUBLIC HEARING The Council will hold a Public Hearing and receive public comment on Grant Application Items B-1 through B-3. After the end of public comment, the Council may consider the following motion: Motion 1 — Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items B-i through B-3 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Page 1 „, : COUNCIL n � uln"= STAFF REPORT r- "Ct_1I_€_ CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY ---'e/ 7 •�• www.slccouncil.com/city-budget ',,,Tnu1T” %,•'• TO: City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Budget Analyst PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing:Not required. DATE: September 7, 2021 Set Date:Not required. Public Hearing: Sept. 7, 2021 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT Potential Action:TBD APPLICATION SUBMISSIONS ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Administration has submitted three grant applications. In an effort to ensure that the City Council, Council staff and the public has adequate opportunity to see and comment on them, the grant application notifications will be included in the Council meeting agendas under Public Hearings. There won't be a set date since this is not a required hearing. 1. 2021 VOCA(Victims of Crime Act) Grant — Utah Office for Victims of Crime Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, the grant will continue to fund four existing part-time and full-time grant-funded victim advocate positions, as well as provide support for a `facility' dog named Rita. The transmittal indicates that Rita is the City's first victim advocate dog and she provides comfort for victims of traumatic events, such as sexual and physical violence. Additional items funded by this grant include training for advocate staff and emergency funds to assist victims. This grant will fund salaries, benefits and program costs for a two-year cycle starting July 1, 2021 and ending June 3o, 2023. Grant Amount: $364,162 Requested by: Police Department Funding Agency: Utah Office for Victims of Crime Match Requirement: - o - Additional information provided by the Administration in response to questions from Council staff: CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM P.O.BOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 0 a) Are victim advocate dogs part of the K-9 program or are they considered a separate program? Rita (our facility dog) is part of the Victim Advocate Program and not associated with/part of the police K-9 program. b) Since July 1 has passed, are any of the victim advocates at risk of losing funding and needing to vacate a position? We have received an award letter for continuation funding, so we have secured VOCA funding for these positions for the next two fiscal years. At this time we are not at risk of losing VOCA funding,but that could possibly change in future grant cycles after June 30, 2023. Staff Recommendation: Please refer to motion sheet. Page 12 Grant Application SubmissionNotification Memo TO: Jennifer Bruno, Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rachel Otto,Lisa Shaffer,Mary Beth Thompson, Cindy Lou Trishman, Brijette Williams CC: Sarah Behrens, Mike Brown, Shellie Dietrich, Tim Doubt,Elizabeth Gerhart,Wendy Isom, Mark Kittrell, Jaysen Oldroyd,Melyn Osmond, Sylvia Richards, DeeDee Robinson,Linda Sanchez, Kory Solorio, Lehua Weaver FROM: Wendy Isom and Jordan Smith DATE: June 16, 2021 SUBJECT: 2021 VOCA Grant Application FUNDING AGENCY: Utah Office for Victims of Crime GRANT PROGRAM: Victims of Crime Act(VOCA) REQUESTED AMOUNT: $364,162.48 DEPARTMENT APPLYING: Police COLLABORATING AGENCIES: None required—support letters from community partners DATE SUBMITTED: April 20,2021 SPECIFICS: O Equipment/Supplies ❑ Technical Assistance (Training) O Provides approx. 4.0 FTE Positions 0 Existing 0 New 0 Overtime 0 Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: Continuation funding for current full-and part-time Victim Advocates O Match Required: 25% DIn-Kind and/or D Cash GRANT DETAILS: The Salt Lake City Police Department is requesting continuation funding for our SLCPD VOCA grant funded Victim Advocate positions. The grant application also covers funding for costs associated with Rita, our Facility Dog. Additionally,there are supplies for the program,emergency funds for assisting victims, and training for Advocate staff included in the application. This grant will fund for a two-year cycle, starting July 1, 2021 and ending June 30,2023. Items I31-B3 n, vv` r •, MOTION SHEET Mai g m trj CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY ry ,,,,, n m ,,••• TO: City Council Members Project Timeline: FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst Public Hearing: Sept. 7, 2021 Potential Action:TBD DATE: September 7, 2021 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR GRANT PUBLIC HEARING The Council will hold a Public Hearing and receive public comment on Grant Application Items B-1 through B-3. After the end of public comment, the Council may consider the following motion: Motion 1 — Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items B-i through B-3 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Page 1 ,,, : COUNCIL Luz � uln"= STAFF REPORT sit r- tr1 'te;l_ 1_11 CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY %. ` \ •�• www.slccouncil.com/city-budget TO: City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Budget Analyst PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing:Not required. DATE: September 7, 2021 Set Date:Not required. Public Hearing: Sept.7,2021 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT Potential Action:TBD APPLICATION SUBMISSION ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Administration has submitted three grant applications. In an effort to ensure that the City Council, Council staff and the public has adequate opportunity to see and comment on them, the grant application notifications will be included in the Council meeting agendas under Public Hearings. There won't be a set date since this is not a required hearing. 2. 2021 Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act Grant Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded,the grant monies will be used to fund training for employee wellness and peer support teams, instructor fees for family wellness workshops, chaplain uniforms, program evaluation, overtime, marketing materials and class supplies. Grant Amount: $73,255 Requested by: Police Department Funding Agency: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Match Requirement: -o- Staff Recommendation: Please refer to motion sheet. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM P.O.BOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 0 Grant Application SubmissionNotification Memo TO: Jennifer Bruno, Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rachel Otto,Lisa Shaffer,Mary Beth Thompson, Cindy Lou Trishman, Brijette Williams CC: Sarah Behrens, Mike Brown, Jennifer Covino, Shellie Dietrich, Tim Doubt,Elizabeth Gerhart, Mark Kittrell, Jaysen Oldroyd,Melyn Osmond, Sylvia Richards, DeeDee Robinson,Linda Sanchez, Kory Solorio, Lehua Weaver FROM: Jordan Smith DATE: June 4, 2021 SUBJECT: FY2021 Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act FUNDING AGENCY: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services GRANT PROGRAM: FY2021 Law Enforcement Mental Health and Wellness Act REQUESTED AMOUNT: $73,255 DEPARTMENT APPLYING: Police Department COLLABORATING AGENCIES: N/A DATE SUBMITTED: June 2, 2021 SPECIFICS: O Equipment/Supplies O Technical Assistance (Training) ❑ Provides FTE Position 0 Existing 0 New 0 Overtime 0 Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: Please see below. ❑ Match Required: 0 In-Kind and/or 0 Cash GRANT DETAILS: The Salt Lake City Police Department is requesting funding to support its Employee Wellness and Support Program: - Training for Employee Wellness and Peer Support Teams- $26,960 - Wellness Initiative and Chaplain Program Uniforms- $11,100 - Program Education and Marketing Materials- $1,835 - Yoga for First Responder Class Supplies- $960 - Program Evaluation- $15,000 - Instructor Fees for Family Wellness Workshops-$2,600 - Overtime- $14,800 Items I31-B3 n, vv` r •, MOTION SHEET Mai g m trj CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY ry ,,,,, n m ,,••• TO: City Council Members Project Timeline: FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst Public Hearing: Sept. 7, 2021 Potential Action:TBD DATE: September 7, 2021 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR GRANT PUBLIC HEARING The Council will hold a Public Hearing and receive public comment on Grant Application Items B-1 through B-3. After the end of public comment, the Council may consider the following motion: Motion 1 — Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Items B-i through B-3 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Page 1 ,,, : COUNCIL o STAFF REPORT _ i Ct1_€_I iin= CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY ---' •�• www.slccouncil.com/city-budget TO: City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Budget Analyst PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing:Not required. DATE: September 7, 2021 Set Date:Not required. Public Hearing: Sept. 7, 2021 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT Potential Action:TBD APPLICATION SUBMISSION ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Administration has submitted three grant applications. In an effort to ensure that the City Council, Council staff and the public has adequate opportunity to see and comment on them, the grant application notifications will be included in the Council meeting agendas under Public Hearings. There won't be a set date since this is not a required hearing. 3. 2022 State of Utah Asset Forfeiture Grant Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, the grant monies will be used to fund confidential informant funds to enhance investigations in narcotics-related cases. Grant Amount: $1,500 Requested by: Police Department Funding Agency: State of Utah, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice Match Requirement: - o - Staff Recommendation: Please refer to motion sheet. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM P.O.BOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 Grant Application Submission Notification Memo TO: Jennifer Bruno, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer,Mary Beth Thompson, Cindy Lou Trishman,Brijette Williams CC: Sarah Behrens,Mike Brown, Shellie Dietrich, Tim Doubt,Elizabeth Gerhart,Mark Kittrell, Jaysen Oldroyd,Melyn Osmond, Sylvia Richards, DeeDee Robinson,Linda Sanchez,Kory Solorio,Lehua Weaver FROM: Jordan Smith DATE: June 28,2021 SUBJECT: 2022 State Asset Forfeiture Grant FUNDING AGENCY: State of Utah, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice GRANT PROGRAM: State Asset Forfeiture Grant Program REQUESTED AMOUNT: $1,500 DEPARTMENT APPLYING: Police Department COLLABORATING AGENCIES: N/A DATE SUBMITTED: June 28,2021 SPECIFICS: ❑ Equipment/Supplies ❑ Technical Assistance(Training) ❑ Provides FTE Position ❑ Existing 0 New 0 Overtime 0 Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: ❑ Match Required: 0 In-Kind and/or 0 Cash ❑ Other(see below) GRANT DETAILS: The Salt Lake City Police Department is requesting$1,500 from the State of Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice for confidential informant funds to enhance investigations in narcotics-related cases. Item B4 ;•••• ' "'z''••., MOTION SHEET 4i CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY imss, ��•�C'lI/lullAAv`� ••••I•mT TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks Senior Policy Analyst DATE: August 31, 2021 RE: RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO DESIGNATE A DOWNTOWN ASSESSMENT AREA PUBLIC HEARING MOTION i -To Close the Public Hearing I move that the Council close the public hearing. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O.BOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT 1 4 '' CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY 41 1 rf 4.6 Item Schedule: Briefing:July 13, 2021 TO: City Council Members Set Date: Public Hearing: September FROM: Russell Weeks 7,2021 Senior Policy Analyst Potential Action:July 20, 2021 DATE: September 2,2021 at 10:20 PM RE: RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO DESIGNATE A DOWNTOWN ASSESSMENT AREA: PUBLIC HEARING NEW INFORMATION This update pertains to the September 7 public hearing on the Notice of Intention resolution to designate a downtown special assessment area.The date for the hearing was set when the City Council adopted the resolution at the Council's July 20 formal meeting. The hearing will involve the resolution's two components: (1) A base assessment,based on taxable commercial property values. (2) A smaller assessment on downtown commercial properties where winter holiday lighting is placed on streets.That assessment would be based on linear footage. The hearing is intended to give property owners and the public the chance to speak for or against the resolution. However,the hearing is relatively unusual because the only City Council action required is to adopt a motion to close the hearing.A motion sheet is attached to this update. The actual determination of whether to create the assessment area for the two components will be after the Administration tabulates written protests. Under Utah law,written protests are the only protests can be counted toward the success or failure of establishing an assessment area.Written protests must be filed with the City Recorder either in person or by mail on or before 5 p.m.November 8, 2021.At this time,written protests must be filed with the City Recorder either in person by appointment at the Recorder's Office in the City&County Building, or by mail(Post Office Box 145515).1 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O.BOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 Under Utah Law, if 4o percent or more of property owners representing the aggregate taxable value of the property within the assessment area object to the area's creation,the base assessment may not be imposed. Similarly, if the property owners representing 4o percent or more of the total linear footage identified for the holiday lighting assessment area object to its creation,the lighting assessment may not be imposed. The City Council has the option to reduce the boundaries of the proposed assessment area—but the Council cannot increase them. The table below is what has occurred since the Council adopted a motion to approve the resolution on July 20. "DED"is the Department of Economic Development: I Post notice of intent to 15 Post Notice of Intent to designate in at least three public DED 8/16/2021 Designate places within boundaries of jurisdiction Mail out Notice of Intent to Mail out Notice of Intent to DED sends 16 Designate Designate to go out within 10 via State 8/19/2021 days of notice posting. Mail Minutes prepared for use at Bond 17 protest hearing Distribute to team SAA. Counsel 8/30/2021 1 City 18 City Council Meeting City Council Protest Hearing Council 9/7/2021 It should be noted that the Department has mailed 1,424 notices to 712 property owners within the proposed assessment area. The mailing addresses were taken from the Salt Lake County Assessor's Office list of property owners within the proposed area. Roughly 27 percent— 381 notices — have been returned as undeliverable either because of an incorrect address, or the person listed as the owner no longer was at the address on the notice. The Economic Development Office has kept all the returned notices for reference if a property owner indicates having not received a notice. It also should be noted that before the City Council considered the resolution at its July 20 meeting that Economic Development Director Ben Kolendar and City Council Member Ana Valdemoros agreed that the Department will work with her in the next six months to engage potential stakeholders along North Temple Street from about 40o West Street to 65o West, and along 200 South Street between Main Street and 200 East Street about future participation in a holiday lighting assessment. The department then would make a recommendation about including the properties in a future assessment. Finally,to recap,here are four informational items about the proposed assessment area: Page 12 The boundaries of the proposed Central Business Improvement Area are: • North Temple Street from State Street to the east right-of-way line of Interstate 15 (includes parcels on both sides of North Temple) • East right-of-way line of I-15 from North Temple Street to 400 South Street • 400 South Street from the east right-of-way line of I-15 to 30o East Street(includes parcels on both sides of 400 South Street) • 30o East Street from 400 South Street to South Temple Street(includes parcels on both sides of 300 East Street) • South Temple Street from 300 East Street to State Street(includes parcels on both sides of South Temple Street) • State Street from South Temple Street to North Temple Street(includes parcels on both sides of State Street)2 o Properties below$20,000 in valuation as well as residential, ecclesiastical and government owned properties are exempt from the assessments, except for exempted properties whose owners agree in writing to be assessed.3 o If the assessment area receives enough support from downtown property owners,the total assessment revenue over three years would be $5,251,285.4 That compares to projected revenue for the current area of$4,884,454.3 It might be noted that the total figures both respectively include $177,378 in revenue for the smaller holiday lighting assessment. The holiday lighting assessment is based on 13,870 linear feet times $12.79 per linear foot.6 o Minus the holiday lighting assessment,the annual projected assessment revenue for the proposed assessment area would be $1,691,300 in each of the three years.The proposed assessment rate for the property is .00142. It might be noted that the proposed rate in the year 2000 was .001425.7 Information below this line has appeared in previous reports. The City Council received a briefing July 13 on the Resolution of Intention to designate a downtown special assessment area. If the Council adopts the proposed resolution,it would start a process to levy assessments against properties within the proposed assessment area.According to the proposed resolution the assessments would be used for"economic promotion activities"for the next three years.The proposed resolution also would"fix a time and place for protests against the Assessment Area and its assessments,"and other matters involving the proposed area. It also should be noted that the proposed resolution contains two components: (1) a base assessment,based on taxable commercial property values, and(2) a smaller assessment on commercial properties where winter holiday lighting is placed on streets.The smaller assessment will be based on linear footage. In a discussion after the briefing, Economic Development Department Director Ben Kolendar and Council Member Ana Valdemoros agreed that the department will work with her in the next six months to engage potential stakeholders along North Temple Street from about 400 West Street to 650 West, and along 200 South Street between Main Street and 200 East Street about future Page 13 participation in a holiday lighting assessment.The department then would make a recommendation about including the properties in the future assessment. It should be noted again that, although the proposed ordinance sets a September 7, 2021, date for a public hearing in which people can speak for or against the proposed assessment area,written objections are the only objections that officially will count in determining whether the area ultimately is created. Written objections must be received by the City Recorder's Office by 5 p.m. on November 8.At this time,written protests must be filed with the City Recorder either in person by appointment at the Recorder's temporary office at 349 South 200 East Street, or by mail(Post Office Box 145515).8 A motion sheet is attached to this updated report. Motion No. 1 includes a legislative intent that the Economic Development Department engage potential future participants in a holiday lighting assessment. Information below this line has appeared in a previous report. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE Goal of the briefing: To hear the process for the proposed renewal of a special assessment area on commercial properties that would fund the economic promotion of downtown Salt Lake City and activities within the downtown for the benefit of business and commercial property owners, and to discuss any issues the City Council may find relevant to the proposed area renewal. o The briefing is the first in a series of steps the Administration and City Council must take to renew an assessment area that has existed since 1991 to promote the economic development of downtown Salt Lake City and economic promotion activities within it. o The current assessment area is scheduled to expire April 21, 2022.The Administration plans to have the renewed area—with the same borders as the current assessment area —in place by April 22, 2022. o The assessment will have two components: (1) a base assessment,based on taxable commercial property values, and(2) a smaller assessment on downtown commercial properties where winter holiday lighting is placed on streets.That assessment will be based on linear footage. It should be noted that properties under$20,00o in valuation as well as residential, ecclesiastical and government owned properties are exempt from the assessments, except those whose owners agree in writing to be assessed.9 o If the assessment area receives enough support from downtown property owners,the total assessment revenue over three years would be $5,251,285.1°That compares to projected revenue for the current area of$4,884,454.11 It might be noted that the total figures both respectively include $177,378 in revenue for the smaller holiday lighting assessment.The holiday lighting assessment is based on 13,870 linear feet times $12.79 per linear foot.12 o Minus the holiday lighting assessment,the annual projected assessment revenue for the proposed assessment area would be $1,691,30o in each of the three years.The proposed assessment rate for the property is .00142. It might be noted that the proposed rate in the year 2000 was .001425.13 Page 14 o The proposed resolution also is notable because the City will seek proposals on managing the contract to promote the downtown. Since the assessment area's inception in 1991 the City traditionally has awarded contracts every six years.The contract has contained an optional renewal clause after three years. It might be noted that the Downtown Alliance has been awarded the contract every time the City has sought requests for proposals. o Under Utah Law,if 40 percent or more of property owners representing the aggregate taxable value of the property within the assessment area object to the assessment area's creation,the assessment area cannot be created. Similarly,if 4o percent of the total linear footage identified for the holiday lighting district object to its creation,the lighting district cannot be created. • Written objections or protests to the assessment area or the lighting district, or both, must be filed by 5 p.m.November 8 with the City Recorder to count as an objection or protest.14 Oral protests or objections at the September 7 public hearing will not count unless people protesting or objecting also file their protests or objections in writing. • It might be noted that for the holiday lighting district owners of corner properties would be assessed for the linear footage of one of the two streets fronting their properties instead of for both streets. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. As the transmittal notes, "Parcels under$20,00o in valuation as well as residential, ecclesiastical, and government owned properties are exempt from the assessment, except those whose owners agree in writing to be assessed."Is there any deadline for owners of exempt properties to notify the City in writing that they would like to be assessed? 2. The boundaries of the proposed assessment area have remained relatively static for several years. Given the development climate downtown,when might there be an appropriate time to expand the assessment area?Would expanding the assessment area dilute promotion activities in the existing assessment area? ADDITIONAL&BACKGROUND INFORMATION The downtown assessment area has been a key component of the economic development of the downtown for several City Councils. The process for determining the area's creation follows steps established in Utah law for special assessment areas.The most immediate steps include the scheduled July 13, 2021,briefing at the City Council's work session, and the Council's formal consideration July 20 of a resolution declaring the Council's intent to designate parts of downtown Salt Lake City as an assessment area. If the Council adopts the resolution, it would trigger a public hearing date of September 7, 2021,to hear objections related to the assessment area. Again,only property owners'written protests count toward the success or failure of establishing the assessment area.The written protests must be filed with the City Recorder either in person or by mail on or before 5 p.m.November 8, 2021. Page 15 The protests are then tabulated based on the taxable value of property. If the aggregate taxable value of the protests equals at least 4o percent of proposed assessment area,the assessment cannot go forward. Similarly,in the smaller holiday street lighting assessment area if at least 4o percent of property owners'linear street frontage protest the assessment,the assessment cannot be imposed. According to the Administration,the 2020 value of nonexempt taxable property in the assessment area is $3.573 billion.15 That compares to a 2018 taxable property valuation of$ 3.314 billion.16 The boundaries of the proposed Central Business Improvement Area are: • North Temple Street from State Street to the east right-of-way line of Interstate 15 (includes parcels on both sides of North Temple) • East right-of-way line of I-15 from North Temple Street to 40o South Street • 40o South Street from the east right-of-way line of I-15 to 30o East Street(includes parcels on both sides of 40o South Street) • 30o East Street from 40o South Street to South Temple Street(includes parcels on both sides of 30o East Street) • South Temple Street from 300 East Street to State Street(includes parcels on both sides of South Temple Street) • State Street from South Temple Street to North Temple Street(includes parcels on both sides of State Street)17 The holiday street lighting assessment applies to the following streets: • 200 South Street between 300 West and 400 West streets • 200 South Street between West Temple and 200 West streets(south side only) • Pierpont Street between West Temple and 200 West streets • West Temple Street between 40o South and 200 South streets • Main Street between 40o South and South Temple streets • Market Street between West Temple and Main streets (north side only) • State Street between 40o South and South Temple streets.18 1 Notice of Intent Resolution,Page 7. 2 Please see map in Administration transmittal,Page 5. 3 Administration Transmittal,Ben Kolendar,June 22,2021,Page 3. 4 Administration Transmittal,Ben Kolendar,June 22,2021,Page 2. 5 City Council staff report,Notice of Intention to Create Central Business Improvement Area,Russell Weeks,Page 2. 6 Administration Transmittal,Ben Kolendar,June 22,2021,Page 2. Memo,Motion Options for Proposed Renewal of Central Business Economic Improvement District DA-CBID-00, November 30,2000. 8 Notice of Intent Resolution,Page 7. 9 Administration Transmittal,Ben Kolendar,June 22,2021,Page 3. 1°Administration Transmittal,Ben Kolendar,June 22,2021,Page 2. 11 City Council staff report,Notice of Intention to Create Central Business Improvement Area, Russell Weeks,Page 2. 12 Administration Transmittal,Ben Kolendar,June 22,2021,Page 2. 13 Memo,Motion Options for Proposed Renewal of Central Business Economic Improvement District DA-CBID-00, November 30,2000. 14 Proposed Notice of Intent,Page 7. 15 Administration Transmittal,Ben Kolendar,June 22,2021,Page 2. 16 City Council staff report,Notice of Intention to Create Central Business Improvement Area,Russell Weeks,August 9, 2018,Page 3. 17 Please see map in Administration transmittal,Page 5. 18 Please see map in Administration transmittal,Page 6. Page 17 Salt Lake City, Utah September 7, 2021 A regular meeting of the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,was held on Tuesday, September 7, 2021, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. via electronic means, at which meeting there were present and answering to roll call the following members who constituted a quorum: Amy Fowler Chair James Rogers Vice-Chair Dan Dugan Councilmember Ana Valdemoros Councilmember Dennis Faris Councilmember Darin Mano Councilmember Chris Wharton Councilmember Also present: Erin Mendenhall Mayor Katherine Lewis City Attorney Cindy Lou Trishman ` City Recorder Absent: After the meeting had been duly called to order and the minutes of the preceding meeting read and approved, the following proceedings, among others, were duly had and taken: The City Recorder notified the City Council that the Notice of Intention (the "Notice of Intention")to designate the Salt Lake City,Utah Central Business Improvement Assessment Area No. DA-CBIA-22 (the "Assessment Area"), authorized by resolution adopted by the City Council on July 20, 2021, had been (i)posted in at least three public places within the City's boundaries at least 20 but not more than 35 days prior to September 7, 2021 and (ii) published on the Utah Public Notice Website described in Utah Code Section 63A-16-601 for four consecutive weeks before the deadline for filing protests; also that a copy of such Notice of Intention has been mailed to each owner of property to be assessed within the Assessment Area at the last known mailing address of such owner, using the last completed real property assessment rolls of Salt Lake County, Utah and that it also has been mailed,to"Owner"at the street number of each piece of improved property to be affected by said assessment (or if a street number has not been so assigned, then the post office box,rural route number,or any other mailing address of the improved property), said notices having been mailed not later than ten(10) days after the posting of the Notice of Intention; that the Notice of Intention has been on file in the City Recorder's office during all regular office hours from July 20, 2021 to September 7, 2021, for the DMWEST#13053948 v1 examination of any interested parties; that said Notice of Intention directed that all persons desiring to protest and oppose the creation of the Assessment Area might appear and file in writing said protests and objections. The purpose of this public hearing is to hear all: (a) objections to the designation of the proposed Assessment Area or the improvements proposed to be provided in the Assessment Area, (b) objections to whether the assessments will meet the requirements of Utah Code Section 11-42-409 and (c) persons desiring to be heard, all as described in the Assessment Area Act, Title 11, Chapter 42 of the Utah Code and in the Notice of Intention adopted by the Council on July 20, 2021. 2 4845-8862-7446,v.2 The following persons then submitted protests at the hearing: The names of the protestants and descriptions of their property are as follows: Property Owner Property Description 3 4845-8862-7446,v.2 ADOPTED AND APPROVED this September 7, 2021. (SEAL) By: Chair ATTEST: By: City Recorder 4 4845-8862-7446,v.2 After the conduct of other business not pertinent to the above, the meeting was, on motion duly made and seconded, adjourned. (SEAL) By: Chair ATTEST: By: City Recorder 5 4845-8862-7446,v.2 PRESENTATION TO THE MAYOR The foregoing minutes were presented to the Mayor for her approval or disapproval on , 2021. By: Chair MAYOR'S APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL The foregoing minutes are hereby approved on this , 2021. By: Mayor 6 4845-8862-7446,v.2 STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I,Cindy Lou Trishman,the duly chosen, qualified, and acting City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah, do hereby certify as follows: (a) That the foregoing typewritten pages constitute a full, true, and correct copy of the record of proceedings of the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held in Salt Lake City on September 7, 2021, at 7:00 p.m., insofar as said proceedings relate to the public hearing of the City Council regarding the designation of the Salt Lake City,Utah Central Business Improvement Assessment Area No. DA-CBIA-22 to provide economic promotion activities therein described, as the same appears of record in my office; that I personally attended said meeting,and that the proceedings were in fact held as in said minutes specified. (b) That due, legal, and timely notice of said meeting was served upon all members as required by law and the rules and ordinances of Salt Lake City. (c) That the above minutes were deposited in my office on September 7, 2021, have been recorded by me, and are a part of the permanent records of Salt Lake City, Utah. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature and affixed the seal of Salt Lake City, Utah, this September 7, 2021. (SEAL) By: City Recorder 7 4845-8862-7446,v.2 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETING LAW I, Cindy Lou Trishman, the undersigned City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah, do hereby certify, according to the records of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City Council") in my official possession, and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4-202, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, I gave not less than twenty-four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time, and place of the September 7, 2021, public meeting held by the City Council as follows: (a) By causing a copy of such Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule 1, to be delivered to the Salt Lake Tribune on September , 2021, at least twenty-four(24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting; and (b) By causing a copy of such Notice to be posted on the Utah Public Notice Website (http://pmn.utah.gov) at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting. In addition, the Notice of 2021 Annual Meeting Schedule for the City Council (attached hereto as Schedule 2)was given specifying the date,time,and place of the regular meetings of the City Council to be held during the year, by causing said Notice to be (a) posted on , 2021, at the principal office of the City Council, (b) provided to at least one newspaper of general circulation within Salt Lake City, Utah, on , 2021, and (c) published on the Utah Public Notice Website (http://pmn.utah.gov) during the current calendar year. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature this September 7, 2021. I (SEAL) By:I City Recorder 8 4845-8862-7446,v.2 SCHEDULE 1 MEETING NOTICE DMWEST#13053948 v1 SCHEDULE 2 ANNUAL MEETING NOTICE S-2 4845-8862-7446,v.2 II A) +\\-�r-//. s ERIN MENDENHALL 1, n BEN KOLENDAR a) , ,,. „ -1 MAYOR ..: : :' DIRECTOR 1 DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Lis (Jun 28,202116:30 MDT) Date Received: 06/28/2021 Lisa Schaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 06/28/2021 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: June 22, 2021 Amy Fowler, Chairperson FROM: Benjamin Kolendar, Director of the Department of Economic Development SUBJECT: Resolution of Intention to Designate Central Business Improvement Area—22 (CBIA-22) STAFF CONTACT: Lorena Riffo Jenson, Deputy Director, Department of Economic Development, lorena.riffojenson@slcgov.com; William Wright, Project Coordinator, william.wright@slcgov.com; Jolynn Walz, Office Manager, jolynn.walz@slcgov.com 801.535.7200 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Administration recommends City Council adopt the Resolution of Intention to designate the Central Business Improvement Area 2022 (CBIA-22). This continues a funding mechanism for downtown promotions, marketing, and advocacy established in 1991. It re-establishes a special assessment on property in the boundary area map attached(same boundaries as 2019) for a three-year period as well as breaks out a second assessment for Holiday lighting, map attached. BUDGET IMPACT: The budget summary for the City is detailed starting on page 2 under the section "Financial Summary for CBIA-22." BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City established the Central Business Improvement Area(CBIA) in 1991 as a mechanism to fund marketing,promotions, advocacy, and other initiatives in Downtown Salt Lake City through a special assessment on property within a designated area. The current assessment area, CBIA-19, expires April 21, 2022. The Administration wishes to initiate another assessment area, CBIA-22,by April 22, 2022 to continue the collection of assessment funds within a defined downtown boundary area. This allows for the continuation of marketing, promotion, advocacy, and other benefits that have and will accrue to the City and downtown property owners and businesses through services provided by the RFP recipient contractor(currently the Downtown Alliance). The special assessment also funds an ambassador's program in Downtown Salt Lake City. The goal of the program is to promote economic growth by increasing local business activity through in-person wayfinding assistance for visitors and connecting the City's homeless population with available resources. If approved, the Administration would like to continue this program and use the downtown special assessment area as a continued funding source. Since the inception of the CBIA, commonly known as a Business Improvement District, the funds collected for the Area have been used to fund the Downtown Alliance under a contract with Salt Lake City Corporation. The contract with the Downtown Alliance will expire with the current CBIA-19 and the Administration will announce an RFP which will use the proceeds of this assessment for a contractor to do the work the Downtown Alliance currently does. The Downtown Alliance will be able to submit for the RFP. The creation of the CBIA is a lengthy and complex process that is governed by State law, has numerous noticing provisions,public hearings, and other requirements that involve a variety of City Council actions over the next nine months in order to meet the deadline for continuous funding from the Area. The Department of Economic Development, in cooperation with Engineering, City Attorney's Office, City Treasurer's Office, Bonneville Research, and the Downtown Alliance,would like to brief the City Council on the "Resolution of Intention to Designate the Central Business Improvement Area" on July 13, 2021,with a formal action item on July 20, 2021. The action by the City Council allows the notification of property owners to begin and keeps the process on target to meet the April 2022 deadline for expiration of the current. Ben Kolendar& Lorena Riffo Jenson (Department of Economic Development), and Jonathan Springmeyer(Bonneville Research)plan to be at the table for the discussion. Financial Summary for CBIA-22 Revenue for CBIA-22 2020 Taxable Property Valuation $3,573,174,176 Proposed Taxable Value Assessment Rate .00142 Taxable Value Assessment Subtotal $5,073,907 2018 Linear Footage for Holiday Lights $13,870 Proposed Holiday Light Rate per Foot $12.79 Holiday Light Assessment Subtotal $177,378 Total Assessment Revenue $5,251,285 Budget for CBIA-22 Salt Lake City Expenses DED Management $ 120,000 Reserve withheld(3%) $ 157,539 Professional and Technical $ 30,000 Legal Fees $ 20,000 Printing $ 5,000 Postage Fees $ 3,000 Contingency $ 18,5000 Salt Lake City Subtotal $ 354,039 RFP Recipient Budget Economic Development Activities (27%) $ 1,293,000 Marketing and Events (16%) $ 776,000 Administration(24%) $ 1,164,000 Ambassador Program Homeless Services (33%) $ 1,512,000 RFP Recipient Subtotal $ 4,745,000 Total Use of Funds $ 5,099,039 Adoption Process and Timeline If the City Council adopts the proposed"Resolution of Intention to Designate CBIA-22,"the additional steps toward final implementation are: • Property owners in the Area are mailed a Notice of Intention with a description of the boundaries and an assessment rate • Property owners have opportunities to protest(in writing) the creation of the Area or inclusion in it • Public hearings and informational meetings are held • Board of Equalization hearings are held to hear factual issues on the amount of benefit received and the amount of the proposed assessment • City Council adopts an ordinance to create CBIA-22 • CBIA-22 takes effect April 22, 2022 Special Stipulations Parcels under $20,000 in valuation as well as residential, ecclesiastical and government owned properties are exempt from the assessment, except those whose owners agree in writing to be assessed. By State law,properties that are not included in the initial Notice of Intent cannot be added at a later date unless the property owner consents. However, properties may be removed from the Area at the Council's discretion prior to assessment. Property owners are assessed the full amount but may pay the assessment in three annual installments. If owners of 40% or more of the valuation in the Area boundaries protest the creation of the CBIA- 22, the Area cannot be created. No more than 30% of the assessment funds can be spent on administrative expenses. Public Process If the City Council adopts the Notice of Intention as recommended, copies of the notice will be mailed to all property owners in the Area, as well as to the physical property address (if it differs from the address of the property owner), along with a notice of an open house/hearing. Written protests may then be filed with the City, and a protest hearing should be scheduled by the City Council before the adoption of the ordinance creating the CBIA-22. If the City Council creates the Area, it would appoint a Board of Equalization that may recommend adjusting the assessment rate higher or lower from that indicated in the Notice of Intention. The City Council then may accept,reject, or modify that recommendation before adoption of the Assessment Ordinance. Relevant Statutes and Ordinances The definition of"economic promotion activities" in the SAA statute, Utah Code Section 11-42- 102(18)is as follows: (18) "Economic promotion activities" means activities that promote economic growth in a commercial area of a local entity, including: (a) sponsoring festivals and markets; (b)promoting business investment or activities; (c)helping to coordinate public and private actions; and (d) developing and issuing publications designed to improve the economic well-being of the commercial area. ATTACHMENTS: A. Boundary Map & Holiday Lighting Map B. Timeline C. Resolution H SUU IV J— LI Z I IIIC== [L] h I: 117P, � II. N 1y I!jI SaltLakeCity 'f 4L 11— � �rlL V■ P I I I I r Il m11 2ooN Ir Boundary Map _ !11111UJ1 ops Ism§ � I �aauu ■w -J lilt ■i AIL � _ err I II= JIIII IIIh U I h T PI- 1 !II' (I I j , 1 - I I J. i r I-- III �I �' lilly ������ ���/ 50 N 9 — I � J o � � I I J 1i _ !/� r� L w -_-- �' SO TH TEMPLE 1 #t ;.! I I cn_i I 1■ � �■ __ uc�..,. o' —I I J 1 100 S 100 S - I:I ID ..11 ' �u �1 I coo J o� ❑ o0 o o r o �_Mira' w 3 w milL.L., "' cur, p ytl�0_� JligL fd w l ° I���I I Q. Skyff 1 Q 5i7111� � m 200 S _ ! !I Q 200S cn u�?1, ( 01/ \ / I �� o ECCLES /� � L' JT l NMI �I Izw I J� J ii Et itill6 .91 1 300 S— \� [ p 300 S w 300 S w L - �= PIONEER =w ' =' �• Iii 'o PARK 1 'U M �; PL II— --w ��� II■I' _ II :MI :11111 I] r i ii = _ - ► V I ' rQ - Ela c,�,y ' ' I 1F�� o J WASHINGTON LIBRARY m v o - AVER li Lo o 0 00 0 IN r w SQUARE SQUARE o co �_ =' 500 S < #11 �= _ ■��■�.L I-- ■ II 1 I■ s 8, il � AEEE �� Iii I ■L I_ MM Q =1.4 I I I M_.■Im1l�. -. ilE It- 7 �� min ` 1111111 ii � — M ■ I � rTS:RP. 6 0 0 s �' 600 S O / South TernpleS \ 0 0 fIrL)\_ 1 10 5f) 50 60 100 " e :ems 50 4 i5 Sd�:�- ��'� ❑ 5A$9 5•-.1 50 5050 ❑ *is5 44 51 HH ❑ 0 50 50 50 t ar 51 51i1 36 s 50 44 ® s050 5050 _►`rr�ialHall Ave ❑ ❑❑ o a 445%4�5b `$� o•'�i 3 51 2 1 a) Z 50= 505050T 61 ";0° ffiS I �51 o I i� E 0,1 100 S f" 101 S ] El❑ ❑ MI I I vo L'!iIi 102 6 DI'MEMOS,0 120 I L J Ll i ❑ ® " — 132 r ❑ i II + 316 iir: - a f r�i 9 1 150 161 El 6,WIM ��� 1i7, C�a� 160 185— 1 i _ ,El I_ S 75 185 — ee 100 S ILI LL \ 1 375 ES] P�e 307 Mill 149i 3y 77 — 15� o ® J L 0 61 175 �® 206 [LS 201 215 — —i iN f —� i'e/ o�A� 144 122 zzz 220 co i i 8 nal 239 o 0 ierpon:Av ■i ric,ae..t A.c,Mii 255 )11 a o E. or 13 \ u !i, 133 250 gas Gallivan Ave a0 MI fflpU ���a B0 ��i. — 128 S 50262 299 IWIdOD �j . ., 110 80 III llao f7010268 III 111 2 U 300 S Li LN .— 69 TI eRN '[ —306 311 Ie 310 3 W 311_ Ill IT, i� m, BE ` 326 321 I L 322 S, I E.' e e 8 8og 3E0 335 , 48 0 26 334 3r� r 8 _ 334 1 ��l lLiti i of III xchanc e PI III in CJ 380 1 10 — I p 360 375 v �; CO 400 S — r uly29, CBIA 16: Holiday Lighting Parcels (Preliminary) Holiday Lighting Streets Included Parcels Jzo1s ASalt Lake City Geographic Informationon SysSystems CBIA-22 Tentative Timeline Step Action Description Group/Lead Deadlines 1 Consultant Contract Contract with a consultant to provide guidance DED 2/1/21-4/30/2021 throughout process. Technical Description of the CBIA provided to 2 Technical Description of the CBIA Engineering.Engineering prepares tax roll based on this Consultant 3/12/2021 data. 3 Develop assessment methodology that conforms to Develop assessment methodology concerning DED 3/24/2021 Assessment Area Act. Economic Promotion&Lighting Assessment. 4 Salt Lake County Property Tax Information. Numbers should be available by May 22,2021. Consultant 5/28/2021 Bond Counsel reviews the description of Improvements 5 Bond Counsel Description&Improvement Review DED 6/1/2021 and Areas to be Improved. 6 Resolution of intent to designate. Bond Counsel drafts resolution of Intent to Designate. Bond Counsel 6/15/2021 Resolution of Intent to Designate and Justification Resolution of Intent to Designate and justification 7 DED 6/22/2021 transmittal.(Mayor) documentation transmitted to Mayor's Office. Resolution of Intent to Designate and Justification Resolution of Intent to Designate and justification 8 Mayor's Office 6/29/2021 transmittal.(Council Office) documentation transmitted to Council Office. 9 City Council Meeting DED will brief the City Council on CBIA-22 Information. DED 7/13/2021 Property Owner letter includes verbiage of preliminary 10 Property Owner Letter estimate,rate,notice of intent to designate,common DED 7/17/2021 question and map finalized. 11 Tax roll prepared for DED approval. Assess County Data. Engineering 7/17/2021 12 DED approval of tax roll. DED approves county data. DED 7/17/2021 City Council adopts the resolution of Intent to 13 City Council Meeting City Council 7/20/2021 Designate the assessment area. 14 Draft/Create Notice of Intent to Designate Letter Engineering 7/22/2021 15 Post Notice of Intent to Designate Post notice of intent to designate in at least three DED 8/16/2021 public places within boundaries of jurisdiction Mail out Notice of Intent to Designate to go out within DED sends via State 16 Mail out Notice of Intent to Designate 8/19/2021 10 days of notice posting. Mail 17 Minutes prepared for use at protest hearing Distribute to team SAA. Bond Counsel 8/30/2021 18 City Council Meeting City Council Protest Hearing City Council 9/7/2021 Draft Resolution to Designate the Assessment Area and 19 appoint the Board of Equalization(BOE). Bond Counsel 9/14/2021 Resolution to Designate the Assessment Area and Resolution to Designate the Assessment Area and 20 appoint the Board of Equalization Transmittal(Mayor's appoint the Board of Equalization Transmited to DED 9/21/2021 Office) Mayor's Office. Resolution to Designate the Assessment Area and Resolution to Designate the Assessment Area and 21 appoint the Board of Equalization Transmited to the Mayor's Office 9/28/2021 appoint the Board of Equalization(City Council). Council Office. Publish Notice of Intent to Designate on the Utah Public 22 Publish Notice of Intent to Designate DED 10/4/2021 Notice Website Property owners who are protesting the assessment 23 Property Owners Written Protests Filing Deadline Engineering 11/8/2021 area. Also,the end of 60-day written protest period. 24 Compile Written Protests. Engineering 11/9/2021 RFP:Center Business Improvement Assessment Area Solisitation to find a vendor to manage the assessment 25 DED 11/9/2022 Management Request For Propsal(RFP) area once approved. 26 Delivery of Compilation of Protests Compilation of protests sent to City Council. Engineering 11/9/2021 Publishing of Written Protests on City&State public 27 Publishing of Written Protests DED 11/9/2021 notice website. City Council announces the protest tally and if it 28 City Council Meeting City Council 11/16/2021 exceeds 40%threshold. City Council adopts the Resolution to Designate the 29 City Council Meeting Assessment Area and appoints the Board of City Council 11/16/2021 Equalization. Record Resolution to Designate the Assessment Area Recording of the Resolution to Designate the Salt Lake City 30 and Notice of Proposed Assessment with Salt Lake 11/16/2021-12/1/2021 Assessment Area&Notice of Proposed Assesment Recorders County Recorder,within 15 days of adoption. Finalize Verbiage for BOE notice and dates of BOE 31 BOE Notice and Dates of BOE Meetings. Bond Counsel 11/24/2021 meetings. 32 Mailing process for the BOE notice. Begins 2 weeks before mailing date. Engineering 12/3/2021 RFP:Center Business Improvement Assessment Area 33 Proposals/submission due from interested vendors DED 12/7/2021 Management submissions Publication and posting of time and location of the 3 consecutive meetings.Posted in at least 3 public places 34 Publication of the BOE hearings. at least 20 days,but not more than 35 days from the DED 12/7/2021 first BOE hearings dates. Published on the Utah Public Notice Website. 35 Mailing due to Recorder's Office for review. Due 1 week before mailing date. Engineering 12/10/2021 36 Mailing of preliminary assessment&notice of BOE Mailing sent to each property owner and each street DED 12/17/2021 hearings address. Salt Lake City 37 BOE hearings 9:00 am to 10:00 am(public meeting). Held on consecutive days by statute. 1/11/2022 Recorders Salt Lake City 38 BOE hearings 10:00 am to 11:00 am(public meeting). Held on consecutive days by statute. 1/12/2022 Recorders Salt Lake City 39 BOE hearings 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm(public meeting). Held on consecutive days by statute. 1/13/2022 Recorders 40 Finalization of BOE Hearings Finalize the report DED 1/18/2022 RFP:Center Business Improvement Assessment Area 41 Selection is made from the proposals submitted DED 1/21/2022 Management Selection BOE report completed,signed,and forwarded to City 42 BOE Report Completion DED 1/21/2022 Council and Bond Counsel. BOE report mailed to objecting property owners.Begins 43 Mailing of BOE Final Report Engineering 1/21/2022 15 day appeal period. 44 Assessment Ordinance Bond Counsel Draft Assessment Ordinance Bond Counsel 1/28/2022 Assessment Ordinance transmitted to the Mayor's 45 Assessment Ordinance Transmittal(Mayor's Office). DED 2/1/2022 Office. Assessment Ordinance transmitted to the Council 46 Assessment Ordinance Transmittal(Council Office). Mayor's Office 2/8/2022 Office. City Council accepts or modifies BOE recommendations 47 City Council Meeting City Council 3/1/2022 and adopts or rejects Assessment Ordinance. RFP:Center Business Improvement Assessment Area Agreement between Salt Lake City and the vendor to 48 DED 3/4/2022 Management Contract drafting and Execution manage the assesment area. 49 Budget or budget amendment submittion for CBIA Submit budget to SLC Finance Department DED 3/17/2022 50 Transfer properties into billing status. Engineering 3/17/2022 Mail assessment notices and invoices to Property 51 Assessment Invoices and Billing Treasurer 3/18/2022 Owners by April 5,2022 the latest. 1.Publication of the Assessment Ordinance on the Utah Public Notice Website. 52 Publication&Posting of the Assessment Ordinance 2.Post a copy of the Assessment Ordinance in at least Bond Council 3/20/2022 three public places within the jurisdiction boundaries. For at least 21 days 53 Certificate of Project Engineer Certificate of Project Engineer Signed by DED DED 3/25/2022 I note that Utah Code 11-42-404(4)(b)(iii)requires the notice of assessment interest to"describe the property Record Notice of Assessment Interest with Salt Lake Salt Lake City 54 assessed by legal description and tax identification 4/21/2022 County Recorder. Recorders number."Metes and Bounds legal description provided by Recorder's Office. 55 Effective start date of the Assessment Ordinance Must be specified in the Assessment Ordinance DED 4/21/2022 Invoice Payments due from property owners[15 days 56 Assessment Payments Due Treasurer 5/6/2022 after effective date of Assessment Ordinance] Salt Lake City, Utah July 20, 2021 A regular meeting of the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,was held on Tuesday, July 20, 2021, at the hour of 7:00 p.m. via electronic means, at which meeting there were present and answering to roll call the following members who constituted a quorum: Amy Fowler Chair James Rogers Vice-Chair Dan Dugan Councilmember Ana Valdemoros Councilmember Dennis Faris Councilmember Darin Mano Councilmember Chris Wharton Councilmember Also present: Erin Mendenhall Mayor Katherine Lewis City Attorney Cindy Lou Trishman City Recorder Absent: Thereupon the following proceedings, among others, were duly had and taken: The following resolution was introduced in writing, was read by title, and Councilmember moved its adoption: Notice of Intent Resolution RESOLUTION NO. of 2021 A Resolution of intention of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"), to designate an Assessment Area for the purpose of levying assessments against properties within the Assessment Area to continue to promote business activity and economic development in the central business area of downtown Salt Lake City by assessing benefited properties within the Assessment Area for the costs of such economic promotion activities for a period of three years (the "Assessments"); and to fix a time and place for protests against the Assessment Area and its assessments, and related matters. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: Section 1. The City Council (the "Council") of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"), hereby determines that it will be in the best interest of the City to continue to promote economic growth activities in the central business area of downtown Salt Lake City. The proposed activities are more specifically described hereafter, but generally will include, but will not be limited to, advertising, marketing, special events, festivals, transportation, newsletters, publications, banners, Christmas lighting, homeless services, security, special projects,housing, town meetings, government policy, cultural promotion, reports, surveys and other promotional activities(the"Economic Promotion Activities")in the downtown area as described hereafter and more specifically identified on maps and plans on file in the Office of the City Recorder of the City. In order to accomplish the Economic Promotion Activities, the City proposes to designate the Salt Lake City, Utah Central Business Improvement Assessment Area No. DA-CBIA-22 (the "Assessment Area") pursuant to Title 11, Chapter 42, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Act"), the area of which is more particularly described in the Notice of Intention to Designate Assessment Area set out hereafter. Section 2. A portion of the cost of the Economic Promotion Activities shall be paid by a special assessment to be levied against business and commercial properties situated within the Assessment Area that are specially benefited by the Economic Promotion Activities. The assessment will have two components: (i) an assessment based on the 2021 taxable property values (the "Base Assessment"), plus (ii) an assessment on certain properties by linear feet for special holiday lights (the "Holiday Lighting Assessment" and together with the Base Assessment, the "Assessment"). Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the properties within the Assessment Area and the proposed Assessment related to each property. The Assessment may be paid when assessed or, at the option of the property owner, in three (3) annual installments with interest on any delinquent installment until paid. Section 3. The Council shall hold a public hearing on September 7, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. via electronic means or, as determined by the City Council Chair, at the physical location of the Council Chambers at 451 South State Street in Salt Lake City,Utah to hear all objections related to the Assessment Area as set forth in the Act. Thereafter, written protests from property owners against the proposed assessments may be filed in the Office 2 Notice of Intent Resolution 4839-8274-5316,v.4 of the City Recorder of the City,whose permanent address is 451 South State Street,Room 415; however, due to the emergency circumstances, is temporarily located at 349 South 200 East and by appointment only, for a period of 60 days after the date of the public hearing. On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 (such date being within 15 days after the date the protest period expires), at 7:00 p.m. via electronic means or, as determined by the City Council Chair, at the physical location of the Council Chambers at 451 South State Street in Salt Lake City, Utah, the Council shall count the written protests filed and calculate whether adequate protests have been filed and hold a public meeting to announce the protest tally and whether adequate protests have been filed. The Council may thereafter adopt a resolution abandoning or creating the proposed Assessment Area depending on whether adequate protests have been filed. The City Recorder is hereby directed to give notice of intention to designate the Assessment Area(the "Notice of Intention")to finance and support the Economic Promotion Activities. The Notice of Intention shall specify the date of the public hearing and the time within which protests against the proposed assessments may be filed. The Notice of Intention shall be(a)posted in at least three public places within the City's boundaries at least 20 but not more than 35 days prior to the public hearing date and(b)published on the Utah Public Notice Website described in Utah Code section 63A-16-601 for four consecutive weeks before the deadline for filing protests. In addition, the City Recorder shall mail a copy of the Notice of Intention by United States Mail, postage prepaid, to each owner of property to be assessed within the Assessment Area at the last known mailing address of such owner, using for such purpose the names and addresses of said owners appearing on the last completed real property assessment rolls of Salt Lake County, Utah, and, in addition, a copy of the Notice of Intention shall be mailed, postage prepaid, addressed to "Owner" at the street number of each piece of improved property to be affected by the assessment, said Notices to be so mailed not later than ten(10)days after the first publication or posting of the Notice of Intention. If a street number has not been so assigned,then the post office box,rural route number, or any other mailing address of the improved property shall be used for the mailing of the Notice of Intention. Said Notice of Intention shall be in substantially the following form: 3 Notice of Intent Resolution 4839-8274-5316,v.4 NOTICE OF INTENTION TO DESIGNATE ASSESSMENT AREA PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on July 20, 2021,the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, adopted a resolution (the "Resolution") declaring its intention to designate the Salt Lake City, Utah Central Business Improvement Assessment Area No. DA-CBIA-22 (the "Assessment Area") to finance a portion of the cost of economic promotion activities, which are more specifically described hereafter (the "Economic Promotion Activities")in the area of downtown Salt Lake City within the Assessment Area and to levy a special assessment(the"Assessment"or"Assessments")for a period of three years as provided in Title 11, Chapter 42, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Act"), on real property situated within the Assessment Area for the benefit of which such assessments are to be expended in the management and costs of the Economic Promotion Activities. DESCRIPTION OF ASSESSMENT AREA The Assessment Area is described by reference to the following streets (the "Reference Streets"): A—North Temple from State Street to the East right-of-way line of I-15 (includes parcels on both sides of the street) B—East right-of-way line of I-15 from North Temple to 400 South C—400 South from the East right-of-way line of I-15 to 300 East (includes parcels on both sides of the street) D—300 East from 400 South to South Temple (includes parcels on both sides of the street) E—South Temple from 300 East to State Street(includes parcels on both sides of the street) F— State Street from South Temple to North Temple (includes parcels on both sides of the street) The area of the Assessment Area shall include all property bounded by Reference Streets A through F described above. In addition, it shall include parcels of property, subject to the exceptions set out hereafter,which abut the Reference Streets plus all corner parcels which have a corner touching any of the Reference Streets. The Holiday Lighting Assessment(as described herein)shall apply to the following streets (collectively, the "Holiday Lighting Streets"): A—200 South between 300 West and 400 West B—200 South between West Temple and 200 West(South side only) C—Pierpont Street between West Temple and 200 West D—West Temple between 400 South and 200 South E—Main Street between 400 South and South Temple F—Market Street between West Temple and Main Street(North side only) G—State Street between 400 South and South Temple 4 Notice of Intent Resolution 4839-8274-5316,v.4 The Resolution, maps, and other information about the Assessment Area are available for examination during business hours in the offices of the Salt Lake City Recorder, whose permanent address is 451 South State Street, Room 415, Salt Lake City, Utah or, if such offices are closed,the temporary location of 349 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah. ACTIVITIES AND MANAGEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT AREA The Economic Promotion Activities shall include advertising, marketing, special events, festivals, transportation, newsletters, publications, banners, Christmas lighting, homeless services, security, special projects, housing, town meetings, government policy, cultural promotion, reports, surveys and other promotional activities. The Economic Promotion activities will take place within the boundaries of the Assessment Area for the benefit of business and commercial property owners within the Assessment Area. Since 1992,the Downtown Alliance has managed promotional activities for Central Business Improvement Assessment Areas (or districts) Numbers DA-8690-A, DA-8690- B, DA-8690-97, DA-CBID-00, DA-CBID-03, DA-CBID-06, DA-CBIA-10, DA-CBID- 13, DA-CBID-16 and DA-CBID-19. The City intends to solicit proposals for a management contract to manage the Assessment Area through April 2025, subject to the creation of the Assessment Area. The Downtown Alliance has submitted a proposed budget estimating the costs (the "Estimated Costs") of Economic Promotion Activities within the Assessment Area. Information from the proposed budget is included in the following section. ASSESSMENT RATE, FINANCIAL PLAN AND SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS Funding from Assessments provides only a portion of the total budget for the Assessment Area's programs and activities. The City anticipates that the manager of the Assessment Area will secure non-assessment funds from other sources such as grants, foundations,promotions, contributions, earned income, and sponsorships. In addition, the City anticipates that sponsors and contributors will pay directly to third-party providers a portion of the costs of some Economic Promotion Activities. These supplemental third- party payments are not reflected in the projected budget of the Assessment Area. Most, if not all,of these other sources of funds would not be available without the funding from the Assessments or the Economic Promotion Activities of the Assessment Area. Funds received from the Assessments and the estimated cost of the Economic Promotion Activities, as determined by a project engineer, are as follows: 5 Notice of Intent Resolution 4839-8274-5316,v.4 Sources of Funds (for 3-year period) Base Assessment Revenue $5,073,907 Holiday Lighting Assessment Revenue 177,378 Total $5,251,285 Uses of Funds (annual basis) Contractor: Marketing and Events $776,000 Economic Development 1,293,000 Ambassador Program Homeless Services 1,512,000 General and Administrative 1,164,000 Contractor Total $4,745,000 Salt Lake City Administrative Costs and Reserve 354,039 Total $5,099,039 The Assessment is proposed to be levied on benefited property within the Assessment Area to pay for a portion of the Economic Promotion Activities according to the estimated benefits to the property from such activities. The Economic Promotion Activities will not be financed with bonds. PROPERTIES EXCLUDED FROM ASSESSMENT AREA ASSESSMENTS Residential, ecclesiastical, and government-owned properties shall be excluded from Assessments unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the City and the owners of such properties. Subject to the foregoing sentence, only business and commercial properties shall be assessed. In addition, any properties having a taxable value of less than $20,000 based upon the most recent real property assessment roll of Salt Lake County shall be excluded from Assessments. The determination of qualification for exclusion for ecclesiastical and government-owned property shall be based upon exemptions from ad valorem real property taxes for properties used by churches for non-commercial purposes and for properties owned and operated by governmental agencies. Inasmuch as the Assessment is intended to fund economic promotion activities, the City does not find any benefits for residential, ecclesiastical and/or governmental property excluded from the Assessment. BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT It is proposed to levy a one-time Assessment for a three-year period on property in the Assessment Area to pay all or a portion of the Estimated Costs of the Economic Promotion Activities. The Assessment shall not exceed the benefits derived by the properties within the Assessment Area. There shall be two assessment components: (i) an assessment based on the 2021 taxable property values (the "Base Assessment"), plus (ii) an assessment based on linear feet (except that corner lots will not be assessed for both frontages as applicable, only one) on certain properties with frontage on the Holiday Lighting Streets for special holiday lights(the"Holiday Lighting Assessment"and together with the Base Assessment, the "Assessment"). The City anticipates that, in addition to 6 Notice of Intent Resolution 4839-8274-5316,v.4 revenues from the Assessment, the manager of the Assessment Area will utilize other funding resources,including revenues from grants,promotions,contributions,foundations, earned income, and sponsorships. PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS Assessments shall be payable in full or in three (3) annual installments (the "Assessment Installment" or"Installments"). If payable in three (3) Installments, the first Installment will fall due fifteen (15) days after the effective date of the ordinance levying the Assessment (the "Assessment Ordinance"). The total Assessment for the benefited property related to this notice is detailed in the cover letter accompanying this notice. The first Installment is currently estimated to be due on approximately May 6, 2022. The second and third Installments will fall due on the first and second anniversary dates of the first Installment. If any Installment is not paid by the due date, the unpaid Installment(s) will accumulate delinquent interest and/or charges in accordance with the Assessment Ordinance and State law. The Assessments will be collected by directly billing property owners. The City doesn't currently expect any adjustments to the Assessments for changes in costs associated with Economic Promotion Activities. The City will ensure that no Assessments will be collected and used for purposes other than those described in this Notice. PUBLIC HEARING The City Council shall hold a public hearing on September 7,2021 at 7:00 p.m. via electronic means or, as determined by the City Council Chair, at the physical location of the Council Chambers at 451 South State Street in Salt Lake City, Utah to hear all objections related to the Assessment Area and all persons desiring to be heard, as set forth in the Act. TIME FOR FILING PROTESTS PROTESTS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS OBJECTING TO THE ASSESSMENT AREA DESIGNATION OR OBJECTING TO BEING ASSESSED FOR THE PROPOSED ECONOMIC PROMOTION ACTIVITIES MUST BE FILED IN WRITING WITH THE CITY RECORDER OF SALT LAKE CITY EITHER IN PERSON BY APPOINTMENT AT THE TEMPORARY OFFICE OF 349 SOUTH 200 EAST, OR BY MAIL (PO BOX 145515) ON OR BEFORE 5:00 P.M. ON NOVEMBER 8, 2021. To be counted against the creation of the Assessment Area, protests or objections MUST BE IN WRITING, signed by the owners of the property proposed to be assessed. The written protest must describe or otherwise identify said property. If the aggregate taxable value of property that is the subject of timely filed written protests represents at least 40% of the aggregate taxable value of all property within the Assessment Area, the City Council will not impose the Base Assessment and if the linear feet frontage of the Holiday Lighting Streets (except that corner lots will not apply for both frontages as applicable, only one) that is the subject of timely filed written protests represents at least 40% of the aggregate linear feet frontage of Holiday Lighting Streets assessed within the 7 Notice of Intent Resolution 4839-8274-5316,v.4 Assessment Area, the City Council will not impose the Holiday Lighting Assessment. Protests withdrawn prior to the expiration of the protest period and protests from areas deleted from the Assessment Area will not be counted against the creation of the Assessment Area. On Tuesday,November 16, 2021 (such date being within 15 days after the date the protest period expires), at 7:00 p.m. via electronic means or, as determined by the City Council Chair, at the physical location of the Council Chambers at 451 South State Street in Salt Lake City,Utah,the City Council shall count the written protests filed and calculate whether adequate protests have been filed and hold a public meeting to announce the protest tally and whether adequate protests have been filed. To stay informed on the electronic means or physical location of the City Council's hearings and meetings, please visit www.slc.gov/council/agendas. The City shall post the total and percentage of the written protests it has received on its website at least five days before such meeting. BY RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH /s/Cindy Lou Trishman City Recorder 8 Notice of Intent Resolution 4839-8274-5316,v.4 Councilmember seconded the motion to adopt the foregoing resolution. The motion and resolution were unanimously adopted on the following recorded vote: AYE: NAY: 9 Notice of Intent Resolution 4839-8274-5316,v.4 After the conduct of other business not pertinent to the above, the meeting was, on motion duly made and seconded, adjourned. (SEAL) By: Chair ATTEST: By: City Recorder 10 Notice of Intent Resolution 4839-8274-5316,v.4 PRESENTATION TO THE MAYOR The foregoing resolution was presented to the Mayor for her approval or disapproval on July , 2021. By: Chair MAYOR'S APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL The foregoing resolution is hereby approved on this July , 2021. By: Mayor 11 Notice of Intent Resolution 4839-8274-5316,v.4 STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I,Cindy Lou Trishman,the duly chosen,qualified,and acting City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah, do hereby certify as follows: (a) That the foregoing typewritten pages constitute a full, true, and correct copy of the record of proceedings of the City Council at a regular meeting thereof held in Salt Lake City on July 20, 2021, at 7:00 p.m., insofar as said proceedings relate to the consideration and adoption of a resolution declaring the intention of the City Council to designate the Salt Lake City,Utah Central Business Improvement Assessment Area No. DA-CBIA-22 to provide economic promotion activities therein described as the same appears of record in my office; that I personally attended said meeting, and that the proceedings were in fact held as in said minutes specified. (b) That due, legal, and timely notice of said meeting was served upon all members as required by law and the rules and ordinances of Salt Lake City. (c) That the above resolution was provided to my office on July 20, 2021, has been recorded by me, and is a part of the permanent records of Salt Lake City, Utah. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature and affixed the seal of Salt Lake City, Utah, this , 2021. (SEAL) By: City Recorder 12 Notice of Intent Resolution 4839-8274-5316,v.4 STATE OF UTAH ) AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING : ss. NOTICE OF INTENTION COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I,Cindy Lou Trishman,the duly chosen, qualified,and acting City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"), do hereby certify that a Notice of Intention to Designate Assessment Area(the"Notice of Intention")was approved and adopted in the proceedings of the City Council held on Tuesday, July 20, 2021. I further certify that the Notice of Intention was posted in at least three public places within the City's boundaries at least 20 but not more than 35 days prior to the date of the public hearing (September 7, 2021). I further certify that the Notice of Intention was published on the Utah Public Notice Website for four weeks before the deadline for filing protests (November 8, 2021). I further certify that on August , 2021 (a date not later than ten (10) days after the first publication or posting of the Notice of Intention),I mailed a true copy of the Notice of Intention by United States Mail, postage prepaid to each owner of land to be assessed within the proposed Assessment Area at the last known address of such owner, using for such purpose the names and addresses appearing on the last completed real property assessment rolls of Salt Lake County, and in addition I mailed on the same date a copy of said Notice of Intention addressed to "Owner" addressed to the street number, post office box, rural route number, or other mailing address of each piece of improved property to be affected by the assessment. I further certify that a certified copy of said Notice of Intention, together with profiles of the improvements or economic promotion activities and a map of the proposed Assessment Area, was on file in my office for inspection by any interested parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of Salt Lake City, Utah, this , 2021. (SEAL) By: City Recorder 13 Notice of Intent Resolution 4839-8274-5316,v.4 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH OPEN MEETING LAW I, Cindy Lou Trishman, the undersigned City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah, do hereby certify, according to the records of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City Council") in my official possession, and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4-202, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, I gave not less than twenty-four (24) hours public notice of the agenda, date, time, and place of the July 20, 2021,public meeting held by the City Council as follows: (a) By causing a copy of such Notice, in the form attached hereto as Schedule 1, to be delivered to the Salt Lake Tribune on July , 2021, at least twenty-four(24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting; and (b) By causing a copy of such Notice to be posted on the Utah Public Notice Website (http://pmn.utah.gov) at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the convening of the meeting. In addition, the Notice of 2021 Annual Meeting Schedule for the City Council (attached hereto as Schedule 2)was given specifying the date,time,and place of the regular meetings of the City Council to be held during the year, by causing said Notice to be (a) provided to at least one newspaper of general circulation within Salt Lake City, Utah, on , 2021, and (b) published on the Utah Public Notice Website (http://pmn.utah.gov) during the current calendar year. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my official signature this July 20, 2021. (SEAL) By: City Recorder 14 Notice of Intent Resolution 4839-8274-5316,v.4 SCHEDULE 1 MEETING NOTICE 15 Notice of Intent Resolution 4839-8274-5316,v.4 SCHEDULE 2 ANNUAL MEETING NOTICE 16 Notice of Intent Resolution 4839-8274-5316,v.4 EXHIBIT A A-1 Notice of Intent Resolution 4839-8274-5316,v.4 Item B5 ;s•%% "'z••••., MOTION SHEET 44 CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY s, •I ■]L "CP1 AR �� • TO: City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE: September 7,2021 RE: Zoning Map Amendment for Nielsen Estates at 833 West Hoyt Place and 834 West 200 North PLNPCM2o18-oo877 MOTION >< (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O.BOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ,e\,).4rLi CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY 1.111 •r; 4�I 'SS4 •u,ss N' Item Schedule: Briefing:August 17,2021 TO: City Council Members Set Date:August 17,2021 Public Hearing: September 7,2021 FROM: Brian Fullmer Potential Action: September 21,2021 Policy Analyst DATE: September 7,2021 RE: Zoning Map Amendment for Nielsen Estates at 833 West Hoyt Place and 834 West 200 North PLNPCM2o18-008 7'7 BRIEFING UPDATE At the August 17, 2021 briefing a Council Member asked why the rezoning at 834 West 200 North is required. Planning staff stated the proposed driveway for homes on Hoyt Place would not be allowed under the current R-1/7,00o zoning. It is not unprecedented to have SR-3 zoning on busier streets. Staff wants to highlight one point that was not discussed during the work session briefing.The Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezone request subject to a development agreement to protect the existing home at 834 West 200 North.The applicant is supportive of the agreement. If the Council is supportive of including the development agreement in the final ordinance,a motion will be included that would make the rezone subject to the administration and property owner entering into the development agreement. The following information was provided for the August 17, 2021 Council briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about an ordinance to amend the zoning map for two single-family properties at 833 West Hoyt Place(R-1/5,000)and 834 West 200 North(R-1/7,000).The proposed zoning designation for both properties is SR-3(Special Development Pattern Residential).Though there is not a specific development proposal associated with the rezone request,it is anticipated the subject properties will be combined and a subdivision created for development. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O.BOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 A concept plan includes preserving the existing single-family home at 834 West 200 North and development of a twin home and four attached single-family homes(all for-sale at market rate)located primarily on the vacant 833 West Hoyt Place parcel.Twin homes and attached single-family homes are not allowed in the R-1/5,000 or R-1/7,o0o zones but the proposed SR-3 zoning designation allows for both. The conceptual plan also includes a 20'driveway west of the existing home to serve the development to the northern property.It should be noted the conceptual plan could change and is not tied to the rezone application.The Council's role is to determine if the proposed SR-3 zoning designation is appropriate for the parcels. Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendments. 300 North w w a) a) o o o o a, co Hoyt Place r N W E S 200 North Vicinity map with subject parcels outlined in red Goal of the briefing:Review the proposed zoning map amendment, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Is the Council supportive of the proposed rezone? 2. The Council may wish to ask if the developer considered including affordable housing units in the proposed development. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Page 12 Hoyt Place is a private cul-de-sac and development is limited to no more than 3o homes without secondary fire access.An adjacent Hoyt Place property owner expressed interest in a project that would complement the concept plan for the subject parcels. Both property owners attempted to work with each other and other Hoyt Place property owners on secondary access to the project, and on terms related to shared driveways or utilities.The property owners have not come to terms over the past two years so the applicant for this rezone petition would like to move forward with the project,independently if necessary. The proposed SR-3 zoning designation allows development on a similar scale to what is permitted under current zoning but requires smaller lot areas which would allow somewhat increased density. It also allows attached homes,while current zoning does not.Tables comparing current and proposed zoning standards are below. For additional zoning standard detail see pages 38-46 of the Administration's transmittal. Key Use Comparisons Single-Family Single-Family Twin Planned Development (detached) (attached) Homes (minimum area) R-1-5,00o Permitted No No io,000 sf R-1-7,00o Permitted No No 14,000 sf SR-3 Permitted Permitted Permitted 4,00o sf Key Zoning Standards Comparison W Lot Area Max Front Side Yard Corner Rear Lot Coverage Height Yard Yard Yard R-1-5,000 5,00o sf 28'or 20' 20' 8'and io' 20' 25' 40% flat roof R-1-7,000 7,00o sf 28'or 20' 20' 6'and io' 20' 25' 40% flat roof SR-3 1,5oo sf 28'or 20' 10' 4'(detached) io' 15' 6o%detached (attached) flat roof 7o%attached 2,000 sf (detached) Tables courtesy Salt Lake City Planning Division As shown in the image below,properties near the subject parcels are predominantly single-family. However,much of Hoyt Place is undeveloped and could include single-family attached and twin homes under existing SR-3 zoning. Page 13 300 North !A — +N• OJ N O O O O R-1-5000 R-1-7000 0D SR-3 L ., I IL SR-3 R-1-5000 R-1-7000 N 41111 W E 200'North S Zoning map of properties surrounding subject parcels KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified two key considerations which are summarized below. For the complete analysis see pages 21-24 of the Administration's transmittal. Key Consideration #1: Compatibility with City and neighborhood master plans Planning staff found the proposed rezone meets the following recommendations found in Plan Salt Lake: • Maintain neighborhood stability and character • Create a safe and convenient place for people to carry out their daily lives • Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land • Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth • Increase the number of medium density housing types and options • Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate • Make walking and cycling viable,safe, and convenient transportation options in all areas of the City • Having a public transit stop within 1/4 mile of all residents • Minimize impact of car emissions Under the conceptual planned development,the existing home at 834 West 200 North would be preserved. Planning staff recommended the applicant enter into a development agreement with the City to ensure preservation of the home and its architecture. However,the Planning Commission did not forward that recommendation to the City Council. The subject parcels are included in the 800 West Station Stable Area section of the North Temple Boulevard Plan.This area envisions "Infill development such as twin homes and attached single-family dwellings,primarily in mid-block areas that are currently underdeveloped or under-utilized."Planning staff found the proposed rezone would accomplish this. Page 14 The future land use map for the area found in Attachment D(pages 36-37)of the Administration's transmittal includes the subject parcels in "areas where little change is expected or desired or where the current zoning allows for desired land uses and intensities."It is Planning's opinion impact of the proposed rezone would be minor and would allow the subject parcels uses and density in line with other FR-3 zoned parcels on Hoyt Place. The Northwest Master Plan identifies development potential on Hoyt Place. Rezoning the subject parcels to SR-3 retains an option for the property to be accessed from 200 North and helps accomplish the objective to encourage housing on Hoyt Place.The Northwest Master Plan future land use map shows the subject parcels as low density residential,bordering medium density residential. Planning staff stated the proposed rezone is consistent with the map. Key Consideration #2: Potential impacts on adjacent properties Planning staff identified two impacts to consider when evaluating a potential rezone of the subject parcels: • Would any new development be compatible with the scale of existing development? • Would extending the SR-3 to 200 North be appropriate for the desired development? As shown in the zoning map above,the parcels are surrounded by SR-3 on Hoyt Place and R-1/7,000 on 200 North. Planning staff stated rezoning the parcels would allow them to be developed in character with current and potential development on Hoyt Place.The applicant's intention to preserve the home on 200 North would maintain the character of that block. Planning noted the SR-3 zoning designation is typically intended for properties located within block interiors.They also cited several locations where the zone is extended to a major street(500 South,300 West,50o North,40o North, 200 North, California Avenue, and Cheyenne).This is generally to allow access to properties which would otherwise be landlocked.While that is not the case with this proposed rezone,it would provide for a second access point to properties on Hoyt Place. Planning staff recommends primary vehicular access be from Hoyt Place. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment H of the Planning Commission staff report(pages 47-49 of the Administration's transmittal) outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Planning staff found proposed zoning map amendment complies with applicable standards.Please see the Planning Commission staff report for full details. PUBLIC PROCESS • November 2018 Project notice provided to community councils and organizations as well as nearby property owners and residents. • July 2o19-September 2020 Project on hold as applicant attempted to coordinate development efforts with neighboring property owners. • September 2020 Updated notice provided to Fairpark Community Council,other recognized community organizations,and nearby property owners. • March 2021 Planning Commission public hearing notice sent to nearby property owners. • The Planning Commission held a public hearing March 24, 2021.Two people spoke in support of the proposed rezone and one spoke in opposition.The Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed rezone. Page 15 ERIN MENDENHALL L DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor �' ��� ��'it y and NEIGHBORHOODS �' Blake Thomas c/1= n Director eIT`" CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Lis (Jai 14,202115:02MDT) Date Received: 07/14/2021 Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council:07/14/2021 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: July 7, 2021 Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community &Neighborhoods SUBJECT: PLNPCM2018-00877-Zoning Map Amendment for Nielsen Estates at 833 W Hoyt Place and 834 W 200 North STAFF CONTACT: Eric Daems, Senior Planner, eric.daems@slcgov.com, 801-535-7236 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the proposed zoning map amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Sattar Tabriz, representing property owner J&S Property Development LLC, is petitioning to amend the zoning map for two single-family properties at 833 W Hoyt Place (R-1-5,000) and 834 W 200 North(R-1-7,000). Under the proposal,both would be rezoned to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential). Although a specific development plan is not part of this proposal, the rezone is intended to allow for a future Planned Development to include the preservation of the home at 834 W 200 North, a twin home, and four single-family attached homes. The properties are located within the Northwest Community Master Plan as well as the North Temple Boulevard Plan areas. Currently, the only development on the property is a single-family home at 834 W 200 North. This project was first proposed in 2018 and included accompanying Subdivision and Planned Development applications. The proposal has since been revised and delayed for more than two SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O.BOX 145486,SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 years as the property owner has attempted to work with surrounding property owners on unique development challenges for this and surrounding properties. Hoyt Place is a dead-end private street. As such, development is limited to 30 homes or less without secondary fire access. City Staff has encouraged dialogue between property owners along Hoyt Place to work together to find solutions for cohesive and complimentary design that maximizes development potential and that would result in a better project. However, property owners have not been able to come to terms throughout the last two and a half years and the applicant for this rezone is ready to move the project forward independently if necessary. To do so, the property will need vehicular access to 200 North. Rezoning the entirety of both properties would allow for the desired medium density housing along the northern portion of the property as well as vehicular access from 200 North. Even though the applicant is pursuing SR-3 zoning for both properties and access from 200 North, he has expressed continued hope to reach an agreement for access from Hoyt Place at some point. The intent of the North Temple Boulevard Plan and the Northwest Community Master Plan support the development of interior portions of city blocks with medium density housing, located near transit stations. Rezoning the property to SR-3 zone will help accomplish this intent. PUBLIC PROCESS: Notice of the project and request for comments were sent to the Chair of Fairpark Community Council and other applicable recognized community organizations first in October of 2018 and then again in September of 2020. The project experienced a long delay as the applicant attempted to better coordinate development efforts with neighboring properties and to secure access from Hoyt Place, in accordance with City recommendations. A public hearing with the Planning Commission was held on March 24, 2021. The Planning Commission discussed the request and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2)Notice of City Council Hearing 3) Planning Commission Record- March 24, 2021 a) Hearing Notice b) Staff Report c)Agenda and Minutes 4) Original Petition 5) Mailing List TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3. PLANNING COMMISSION-MARCH 24, 2021 A) HEARING NOTICE B) STAFF REPORT C) AGENDA AND MINUTES 4. ORIGINAL PETITION 5. MAILING LABELS SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2021 (Amending the zoning map pertaining to two parcels of property located at 833 West Hoyt Place and 834 West 200 North Street to rezone the parcels from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District and R-1/7,000 Single- Family Residential District, respectively, to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District.) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to two parcels of property located at 833 West Hoyt Place and 834 West 200 North Street to rezone the parcels from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District and R-1/7,000 Single- Family Residential District, respectively, to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2018-00877. WHEREAS, Sattar Tabriz, on behalf of the property owner, J& S Property Development, LLC, submitted a petition number PLNPCM2018-00877 (the "rezone petition") to rezone two parcels of property of property located at 833 West Hoyt Place and 834 West 200 North Street from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District and R-1/7,000 Single- Family Residential District, respectively, to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District; and WHEREAS, in addition to the underlying R-1/7,000 and R-1/5,000 zoning, the parcels are further zoned with an overlay zoning designation of Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay. WHEREAS, at its March 24, 2021 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing, had discussion, and voted to forward a recommendation of approval to the Salt Lake City Council (the "City Council") on the rezone petition; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning map to change the underlying zoning as set forth herein is in the City's best interest; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to retain the overlay designation of the Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay, and, nothing contained herein should be construed to remove that existing designation. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: Section 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the parcel located 833 West Hoyt Place (Tax ID No. 08-35-406-019- 0000), more particularly described on Exhibit"A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is rezoned from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District. Section 2. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the parcel located 834 West 200 North Street(Tax ID No. 08-35-406- 018-0000), more particularly described in Exhibit"B" described on Exhibit"A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is rezoned from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District. Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance take effect immediately after it has been published in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-713 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 20 . CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 20 Published: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date: May 27, 2021 By: Hannah Vickery,Senior City Attorney Exhibit "A" Legal description of the property Tax ID No. 08-35-406-019-0000 BEG 296.7 FT W FR NE COR OF LOT 8, BLK 70, PLAT C, SLC SUR; W 67.95 FT; S 157 FT; E 67.95 FT; N 157 FT TO BEG. 5529-14595581-2297 Exhibit "B" Legal description of the property Tax ID No. 08-35-406-018-0000 BEG 296.7 FT W FR SE COR OF LOT 1, BLK 70,PLAT C, SLC SUR; W 67.95 FT; N 173 FT; E 67.95 FT; S 173 FT TO BEG. 5529-14596484-2069 1. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2018-0877-Nielsen Estates Zone Amendments October 2018 Petition received by Ashley Scarff in the Planning Division November 2018 Notice of the project was provided to community councils and organizations and to nearby property owners and residents December 2018 Project routed for department review April 2020 Petition transferred to Eric Daems in the Planning Division July 2019-Sept 2020 Project was on hold or going through various revisions as Applicant attempted to better coordinate development efforts with neighboring properties and to secure access from Hoyt Place, in accordance with City recommendations September 2020 Updated notifications were provided to Fairpark Community Council, other recognized community organizations, and nearby property owners October 2020- City Staff reviewed proposal and various alternatives presented March 2021 March 2021 Notice of public hearing sent to nearby property owners and residents March 24, 2021 Planning Commission reviewed the petition and conducted a public hearing. The Commission voted to send a positive recommendation to the City Council. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2018-00877 Zoning Amendment- A request by Sattar Tabriz, representing property owner J&S Property Development LLC, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment from R-1-5,000 and R-1-7,000 (Single-family Residential) to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) at 833 W Hoyt Place and 834 W 200 North. The applicant would like to rezone the properties for a future Planned Development that would include the preservation of the existing home and add six new single-family attached homes with access coming either from Hoyt Place (private street), or 200 North. However, the request is not tied to a specific development proposal at this time. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance on the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held electronically: DATE: Date TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: **This meeting will not have a physical location. **This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing, please visit our website at https://www.slc.gov/council/to learn how you can share your comments during the meeting. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801)535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments(a slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file,please call Eric Daems at 385-226-3187 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at eric.daems@slcgov.com People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION A. Hearing Notice PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING y March 24, 2021 , at 5:30 p.m. Q_ ' • : _� rjr1' :• : : : This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City 'dddd"``A Emergency Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 WO) �I T A public hearing will be held on the following matter. Nielsen Estates Rezone 833 W Hoyt Place and 834 W 200 North - Sattar Tabriz, representing property owner J&S Property Development LLC, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment from R-1-5,000 and R-1-7,000 (Single-family Residential) to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) at the above-listed addresses. The applicant would like to rezone the properties for a future Planned Development that would include the preservation of the existing home and add six new single-family attached homes. However, the request is not tied to a development proposal. Although the applicant has requested the property be rezoned all the way to 200 North, consideration to have the property around the existing home remain zoned R- 1-7,000 may be given if access to the remainder of the property can be secured from Hoyt Place. The property is located within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff contact: Eric Daems at (385) 226-3187 or eric.daems@slcgov.com) Case Number: PLNPCM2018-00877 This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will connect remotely. The Planning Commission meeting will be available on the following platforms: • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings • SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 Providing Comments: If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email: planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on WebEx at: • http://tiny•cc/slc-pc-032421 For instructions on how to use WebEx visit: www.slc.gov/planning/public-meetinqs For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division's website at slc.gov/planninWpublic-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minytes'will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. ri).. 111 17,....e. 1.1 03 r co I- 0 co —I x x 0) a) A 0 CD > ,,,x ..... co - ... 1... 0 C M al —1 M 0 .... 1.0 CO e 0 it m ....0 mu) ,,o 13 3 r INA) al 4 > Co 0) ,d4 "1...) 0 Z Z rift, C) R (7) 5 •,..<,-, z Pt )1 ., . t'D'I ... A ..p.. 1 : A FP'tC ,c 01 V...V ., pp 3. PLANNING COMMISSION B. Staff Report y it4 ae or ,,, r, n,, PLANNING DIVISION 41 r I DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Eric Daems,MCP,Senior Planner,eric.daems@slcgov.com or 801-535-7236 Date: March 24,2021 Re: PLNPCM2o18-oo877-Zoning Map Amendments 833 W Hoyt P1.and 834 W 200 North Zoning Map Amendments PROPERTY ADDRESS: 833 West Hoyt Place and 834 W 200 North PARCEL ID's: 08-35-406-019-000o and o8-35-406-018-0000 MASTER PLAN:Northwest Community and North Temple Boulevard Plan ZONING DISTRICTS: R-1-5,00o and R-1-7,00(Single-family Residential) REQUEST: Sattar Tabriz, representing property owner J&S Property Development LLC, is petitioning to amend the zoning map for two parcels they own. The proposal would rezone the single-family residential zoned properties located at approximately 833 W Hoyt Place(R-1-5,000) and 834 W 200 North(R-1-7,000)to SR-3(Special Development Pattern Residential). The proposed rezone is intended for a future Planned Development to include a twin home and four single-family attached homes. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment subject to: 1. Recording a development agreement for the protection of the single-family use and architecture of the existing home at 834 W 200 North(see Key Consideration 2). 2. Access to any future development on the property should be sought first from Hoyt Place(see Key Consideration 2). ATTACHMENTS: A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant Submittal and Information C. Property and Vicinity Photos D. Future Land Use Maps E. R-1-7,00o Zoning Standards F. R-1-5,00o Zoning Standards G. SR-3 Zoning Standards H. Analysis of Amendment Standards I. Department Review Comments J. Public Process and Comments SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406 WVVVV.SLCGOV.COM PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: This is a petition to rezone two parcels to SR-3.The first parcel is.24 acres at 833 W Hoyt Place and is currently zone R-1-5,000. The second is 834 W 200 North and is .28 acres and is zoned R-1-7,000. Both properties are located within the Northwest Community Master Plan as well as the North Temple Boulevard Plan areas.Currently,the only development on the property is a single-family home at 834 W 200 North. n 834 W 200 N \` i o o 833 W Ho R-1-7,000 c ri R-1-5,000 io L I 0 P. O i 3 = Existing Home L ----- -- -- -- -- I---- __ Current R-1-5,000 and R-1-7,000 Zoning 74980 173032 - -- 1 1 N cu I 1 p • 1 SR-3 0 RS 1 834W200N I� Z 0 I I 3 _ 1 Area for Future Home to Development Remain ,-- , __ _ ___ _______ __ ______ Lot Line to be Moved Through Subdivision • Proposed Rezone to SR-3 This project was first proposed in 2018 and included accompanying Subdivision and Planned Development applications.The proposal has been revised and delayed for more than two years as the property owner has attempted to work with surrounding property owners on unique development challenges for this and surrounding properties. One of the most unique challenges is that development potential accessed from Hoyt Place,which is a dead end,is limited to 3o homes or less without secondary fire access.The property owner adjacent to this project owns the majority of the land along Hoyt and would like to build a complimentary project to the one envisioned for this property.Although the projects would be complimentary, they would likely result in more than 3o homes being accessed from Hoyt.Other challenges include the desire for 2 the property owners to work together to share utilities, driveways, and easements, which could decrease development costs and better utilize developable area. Both property owners have attempted to work with each other and surrounding property owners to gain secondary access to the project and to agree to terms on sharing driveways or utilities. City Staff has encouraged the dialogue and believes that having the owners work together would result in a better project.That being said,the property owners have not been able to come to terms throughout the last two and a half years and the applicant for this rezone is ready to move the project forward independently if necessary.In order to do so,the property will need vehicular access to 200 North. The proposed rezone is not connected to a specific development proposal at this time, although it is anticipated the properties will be combined and a subdivision will be created for future development. Conceptual plans include the preservation of the existing single-family home at 834 W 200 North and the development of a twin home and four single-family homes to largely be located on 833 W Hoyt Place.Those plans also include a 20' driveway to the west of the existing home that would serve the development to the northern property. Conceptual drawings have been included as part of the submittal in Attachment B of this report. AM 1111 _ CA ► - ir .# mr-i _ ,; IN 1 illipr Conceptual Development:Viewed from Southwest Twin homes and attached single-family homes are not allowed uses in the R-1-5,000 or 7,000 zones. The SR-3 zone allows for both.Although,it is proposed that the single-family home would remain on the property at 834 W 200 North,that property would also need to include the access driveway for the proposed homes on the northern portion of the property.The zoning of property used for access to a land use, would need to also list that same use as a permitted use. For this reason, the applicant is proposing that both properties be rezoned to SR-3.Even though the applicant is pursuing SR-3 zoning for both properties and access from 200 North, he has expressed continued hope to reach an agreement for access from Hoyt. If an agreement is reached at some point,vehicular access to 200 North would be removed from development plans.With either scenario,pedestrian access would be provided from any new homes directly to 200 North. 3 The SR-3 allows for similar scale development to the R-1-5,000 and R-1-7,000 zones while moderately increasing density potential due to smaller required lot areas and reduced yard setbacks. Tables comparing key standards and uses of the existing R-1-5,000 and R-1-7,000 zones and the proposed SR-3 zone have been included below. Key Use Comparisons Single-Family Single-Family Twin Planned Development (detached) (attached) Homes (minimum area) R 1-5,00o Permitted No No io,000 sf R 1-7,00o Permitted No No 14,00o sf SR-3 Permitted Permitted Permitted 4,00o sf Key Zoning Standards Comparison Lot Area Max Front Side Yard Corner Rear Lot Coverage Height Yard Yard Yard R 1-5,000 5,00o sf 28'or 20' 20' 8'and i0' 20' 25' 40% flat roof R 1-7,o00 7,00o sf 28'or 20' 20' 6'and io' 20' 25' 40% flat roof SR-3 1,5oo sf 28'or 20' 10' 4'(detached) io' 15' 6o%detached (attached) flat roof 7o%attached 2,000 sf (detached) As shown in Attachment A,the properties immediately surrounding the site are almost entirely single- family, however there are adjacent properties on Hoyt Place which have yet to be developed. The neighboring properties along 200 North are zoned R-1-7,000,while those along Hoyt Place are zoned SR-3.The properties across 200 North to the south are zoned TSA-UN-T(Transit Station Area-Urban Neighborhood-Transitional)and currently have commercial uses. As currently zoned, only the R-1-5,000 property would support additional development. The construction of one additional home would be allowed by-right based on the lot width and size.Because the R-1-5,000 property(833 W Hoyt)is larger than 10,000 it would qualify for Planned Development consideration and additional single-family homes would be possible only through the Planned Development process. 4 As shown below, the property is located within a 1/4 mile walking distance to the 800 West TRAX station. YI ]_ . ' '.*k. '01/ n1 ir/V4141114 A 411—LiViA -- jib, .-- _k_ •116r 4ii °-, !, ,i il *- iMiK _ . -iiii Zoink ,dic,, r. A•,,,- r `off �� Ii l S., :. I• Air j .. . illot, :0- i-:, ill ii. .... - 4,,f c i . Mill I -- ,+ ' .w l .ter' WI , - 1 I AR gm ram, r 3 . . ., a iiit 2, :' o" JF' r r �� b - • 200N a'. z twl - , 0 4 . 41t in.yl _ o 15, iiv_ . tissi,r � ■ ,am I 3k�s Ei• r :c ,--, \ • t _ • �. J 4 rm 116 Ilr, _ • --- mi. .. A K Y • ' t"` . . i ��y �T'mple 5t •j -71.- ---Jr. �l -" A a - 0 - ... {''T. i3.. - - - - -,.a.1 - . E' Walking Path to TRAX Station KEY CONSIDERATIONS: The key considerations for approval of the proposed zone amendment from R-1-5,00o and R-1-7,000 to SR-3 are: 1)Compatibility with City and neighborhood master plans 2)Potential impacts on adjacent properties Key Consideration#1:Compatibility with City and neighborhood master plans Plan Salt Lake: • Maintain neighborhood stability and character • Create a safe and convenient place for people to carry out their daily lives • Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land 5 • Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth • Increase the number of medium density housing types and options • Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate • Make walking and cycling viable,safe,and convenient transportation options in all areas of the City • Having a public transit stop within 1/4 mile of all residents • Minimize impact of car emissions The rezone is proposed in anticipation of a future Planned Development that will include the preservation of the existing home at 834 W 200 North and the construction of a twin home and four single-family attached homes largely on the property at 833 W Hoyt Place.To ensure the preservation of the single-family use and architecture of the existing home,Staff has recommended a development agreement be recorded.The property is in the interior portion of the block and is underutilized.Future use would remain single-family in nature but would result in a slight increase to the housing density of the area due to smaller required lot sizes and yard setbacks of the SR-3 zone. However,with similar bulk requirements for any new construction,future development would maintain the general character of the neighborhood. Primary vehicular access to the property has not yet been determined,but the applicant has indicated it is preferred from Hoyt Place.Regardless if vehicular access is from Hoyt or 200 North,a pedestrian sidewalk is planned leading from the new development to 200 North.This will provide a safe and more convenient walking path for the neighborhood and will give a more direct route to nearby businesses and public transit options. The properties are located with less than a 1/4 mile walking path from a TRAX Station increasing the probability that residents will use it more often, thereby lowering car emissions. North Temple Boulevard Plan(80o West Station Stable Area): • Allow for greater residential densities where appropriate o Allow for appropriate residential development on undeveloped mid-block parcels The North Temple Boulevard Plan was adopted in 2010 and gives more current direction for areas located near the North Temple corridor. The subject property is considered part of the 800 West Station Stable Area.The vision for the 800 West Stable Area includes the desire for"Infill development such as twin homes and attached single-family dwellings, primarily in mid-block areas that are currently underdeveloped or under-utilized". The proposed rezone would create the opportunity to accomplish this vision. As shown in Attachment D of this report,the future land use map in the plan indicates that parcels in the Stable Area are "areas where little change is expected or desired or where current zoning allows for desired land uses and intensities".The proposed rezone would be a minor change that would allow this property to have uses and density more in line with surrounding SR-3 properties on Hoyt Place and to accomplish the other goals listed in the various master plans. Northwest Master Plan: • Encourage private[housing]development along Hoyt Place The Northwest Master Plan specifically identifies the midblock development potential along Hoyt Place. Currently,only the R-i-5,00o parcel could be developed to meet that objective.One additional consideration is that due to requirements for fire access, a limited number of properties can be developed along Hoyt without a secondary access point. Based on current and future proposed 6 developments along Hoyt,this property could lose development rights altogether without a secondary access point.By rezoning the property to SR-3,the option remains open for the property to be accessed from 200 North and fulfills the objective to encourage housing along Hoyt Place. The future land use map in the Northwest Master Plan shows the property as low density residential, but immediately bordering medium density residential.The proposed SR-3 zone would allow single- family, single-family attached, and twin home dwellings. As such, the proposed rezone would be consistent with the future land use map. Key Consideration#2:Potential impacts on adjacent properties There are two main impacts to consider with a potential rezone of the property: • Would any new development be compatible with the scale of existing development? • Would extending the SR-3 to 200 North be appropriate for the desired development? There is need to balance the desire and need for new housing, allowing for moderate increases in density,and maintaining the character of the area with similar scale development. As shown in Attachment A,the property is surrounded by SR-3 along Hoyt and R-1-7,000 along 200 North. This rezone would allow the property to be developed more in character with existing and potential development on the block.The applicant has indicated their intention to preserve the home along 200 North, which would add to the compatibility of any new development. To ensure the preservation of the existing home,Staff is recommending that the single-family home on the property be preserved through a development agreement. The SR-3 zoning designation is typically intended for properties that are located within the interior portions of a block. Although many SR-3 zones follow that ideal,it is not uncommon for the zone to be extended to a major street.In at least seven cases throughout the city,the SR-3 extends to a major street (50o S., 30o W., 50o N., 40o N., 200 N., California Ave, and Cheyenne). In most eases, the purpose is to provide efficient access to what otherwise would be landlocked properties.This proposal includes for the SR-3 to extend through to 200 North. The reasoning is that vehicular access to the property has not yet been fully granted due to fire access requirements that consider development within the entirety of the center portion of the block and ongoing negotiations with neighboring property owners. If a driveway to the potential six homes were to be extended to 200 North, traffic impact to neighboring properties would increase,but not inappropriate with the character of the area. Either way,Staff is recommending that primary vehicular access continue to be sought from Hoyt Place as a first choice. DISCUSSION: With the current configuration and zoning designations, development potential of the property is limited.Allowing for an amendment to the Zoning Map would permit more efficient use of the land while maintaining compatibility with existing development. The intent of the North Temple Boulevard Plan and the Northwest Community Master Plan support the development of interior portions of city blocks with medium density housing,located near transit stations.Rezoning the property to SR-3 zone will help accomplish this intent. While at this time there are no official plans to redevelop the site,extending the SR-3 zone all the way between Hoyt Place and 200 North,across this property,will provide the most flexibility for access to the site in the future. 7 Permitting zoning that allows more dense residential dwellings in locations which support transit reduces the overall cost of living by lowering transportation costs.Allowing opportunity for additional residential dwellings in areas which are supported by transit also increases the potential number of affordable residential units in the area. Finally, the proposed amendments to the Zoning Map meet the intent of the purpose of the SR-3 Zoning District. The intent of the SR-3 district is to provide "safe and comfortable places to live and play,promote sustainable and compatible development patterns,and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood"for development within the interior portions of city blocks.A rezone of the subject properties to SR-3 is fitting to continue these objectives,as well as the goals of the community. NEXT STEPS: A recommendation of approval or denial by the Planning Commission will result in the proposed Zoning Map amendment being sent to the City Council for a final decision. Approval of Zone Amendment If the proposed zone amendments are approved,the applicant will be permitted to build or operate any use allowed in the SR-3 zone, including applying for a Planned Development for the six conceptual units envisioned for this site.A list of uses allowed in the zone is included in this report as Attachment G.The developer will need to comply with any imposed conditions,obtain a building permit or business license for any new development or new business, and will need to comply with all applicable zoning standards. Denial of Zone Amendment If the proposed Zoning Map amendments are denied,the properties will remain zoned R-1-5,000 and R-1-7,000 (single-family residential) respectively. The R-1-5,000 parcel would still be eligible for a Planned Development but would be limited to single-family homes.The R-1-7,o0o parcel would be too small for additional development,but the existing single-family home could remain. 8 ATTACHMENT A - VICINITY MAP Vicinity Map 1` R-1-7000 •ip �4 R-1-7000 -f - - i I. ,q �! 41 P 1 1 G k1-5000 t. E 833 W Hoyt Place& " \\ ,*, 834 W 200 North • R-1-5000 R-1-5000 ti }\��\ f Hoyt PI ,- A\ `' r i IIIP GQ3i15000 f I� ‘ R-1-5000 \ •- ' GI a R-1-5000 \� \\ '' \N i �,�-1-5000 P R-1-5000 . i 3 'a R-1-7000 R-1-7000 o � Y • 200N ,r , .,,_ -r t ..� - .F -1 5000 11 t \ �; �� \ \ . \ \ \ ` \� ,ail \\ TSA-UN-T I \ �\ 1 \\\ \ \ iK V . Subject Property N \\\ . `` \ \\\\� TSA-UN-T Zoning Districts \\\\ \ \ _ ` SNB Small Neighborhood Business - '.'Jackson'Ave 1, h.`" I, Jackson Ave SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential \` • TSA-UN-T TSA-UN-T R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential �7 R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential TSA-UN-C 'd 1t I. TSA-UN-C Urban Neighborhood-Core r � ,�y� TSA-UN M TSA-UN-T Urban Neighborhood-Transition 0 PJPI 990 1 PL Public Lands Salt Lake City Planning Division 3/16/2021 9 ATTACHMENT B - APPLICANT SUBMITAL & INFORMATION 10 O � 1— LEGEND N c.i = 825W HOYT > N J PLACE PORTION OF NEIGHBORING — ZONE R-1-7000 COCI W I Z PARCEL ID PARCEL TO BE PURCHASED 08-35-406-022-0000 FOR DEVELOPMENT 1 ZONE R-1-5000 N Q J re 14.029 173.032 ZONE SR-3 N a 0 co REZONING TO ZONE SR-3 H } Z Z F _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _� —� HOc� Z a t, a4 o WIH ~ N O >- Io c) Z u W I N W W 833W HOYT 834W 200 N Cn PLACE PARCEL ID M CO co I PARCEL ID 08-35-406-018-0000 Z CO 08 35 406 019 0000 co co (0 &k : IMEMEINIMINERM I; o o CO 2 ! co w ▪ 0 0) i c co L, — — — — `1 ”— " - - • Q) .� 173.048 .� v E 0 CZ c 0 A, w W v L a 2 o e E 0 v / t6 o a a EXISTING LOT LINE BETWEEN ° 0 PARCEL ID 08-35-406-018-0000 AND PARCEL ID 08-35-406-019-0000 <h SN \. EXISTING ZONING 1/ 16" = 1' 0" Nw-1 0 J 'Ft E R N W LL a NI a 1,2 o-13 '� c m N 17 >a.(/) i w p OT B n W } L g2 PARCEL ID 08-35-406-019-0000 IN ZONE PARCEL ID 08-35-406-018-0000 IN ZONE o u N p R-1-5000(TO BE REZONED INTO SR3) R-1-7000(TO MAINTAIN EXISTING ZONING) W 2 _� Z o Q �o c z a C o� W cn R -- Q a O PARCEL ID 08-35-406-022-0000 IN ZONE p SR-3(TO BE PURCHASED AND 74.988 173.032 z , z 2 MAINTAIN SR-3 ZONE) rn 112.057 w S co o 0 o 143.002 CO a p — — — — — — — — — — — — _... O 0 N 0 _/ � N O Q o o F ,_ 66 0_ 833W HOYT I o z z o 0 PLACE zo " c K E U m O I1 L p p Z 834W 200 N CO .,-LL ..., — P. o v ...... . o I I Na 0 co Z 0 LT_ j CC d o. W o 60. 378 _ 112.071 o I 173.048 o rn o — — — — — — — — — — — — - 157.026 0 N C c, 8 9 PROPOSED LOT LINE v a BETWEEN PARCEL IN ZONE R-1-700 y AND PARCEL IN ZONE AND SR-3 a 0 a M a W N 4 (0 r s — o SHEET 2 0 PROPOSED ZONING A-001 z 1/ 16" = 1' 0" W J LL .) z ,/ /�Ir i of`mlWi wlr�' u O�= 6A/`�� '�ag I -, 6� IIP t#11 I1, r 1 {&n.ah3 F .I� �'II � �' _. �I i l h!'� ,�; ' NOTE:THIS MAP IS COPIED FROM SLC ZONING MAP n mui= m 900 WEST `^:u r VA tik -,Q- x J II IPROJECT LOCATION w a Z O ;,pri(d17/7 _ Hyo z -, o S L ON Z J T W Z W W Q •I J _ J. , Y LL J M /�r rr ,.15= O. L L .{JI: g min ' En X := /A ., 1 / f� 7_ - L LI 1 rc H I1 F. -':<:ki zz X T o CVet CO ,_ y b O 71 :; y m :g e 900 WEST - - w';',. ler"ro-, '0) - 4 AP j. P 0, IJ !T St e vl N IJ I.' / , NI .4 w %% :: , Legend ° r , Zoning d 0 R-1-5000:Single Family Residential44 s li ,, nag 0 R-1-7000:Single Family Residential r µ 8°'' 4 . RMF-35:Multifamily Residential i r //14: v. - _ 4 J ril / [� SR-1:Special Development Pattern Residential ©�� H• Irk litiP" ❑ SR-1A:Special Development Pattern Residential ,y_ 0/0 SR-3:Special Development Pattern Residential Z riff N TSA-UC T Urban Center Transit Station 0 ,�/ A ri mI NJ ,; , TSA-UN-C:Urban Neighborhood Transit Station ,� :, c m , ., 111C. I NTSA-UN-T:Urban Neighborhood Transit Station SHEET o � A-101A ., / 1 Z r O F- (7 o' >(o(_ A �W Z CCI 7Q1- J 1nJ12 a v)a0 0 40o U F N Z = W W(N LL Z W W (4LU 5a J M W coco Z coD 3 = 1 m' --I -I 3'6'FENCE II II ,n G_ 13 I a W 1 W \ 36"FENCE 33"FENCE 1-, _—" N Z m mD c N 136 \ '. : 1� N. o 0 o a I \ e .. ,.! I I 6 _..SII SCARE a 2CAR — I 11 Pi1 Z ry �::` 1 .'I. ARAGE GARAGE GARAGE I l m 1,^ :;i SINGLE SINGLE SINGLE SINGLE 1 m 13'X23' 13X23 — " h 212 06 SF I D.I = CAR CAR a� CAR CAR ..F= 216 N 833 W 2606 SF GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE ..N 2718 SF I +�' 13'X23' 13'X23' 13X23' 13X23' 212 N 833 W I - C� 1. `� 234 N833W 230N 833W 216N 833W 2517 SF -" ,®��x 1.' 25 2177 SF 2177 SF _ J ` E - ? i / 'I '' I ip p .,,,„ i ® a N. , 1.\. \ 7 ri 1 1 ' s ! I n y 1 .,I... I., i I c y .. LLs 1Vdnb I I a a ,, EXISTING 32 FENCE • I I III 1 o PROPOSED FENCING PLAN 1/16"=1'0" LEGEND 6'0"FT TALL FENCE —x—x— 3'6"FT TALL FENCE —x— — 2 NOTE:ALL FENCES ARE 6 FT UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SHEET o Q ------_ A-004 2 ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE •�� co SITUATE IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, SALT LAKE BASE I,SATTAR N.TABRIZ A PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR HOLDING LICENSE NUMBER 155100,IN p, — & MERIDIAN. LOCATED WITHIN BLOCK 70, PLAT 'C' SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY. ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF UTAH HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE MADE A a pa 1 SURVEY OF THE HEREON DESCRIBED TRACT OF LAND AND THIS PLAT IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE c4 a' 834 WEST 200 NORTH, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84101 REPRESENTATION OF SAID SURVEY. m w m Ej 3 0LT_ 0 0 ����. Q, 0 - o Q?�P\ 0 / O' SATTAR N.TABRIZ,PLS. UTAH LICENSE NO.:155100 a DATE: N E. ,, HEREIN. Z x No a � FOUND BRASS MONUMENT p a_'' AT THE INTERSECTION OF 300 NORTH FOUND BRASS MONUMENT SURVEYOR'S NARRATIVE • w o &900 WEST STREETS AT THE INTERSECTION OF 300 NORTH&800 WEST STREETS ��� �� w H _ - _ - - - _ - - 300 NORTH STREET THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF THE PROPERTY Q ,LJ PUBLIC STREET _\\ - OWNER FOR THE PURPOSE OF RETRACING THE BOUNDS OF THE E. o� ( ) PROPERTY AS SHOWN HEREON. H �� -o( N89°57'30"E 792.35' (M) ( w o a. 0. GENERAL NOTES a z 68_00 I 64.00' a 1. NO TITLE COMMITMENT WAS SUPPLIED TO THE SURVEYOR AT THE 3 TIME OF THE SURVEY. CG o� 2. THIS MAP IN NOT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP. z °Z w 3. THIS MAP MAKES NO ASSUMPTIONS AS TO ANY UNWRITTEN RIGHTS J 0 CO o THAT MAY EXIST BY AND BETWEEN THE ADJOINING LAND OWNERS. o I 1 LOT 41 1 I I I 4. COURSES AND DISTANCES SHOWN ON THIS MAP ARE MEASURED LOT 7 PLAT 8 BLOC 70 DIMENSIONS TAKEN FROM ACTUAL FIELD MEASUREMENTS,UNLESS , PLAT C", IK I I BLOCK 70, PLAT "C",PLAT 8 CONTAINED WITHIN PARENTHESIS INDICATING A RECORD COURSE SALT LAKE CIT SURVEY I I SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY I OR DISTANCE.RECORD INFORMATION IS TAKEN FROM MAPS, \ —x —x—x —`—` —x—x —x— _ PLATS,DEEDS OF RECORD,OR OTHER SOURCES OF RECORD INFORMATION. - 6W 6W 6W .w 6W 6W "°� 6W fiW 6W oHOYT PLACE n - Iv- - - I �' LEGAL DESCRIPTION o _1I CHAINLINK ��• •.• 1-� x % "FENCE x— I TAX ID:08-35-406-018(ENTRY 6423197) -� o z za \ N 89°58'09"E 70.70' -- o - / I _ _- - - - -- _ / BEGINNING AT A POINT 296.7 FEET WEST FROM THE SOUTHEAST [� o INORTHEAST CORNER CORNER OF LOT 1,BLOCK 70,PLAT"C",SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY,AND L�j w NORTHWEST CORNER T-POST / W _ Q — I- — -1 (� 1 ( 1 LOT 8,BLOCK 70 RUNNING THENCE WEST 67.95 FEET; THENCE NORTH 173.0 FEET; > W IL( " LOT 3,BLOCK 70 w C \ I THENCE EAST 67.95 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 173.0 FEET TO THE POINT p4 z z Hi J("�' ` -J I -T-POST `_ _ I I OF BEGINNING. a T-POST HARVEY WILSON �L, U—x —_ TAX ID 08-35-406-008 \ I TAX ID:08-35-406-019(ENTRY 6091829) W Q o N m ENTRY 10623035 TPOST 795 WASATCH FOUND HUB \ 1 MICHAE PNIELSEN I TAX 0sR35 002 - BEGINNING AT A POINT 296.7 FEET WEST AND 173.0 FEET NORTH E 1 W p .c PROPERTIES,LLC STEVEN WALKER ARAM NASA WITH LATHE TAX ENTR 60-ao6-ot9 TAX 08-35-406-022 ENTRY 12828512 FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1,BLOCK 70,PLAT"C",SALT E-� a J "PROP AT ALLr' LLI - FLaRVEY& ENTR 6o918z9 _ LAKE CITY SURVEY; AND RUNNING THENCE WEST 67.95 FEET; W TAX ID 08-35-406-020 TAX ID 08-35-406A21 LEOLA WI SON ENTRY I1934317 `r Q ENTRY 11597969 ENTRY 10772332 AMBER SUE MASON FAMILY TRUST P 7 Q a I - THENCE NORTH 157.0 FEET; THENCE EAST 67.95 FEET; THENCE Z n , c I TAX ID08-35-406-006 TAX ID 08-35-406-007 I I SOUTH 157.0 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Q -p ENTRY 12664226 I ENTRY 10623034 1 0� ,�G` 'S '•1/4 a I- I- CO I T-POST I CHAINLINK L y P l AS SURVEYED: V] r , o co ul ( - o FENCE 4 G� FZ1 I W T-POST T-POST II////// �0�ti BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF 200 NORTH STREET W o w I l0 1 ` Ix 0G ti P RIGHT OF WAY LINE,SAID POINT BEING 286.99 FEET SOUTH 89°58'09" a p p 1 ` V. Si� I WEST FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1,BLOCK 70,PLAT"C", (~ z I �� I I I- � r--- 1\ II P SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY;AND RUNNING THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH a Ix w = o' \ ti o I II" $ Er.F RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 89°58'09"WEST 70.70 FEET TO A FENCE Q 0 I— _ G.4 w co• t'j ��� ___ — JI 1� �1 I I —x o H w p LINE THENCE NORTH 0°35'35"EAST 173.05 FEET ALONG SAID FENCE Q- M z_ I- ce „C, z C4 c\i LINE, AND THE PROJECTION THEREOF. THENCE SOUTH 89°58'09" 0 WEST 1.88 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0°01'42" WEST 157.03 FEET TO A co Cw z a y E. L P `�� CANOPY j 0ITREE - - C/i p POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF HOYT PLACE RIGHT OF WAY;THENCEQCO G Z CHAINLINK I 11 W,- U CO U `�ti CANOPY a NORTH 89°58'09" EAST 70.70 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE; I i+ FENCE � �J p :a ' O� aV - x x—x // JoxNGsroRRs CO O THENCE SOUTH 0°01'42"EAST 157.03 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 89°58'09" J x /� TAX ID 08-35-426-016 0 a 0t WEST 0.85 FEET TO A FENCE LINE; THENCE SOUTH 0°18'37" EAST CO ip \ 1 } FOUND BAR AND CAP ENTRY 8724575 R o a PS I 1 "coRNERsroNE LAND 173.03 FEET ALONG SAID FENCE LINE,AND PROJECTION THEREOF TO °'`-' S SURVEY 7600" °O THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 00 (� N 89°58'09"E 70.70' � / _ 00 \ I ��/ 1=. CONTAINS:23,098 SQUARE FEET OR 0.53 ACRES I I N 89°58'09"E I NORTHWEST CORNER \ N 89°58'09"E `� 0.85' I '� DEAN A TRUJILLO NORTHEAST CORNER ... MAP LEGEND •• LOT 2,BLOCK 70 1.88' �♦1 0 LOT 1,BLOCK 70 RODNEY SABINO I- a I' , TAX ID 08-35-426-021 TAX ID 08-35-406-012 SHED ENTRY 12591226 BOUNDARY LINE ENTRY 10181161 - ° x— = CENTERLINE - WOOD SARA PARKER FENCE SHED 960 W,LC RIGHT OF WAY — ICAXID08-35-406-015 \ ' TAX ID 08-35-406-023 I- LOT LINE p ENTRY 11400559 \ MICHAEL P NIELSEN, ' ENTRY 128662154 �__ 2 TAX rocsas-ao6-ot8 DEED LINE ENTRY 6423197 THOMAS E.DEVROOM RADIAL LINE ARMANDO MIRANDA \ FENCE CHAINLINK TAX A E.DEVRO 19 TAX roos-3s- ALFONsouLmARRI o PS% ENTRY815993s FENCE LINE(CHAINLINK) x x x 406-013 TAX ID 08-35-406-014 ENTRY/1674110 ENTRY 12314859 [ _ 4� CONCRETE °� MIKE OR1T-INER .�\ „C �� w� TAX ID 08-35-426-003 - Q o ASPHALT ENTRY 12828512 Q' M CONC \ F- 4y 1� OVERHEAD POWER LINE — — — — "� z PAD �, yO LP�� G COMMUNICATION LINE COMM '' S z z' NATURAL GAS LINE G. 4S � `( EX S, MATTHEW C BUNDERSON WATER LINE 02W BLDG - P TAX ID08-35-426-020 5' CUONG TAT NGUYEN DAVID EYER DAVIS PETER LASUO �,� ,,C"'.\' ENTRY 12786049 SEWER LINE ..ss W TAX IDOS-35-406-009 TAX IDo8-35-ao6-o10 TAXIDo8-35-ao6-o11 MONUMENT ENTRY 12445169 ENTRY 12327111 ENTRY 11691901 4'S.,�l,S' / o— = / w rO, ti WOOD I-_ LEAD PLUG p a FENCE CHAINLINK I ti0 P I / `\(FENCE I BOUNDARY CORNER 0 POWER POLE gyp., P POR H— ° LIGHT POLE * I S CHAINLINK CHAINLINK 7 WALK L. FIRE HYDRANT FENCE FENCE SOUTHEAST CORNER LOT 1,BLOCK 70 i? 49.50'DEED 41.25'DEED 41.25'DEED I 40.00'DEED I 40.85'DEED 37.50'DEED 45.00'DEED ' 48.30'DEED 47.00'DEED 191.40'DEED 'W _____ 49.50'OCC 44.50'OCC 39.30'OCC I 38.60'oCC I 42.73'occ 40.40'0CC 47.55'occ N 89°58'09"E 70.70' 52.00'OCC 46.13'OCC I 192.78'OCC � TI -- _ WATER VALVE wDM4 0 0 I8.00' —x—x—x� � � s �\ —x —x— o —x —x—x —x"Jo 64.00' —� I WATER METER U v° °w o - IDEWALK,,- `GATE ��CHAINLINK o 6' — -17 I, U a — FENCE SEWER CLEANOUT CO 3 0 o _� I DRIVEWAY GAS METER 3 3 I ass— ass ass I ass ass ass ass l L. POWER METER p r,a 3 c9 A 2,1' �,zW 12W 12W a2W a2W a2W a2W ,a.W I -azW ��zw �� 12W izx 12W 12W 12W 12W azw ,xW o' o'co �O .o N O,0 N co,— 200 NORTH STREET 1 . ,T T (PUBLIC STREET) �, nr ,\ v v bow , N89°58'09"W 792.31' (M) W����E W Faa. 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - ��`' �� r "w ° ce x MONUMENT(NOT FOUND) 1- CALCULATED POSITION FOUND BRASS MONUMENT S r� AT THE INTERSECTION OF 200 NORTH n _ &800 WEST STREETS 30 0 30 60 90 a N89°58'09"E 791.82' (M) Di�rO�%/�00%/O/%/O%/O/%///%/O//O%%i ] n ( "' n n .7 zw Mr oaoioaaiiioaii,.�ioaoioaaoioaoi oi FOUND BRASS MONUMENT Scale 1"=30' <. AT THE INTERSECTION OF 200 NORTH&1000 WEST STREETS \ 1 ALTA/NSPS LAND TITLE SURVEY 4•4.• SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE ��� 00 SITUATE IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 35, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, SALT LAKE BASE °' I & MERIDIAN. LOCATED WITHIN BLOCK 70, PLAT 'C' SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY. ACCORDANCE WIAR N. HTHEZ A OLAWSOFNHEAL LSTATEOD RFUTAHHEVEYOR OREDYCERTIFYTHAING LICENSE T,IIHAVEMADEA g BER 155100,IN 2 I I 834 WEST 200 NORTH, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84101 SURVEY OF THE HEREON DESCRIBED TRACT OF LAND AND THIS PLAT ISATRUEANDACCURATE Li REPRESENTATION OF SAID SURVEY. co w co a N o a w a OJ U a W_ W L_ I V J SATTAR N.TABRIZ,PLS. UTAH LICENSE NO.:155100 .U'aa DATE: ' HEREIN. z "L � Ne a FOUND BRASS MONUMENT oa F AT THE INTERSECTION OF 300 NORTH FOUND BRASS MONUMENT ••�• SURVEYOR'S NARRATIVE ••• N L &900 WEST STREETS AT THE INTERSECTION OF 300 NORTH&800 WEST STREETS w 300 NORTH STREET THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF THE PROPERTY Ca - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N - OWNER FOR THE PURPOSE OF RETRACING THE BOUNDS OF THE (PUBLIC STREET) ( PROPERTY AS SHOWN HEREON. w ,Lt, �� N89°57'30"E 792.35' (M) I NI I� H6 GENERAL NOTES 2 �' N •• x w x 68_00 I 64.00' 6 1. NO TITLE COMMITMENT WAS SUPPLIED TO THE SURVEYOR AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY. °� ✓ 2. THIS MAP IN NOT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP. z U z u z 3. THIS MAP MAKES NO ASSUMPTIONS AS TO ANY UNWRITTEN RIGHTS w a m o THAT MAY EXIST BY AND BETWEEN THE ADJOINING LAND OWNERS. 0 o L 0 T 4 1 I I 11 I LOT 7 4. COURSES AND DISTANCES SHOWN ON THIS MAP ARE MEASURED BLOC ( 70, P L A T T",PLAT 8 DIMENSIONS TAKEN FROM ACTUAL FIELD MEASUREMENTS,UNLESS SALT ,LAKE C I T I SURVEY I I BLOCK 70, PLAT "C",PLAT 8 CONTAINED WITHIN PARENTHESIS INDICATING A RECORD COURSE \ _x_x _x_ I I _SALT LAKE xCITY SURVEY - OR DISTANCE.RECORD INFORMATION IS TAKEN FROM MAPS, - - �� _ PLATS,DEEDS OF RECORD,OR OTHER SOURCES OF RECORD INFORMATION. - - - - cas 6W 6W 6W sw 6W 6W -'R� 6W —6W 6W L. •• oHOYT PLACE L - I1 - LEGAL DESCRIPTION U o J I CHAINLINK • • _ I-4 _- FENCE TAX ID:08-35-406-018(ENTRY 6423197) a ^ z z \ N 89°58'09"E 68.05' / o z _ - _ -_ 7 J7 BEGINNING AT A POINT 296.7 FEET WEST FROM THE SOUTHEAST [� NORTHWEST CORNER T-POST - / - NORTHEAST CORNER" CORNER OF LOT 1,BLOCK 70,PLAT"C",SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY,AND W w \ LOT 8,BLOCK 70 W = o) LOT 3,BLOCK 70 w __ I I RUNNING THENCE WEST 67.95 FEET; THENCE NORTH 173.0 FEET; W 8w-- - - 1 I THENCE EAST 67.95 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 173.0 FEET TO THE POINT �i 6 kS - - � ) HARVEY WII SON El_r-Post `-I OF BEGINNING. cn I . } U N x x—x T-POST TAX ID 08-35-406-008 ~ \ I I TAX ID:08-35-406-019(ENTRY 6091829) W Q C w m ENTRY 10623035 I I a I� W w W T-POST I 795 WASATCH FOUND HUB I I MICHAE PNIELSEN I TAX IDI _ BEGINNING AT A POINT 296.7 FEET WEST AND 173.0 FEET NORTH H W o PROPERTIES,LLC WITH LATHE TAX ID0:-35406-019 ENTRY 12828512 FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1,BLOCK 70,PLAT"C",SALT H a CL J STEVEN WALKER ARAM NASA TAXIDOS-35-406-022 "PROP AT ALL Y" - HARVEY ENTR 6091829 $ W W TAXID08-35-406-020 TAXIDOS-35406-021 ENTRY Ll934317 LAKE CITY SURVEY; AND RUNNING THENCE WEST 67.95 FEET; W I ENTRY 11597969 ENTRY 10772332 LEOLA WII.SON `� _ Q AMBER SUE MASON FAMILY TRUST `; THENCE NORTH 157.0 FEET; THENCE EAST 67.95 FEET; THENCE Z = A < us I TAX ID 08-35406-006 ITAXID08-35-406-007 I I $ �♦ I SOUTH 157.0 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 'Z 0 ENTRY 12664226 ENTRY 10623034 • I I I" ,'G' V I-1 = N T-POST LO A� $ AS SURVEYED: z�_ 1-..„ I CHAINLINKy Ey cL Q f FENCE 4 Gl cP.A z w T-POST T-POST II 10 � BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF 200 NORTH STREET W z w I I I Ix OG ti P RIGHT OF WAY LINE,SAID POINT BEING 286.99 FEET SOUTH 89°58'09" a p z $ I 1 I I - I y y'S I WEST FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1,BLOCK 70,PLAT"C", E NI .S I i I I Q SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY;AND RUNNING THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH W L e' �`t r IIx S w F RIGHT OF WAY LINE SOUTH 89°58'09"WEST 70.70 FEET TO A FENCE 0 0 _ w E • of 4 I I \ _ c z w p LINE THENCE NORTH 0°35'35"EAST 173.05 FEET ALONG SAID FENCE 0.1 z_ 1- H a y0��R°e C�� ____-J i I i II E C4 c� LINE, AND THE PROJECTION THEREOF. THENCE SOUTH 89°58'09" o VD WEST 1.88 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0°01'42" WEST 157.03 FEET TO A � LU co 0 z L CANOPY I TREE -_ Lfl c� POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF HOYT PLACE RIGHT OF WAY;THENCE a E 1L3, - G� TREE I CHAINLINK I 11 I" w�. U �ti FENCE CANOPY a I NORTH 89°58'09"EAST 70.70 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE; I� O ,' •• OG yP ------- —x x I \ JOHN G STORRS c THENCE SOUTH 0°01'42"EAST 157.03 FEET;THENCE SOUTH 89°58'09" ai = "v `„ .(I -1 '—Ix if— TAX ID 08-35-426-016 o a Nt WEST 0.85 FEET TO A FENCE LINE; THENCE SOUTH 0°18'37" EAST O.7 b 47 y'1 I I FOUND BAR AND CAP ENTRY 8724575 m` d' o a - � \ "CORNERSTONE LAND - 173.03 FEET ALONG SAID FENCE LINE,AND PROJECTION THEREOF TO o s I I SURVEY 7600" °O THE POINT OF BEGINNING. I 00 A N 89°58'09"E 77.83' j o0 \ J�IT I �/ k I CONTAINS:23,098 SQUARE FEET OR 0.53 ACRES I \\\ L I 11/ d NORTHWEST CORNER \ N89°58'09"E I NORTHEAST CORNER" �� MAP LEGEND ••• LOT 2,BLOCK 70 9.01' r O DEAN A TRUJII,LO LOT I,BLOCK 70 RODNEY SABINO d A I x TAX ID 08-35-426-021 —-- --— TAX ID08-35-406-012 SHED •�, - ENTRY 12591226 BOUNDARY LINE ENTRY 10181161 --*"""'` -rarsM / x- -car'=I CENTERLINE — — ON FENCE A RIGHT OF WAY SARA PARKER SHED 960 W,LC - TAX ID 08-35-406-015 \ TAX ID 08-35406-023 1- - LOT LINE zp ENTRY 11400559 \ MICHAEL P NIELSEN, ENTRY 128662154 �_ EA — _ TAX IDC8-3 5 406-01 8 DEED LINE ENTR CHAINLINK ARMANDO MIRANDA \ , - FENCE THOMAS E.DEVROOM RADIAL LINE TAX ID08-35- ALFONSOULIBARRI o OI $ TAXID08-35-a26-019 FENCE LINE(CHAINLINK) x x x 406-013 TAX ID 08-35406-014 • P� ENTRY 8159935 ENTRY 11674110 ENTRY 12314859 I ! �� �� I CONCRETE z\ r MIKE ORTHNER - _ ASPHALT ,S 1 G �� W \ TAX ID 08-35426-003 " C ENTRY 12828512 M CONC NC-iAD \ `-- L 'C OVERHEAD POWER LINE - - - °H 0 G`��P�� G� COMMUNICATION LINE 5 S b z z 0 y NATURAL GAS LINE - GAS I "?-\'' 't EX • �� y'S MATTHEW C BUNDERSON x I WATER LINE x.W DEED LINE BLDG Q' TAX ID 08-35-426-020 CUONG TAT NGUYEN DAVID EYER DAVIS PETERLASUO 'L ,.G' ,,``� DEED LINE SMI TAX ID 08-35-406-009 TAX ID08-35406A10 TAX ID 08-35-406-011 0� ' $v t �// ENTRY 12786049 SEWER LINE ..ss ENTRY 12445169 ENTRY 12327111 ENTRY 11691901 4' �,�1 x �� f ��DEED LINE 10'WIDE RIGHT MONUMENT '10, ti WOOD / �OFWAY LEAD PLUG 0 CtL PS� FENCE 1/ \ CHAINLINK V IY x a I 0 C S, I FENCE I BOUNDARY CORNER 0 TIN}Pv POR H POWER POLE 21, $ CHAINLINK CHAINLINK CONC CONCRETE 1. LIGHT POLE ;} Z CHAINLINK CHAINLINK I CHAINLINK FENCE FENCE WALK CHAINLINK CHAINLINK FENCE CURB SOUTHEAST CORNER FENCE FENCE FENCE FIRE HYDRANT / FENCE FENCE I� I LOT 1,BLOCK 70 49.50'DEED ! 41.25'DEED 41.25'DEED 40.00'DEED 1 40.85'DEED (37.50'DEED 45.00'DEED H 48.30'DEED 47.00'DEED 191.40'DEED gi ao.aa OCC a7ss OCC N 89°58'09"E 70.70' sz.00'OCC 46.13'OCC 9z.78'OCC _ WATER VALVE D4 -S o g \_______ 49.50'OCC 44.50'OCC 39.30'OCC 38.60'OCC 42.73'OCC —— p 68.00' �x—x—x - -7 679s'DEEIi x�9\ _x__x x- 0 -x—x—x—x x—x x—x10 64.00' -� I WATER METER U p M J 6NM SIDEWALK °`GATE ��CHAINLINK 0 o t.d ,c N Z °, O c - °� °As — FENCE SEWER CLEANOUT co 0O -3 O N T CHAINLINK I ,..1,,,---DRIVEWAY GAS METER s `-' •3 rh a 3 `./ t 3 FENCE `� I ess-L as as I _ as 8SS 8SS 8SS POWER METER 0 M 1 3 W �zw ¢w ¢w izw ¢w �zw �zw —i 17W ¢w @w izw �zw �zw �zw izw �zw N ��z I �:. . . rn • `n •S",-' °'oD o 00 N 'a a, 3T 200 NORTH STREET 4 0 ,_, S cc (PUBLIC STREET) a n bA w n N89°58'09"W 792.31' (M) W4A1 o o W czt z MONUMENT(NOT FOUND) ° CALCULATED POSITION FOUND BRASS MONUMENT S r� a. AT THE INTERSECTION OF 200 NORTH o - , .. _ . . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . u . • .. - _ _ . _ m . . &800 WEST STREETS 30 0 30 60 90 N89°58'09"E 791.82' (M) Th ( � M','''����������������� FOUND BRASS MONUMENT Scale 1"=30' o AT THE INTERSECTION OF 200 � \ NORTH&1000 WEST STREETS 1 O � 1— > ci __ N Z CI 111 E=IaiQ � cna � Z �J�� W # : Z w _____:___ _________ ________ _LT_____-_______, _______ -5__-_7------ --------------I'--------- -------------- ------:_-_=__.. _ ___—:_----_ _mu Lct 0 a LI_ , _,.----r---__-_-Tpx=.7,-......:. I— (,)'- 5 _■ W� I II ! ! ! ,,_*2 .... ___ .. , ___ . ._ co 16 . , . . . . _ . -7r Q.,. F u_ mo w W W r � ,i- t co a .E o INDIVIDUAL FRONT AXON INDIVIDUAL BACK AXON o co a oo M . 111, UI p LW w W enUi w O a¢ W O H al 0 I ? 3 o w N o_ Q zii I 4 3 Z U Z I— ~• - U ` 7 a. Qa�f ::: pN , ,, o N �. er ,'‘ 4 • thils. Q I , ION no 0 o w o Ed .._..._ o = milig „.. _:-...„_.__ II N pi,- ...._ - ji to .Mk v rn . "s • moo •.i - i L..:..w'' O 10 • ro 441.mil W a •ram • Y O ' x CO CO CO o SHEET 2 0- CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. ITS FREE& • ITS THE LAW z • 1-800-662-4111 NORTHWEST VIEW A-901 w 208-2100 1 O 1- . ,i / lifi 41>> _ 0 H = CI N Z . _ W W _ Z W1111111rioilli__ - WCO Cn lositi wcccoo �„ co Z o0 co o cn E) II ,c CX I rII II' m o co Z c c co • LLI a r au) Zs 2 o • o c co cn m o ET_ o_ co M NORTHEAST VIEW e. F „, W C U0. a ' w a ��` > al O ti v cr n a. T 7 011111. rm. I • - { .4/414 CV2 Nd I — .. o G 1-Z Illi • Q Q co o ST ��\ .; r , Z ZWoo o �� ®a •• i oov illi Irilli ISA ii ' m e - • WI cn .:,,.,. . .., • 1 4 . 5 4:—. --.- ,,,,,,,, coo N U g` N m J a )- O x M M N 0 o SHEET 2 O CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. ITS FREE& w ITS THE LAW Z 1-800-662-4111 SOUTHWEST VIEW A-902 w 208-2100 108..51-13200 SOUTH _ LL \• msn O � 1— co >_ c—1 Z coZ " w Ce a0 z � w . . WEz Q Q � a 0 1— = N Z fq • H ^ w J zw CO � w• � CO V •• t. .' Y',y.. ' �.. Z co m II m I 1111 MI I liaMMIIIR1oo - , v • 0 co • .• a _ ..... - ` " ��4'4'M1 I YI'I '1��,�'41'N';,7(.��r'ti r4'.,. Jy4.h 'rho tip. ,...4.',,y, p j : 4 a 0 0 M N`_/ . WEST VIEW F- W C Ui a i r ,, O w> w `❑' K iz it A R2 WK U Q S Na u Q m Q FN 3z oaZ_O wU ❑ O' NO /a, a,NZ ONQ 0 0 I-WHa Q Q co OclH r wJ ..zz z ❑ ❑a 7 Fi o ❑ =v ` /0aEd a F 8 3 v N a)C 1 (n z O N (n Ti, W cC U N U 3 N L X W c m .y N 0 a I- O x co co co N _ f6 o SHEET 2 O CALL BEFORE YOU DIG. ITS FREE& Cii ITS THE LAW A-903 z 1-800-662-4111 W 208-2100 J ATTACHMENT C — PROPERTY AND VICINITY PHOTOS ;.iii,.,....„,.. ,_,iii._:.',.__,..,.,is, vi..,,k ,,_,..:,,, .)::,....r...s,:,.. t� ; '7s fir �• — • it '' ' if / ' ° ;`..1:a: Y �� , �. .� :1,J -.. ,.! \-. - -- \ i � �. , _ \ . \ get,d C tilii ri I _ �' i : . - _ 171 Looking North Towards 834 W 200 N f1,4, tR,t , l0 •t � 91 ga :.,,,,, iJa _ �'f _ 4f� ' ' t , .. Looking South Towards 833 W Hoyt Place 11 ATTACHMENT D — FUTURE LAND USE MAPS 80e) ptx3vm 4-1 a J-NE s Parcels in red represent the Core Area, ® J where an intense level of transit- oriented zoning is appropriate. - / 441 oci Parcels in yelloware part the • / 400 nom TraranssitionallArea. . These areas are appropriate for mixed use and less intensive transit-oriented zoning. Parcels in blue are part of Stable Areas, areas where little change is expected or Madill 40L`flD6© N00 West Station desired or where the current zoning I allows for the desired future land uses and intensities. ♦ ♦ D004©TIM a: ♦ ♦ / II• poa©on MO'% —, ao®©omsrn a d 4 (1_t 02 J7,1- North Temple Boulevard Plan Future Land Use Map 12 -14 till 11 Northwest Community Future Land Use Plan 1 I low Density Residential jr7�fi Business/Commercial / ��� -- -- --i I l Medium Density Residential I Industrial / I[ r High Density Residential I f Airport Master Plan NEI Puhlic/Semi-public 1 Agricultural Parks/Open Space NM Boundary i 1 ,I n IIni Industrial,Recreational.al.Open Space j. / . fi / Future land use for this area is discussed - - and limited Residentia l al use.A detailed in the Jordan Riser.Sirp,rt Master Plan. d- -Lpmenc pl m has yet to be created ILIIL i11 'l ' -- — — _ i.1. I f [ g - • ' t i_b f r� Z t1r1wt rH a I �- ( ,�7 C\J i It ilf' wili \ �® a I SALT ANE CITY iti 1_i.. __ i— INTERNAA.pN4 `�• 21. 8 1 °I r-- �2 \ '• Fr= mir i- i r .. ..._.,) - 5-, 5 : f . -- 1-1 "----1 '"4411- VII gAIRPORT LL ��� 140, Fli,. , PI I 1 ,—.--.— 3i' "'h—illillt le \V\ .11 Raiff III till 'oil goi. -- = :� % - -+mil.Z1 Iw1 w iIii .rTTI*J'ifilt 1 Northwest Community Plan Future Land Use Map 13 ATTACHMENT E - R-1-7,000 ZONING STANDARDS 21A.24.060: R 1/7,000 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement:The purpose of the R-1/7,00o Single-Family Residential District is to provide for conventional single-family residential neighborhoods with lots not less than seven thousand(7,000)square feet in size.This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan.Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood.The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play,promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. B. Uses:Uses in the R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District,as specified in section 21A.33.020,"Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts",of this title,are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this chapter and this section. C. Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width:The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district are as follows: Land Use Minimum Lot Minimum Lot Area Width Municipal service uses,including City utility uses No minimum No minimum and police and fire stations Natural open space and conservation areas,public No minimum No minimum and private Places of worship less than 4 acres in size 12,000 square 8o feet feet Public pedestrian pathways,trails and greenways No minimum No minimum Public/private utility transmission wires,lines, No minimum No minimum pipes and poles Single-family detached dwellings 7,000 square feet 5o feet Utility substations and buildings 7,000 square feet 5o feet Other permitted or conditional uses as listed in 7,000 square feet 50 feet section 21A.33.020 of this title D. Maximum Building Height: 1. The maximum height of buildings with pitched roofs shall be: a. Twenty eight feet(28')measured to the ridge of the roof;or b. The average height of other principal buildings on the block face. 2. The maximum height of a flat roof building shall be twenty feet(20'). 3. Maximum exterior wall height adjacent to interior side yards shall be twenty feet(20') for exterior walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required yard. Exterior wall height may increase one foot(1')(or fraction thereof)in height for each foot(or fraction thereof)of increased setback beyond the minimum required interior side yard.If an exterior wall is approved with a reduced setback through a special exception,variance or other process,the maximum allowable exterior wall height decreases by one foot(1')(or fraction thereof)for each foot(or fraction thereof)that the wall is located closer to the property line than the required side yard setback. 14 a. Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes,the downhill exterior wall height maybe increased by one-half foot(0.5')for each one foot(1')difference between the elevation of the average grades on the uphill and downhill faces of the building. b. Exceptions: (1) Gable Walls:Walls at the end of a pitched roof may extend to a height necessary to support the roof structure except that the height of the top of the widest portion of the gable wall must conform to the maximum wall height limitation described in this section. (2) Dormer Walls:Dormer walls are exempt from the maximum exterior wall height if: (A) The width of a dormer is ten feet(io')or less;and (B) The total combined width of dormers is less than or equal to fifty percent(5o%) of the length of the building facade facing the interior side yard; and (C) Dormers are spaced at least eighteen inches(18")apart. 4. Building height for initial construction of a building shall be measured as the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the established grade at any given point of building coverage.Building height for any subsequent structural modification or addition to a building shall be measured from finished grade existing at the time a building permit is requested.Building height for the R-1 districts,R-2 District and SR districts is defined and illustrated in chapter 21A.62 of this title. 5. Where buildings are stepped to accommodate the slope of terrain,each step shall have a horizontal dimension of at least twelve feet(12'). 6. a.For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District,additional building height maybe granted as a special exception by the Planning Commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face.The Planning Commission will approve,approve with conditions,or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. b. Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard:The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face.Where there are no existing buildings within the block face,the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20').Where the minimum front yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat,the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail.For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995,the required front yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. 2. Corner Side Yard:The minimum depth of the corner side yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the existing buildings on the block face.Where there are no other existing buildings on the block face,the minimum depth shall be twenty feet(20').Where the minimum corner side yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Corner lots:Six feet(6'). b. Interior lots:Six feet(6')on one side and ten feet(10')on the other. 4. Rear Yard:Twenty five feet(25'). 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards:Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020,table 21A.36.o2oB of this title. F. Maximum Building Coverage:The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed forty percent(40%)of the lot area. 15 G. Maximum Lot Size:With the exception of lots created by a subdivision or subdivision amendment recorded in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder,the maximum size of a new lot shall not exceed ten thousand five hundred(io,5oo)square feet.Lots in excess of the maximum lot size may be created through the subdivision process subject to the following standards: i. The size of the new lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; 2. The configuration of the lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face;and 3. The relationship of the lot width to the lot depth is compatible with other lots on the same block face. H. Standards For Attached Garages: 1. Width Of An Attached Garage:The width of an attached garage facing the street may not exceed fifty percent(50%)of the width of the front facade of the house.The width of the garage is equal to the width of the garage door,or in the case of multiple garage doors,the sum of the widths of each garage door plus the width of any intervening wall elements between garage doors. 2. Located Behind Or In Line With The Front Line Of The Building:No attached garage shall be constructed forward of the"front line of the building"(as defined in section 21A.62.o40 of this title),unless: a. A new garage is constructed to replace an existing garage that is forward of the "front line of the building".In this case,the new garage shall be constructed in the same location with the same dimensions as the garage being replaced; b. At least sixty percent(6o%)of the existing garages on the block face are located forward of the"front line of the building";or c. The garage doors will face a corner side lot line. 16 ATTACHMENT F - R-1 -5,000 ZONING STANDARDS 21A.24.070: R-1/5,000 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement:The purpose of the R-1/5,00o Single-Family Residential District is to provide for conventional single-family residential neighborhoods on lots not less than five thousand(5,000)square feet in size.This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan.Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood.The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play,promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. B. Uses:Uses in the R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District,as specified in section 21A.33.020,"Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts",of this title,are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this chapter and this section. C. Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width:The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district are as follows: Land Use Minimum Lot Minimum Lot Area Width Municipal service uses,including City utility uses No minimum No minimum and police and fire stations Natural open space and conservation areas,public No minimum No minimum and private Places of worship less than 4 acres in size 12,000 square 8o feet feet Public pedestrian pathways,trails and greenways No minimum No minimum Public/private utility transmission wires,lines, No minimum No minimum pipes and poles Single-family detached dwellings 5,00o square feet 5o feet Utility substations and buildings 5,00o square feet 5o feet Other permitted or conditional uses as listed in 5,000 square feet 50 feet section 21A.33.020 of this title D. Maximum Building Height: 1. The maximum height of buildings with pitched roofs shall be: a. Twenty eight feet(28')measured to the ridge of the roof;or b. The average height of other principal buildings on the block face. 2. The maximum height of a flat roof building shall be twenty feet(20'). 3. Maximum exterior wall height adjacent to interior side yards shall be twenty feet(20') for exterior walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required yard. Exterior wall height may increase one foot(1')(or fraction thereof)in height for each foot(or fraction thereof)of increased setback beyond the minimum required interior side yard.If an exterior wall is approved with a reduced setback through a special exception,variance or other process,the maximum allowable exterior wall height decreases by one foot(1')(or fraction thereof)for each foot(or fraction thereof)that the wall is located closer to the property line than the required side yard setback. 17 a. Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes,the downhill exterior wall height maybe increased by one-half foot(0.5')for each one foot(1')difference between the elevation of the average grades on the uphill and downhill faces of the building. b. Exceptions: (1) Gable Walls:Walls at the end of a pitched roof may extend to a height necessary to support the roof structure except that the height of the top of the widest portion of the gable wall must conform to the maximum wall height limitation described in this section. (2) Dormer Walls: Dormer walls are exempt from the maximum exterior wall height if: (A) The width of a dormer is ten feet(io')or less;and (B) The total combined width of dormers is less than or equal to fifty percent(50%) of the length of the building facade facing the interior side yard; and (C) Dormers are spaced at least eighteen inches(18")apart. 4. Building height for initial construction of a building shall be measured as the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the established grade at any given point of building coverage.Building height for any subsequent structural modification or addition to a building shall be measured from finished grade existing at the time a building permit is requested.Building height for the R-1 districts,R-2 District and SR districts is defined and illustrated in chapter 21A.62 of this title. 5. Where buildings are stepped to accommodate the slope of terrain,each step shall have a horizontal dimension of at least twelve feet(12'). 6. a.For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District,additional building height maybe granted as a special exception by the Planning Commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face.The Planning Commission will approve,approve with conditions,or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. b. Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard:The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face.Where there are no existing buildings within the block face,the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20').Where the minimum front yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat,the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail.For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995,the required front yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. 2. Corner Side Yard:Ten feet(io'). 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Corner lots:Four feet(4'). b. Interior lots:Four feet(4')on one side and ten feet(io')on the other. 4. Rear Yard:Twenty five percent(25%)of the lot depth,or twenty feet(20'),whichever is less. 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards:Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020,table 21A.36.020B of this title. F. Maximum Building Coverage:The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed forty percent(40%)of the lot. G. Maximum Lot Size:With the exception of lots created by a subdivision or subdivision amendment recorded in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder,the maximum size of a new lot shall not exceed seven thousand five hundred(7,500)square feet.Lots in excess of 18 the maximum lot size maybe created through the subdivision process subject to the following standards: 1. The size of the new lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; 2. The configuration of the lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face;and 3. The relationship of the lot width to the lot depth is compatible with other lots on the same block face. H. Standards For Attached Garages: 1. Width Of An Attached Garage:The width of an attached garage facing the street may not exceed fifty percent(50%)of the width of the front facade of the house.The width of the garage is equal to the width of the garage door,or in the case of multiple garage doors,the sum of the widths of each garage door plus the width of any intervening wall elements between garage doors. 2. Located Behind Or In Line With The Front Line Of The Building:No attached garage shall be constructed forward of the"front line of the building"(as defined in section 21A.62.o40 of this title),unless: a. A new garage is constructed to replace an existing garage that is forward of the "front line of the building".In this case,the new garage shall be constructed in the same location with the same dimensions as the garage being replaced; b. At least sixty percent(6o%)of the existing garages on the block face are located forward of the"front line of the building";or c. The garage doors will face a corner side lot line. 19 ATTACHMENT G - SR-3 ZONING STANDARDS 21A.24.100: SR-3 SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT: A. Purpose Statement:The purpose of the SR-3 special development pattern residential district is to provide lot,bulk and use regulations,including a variety of housing types,in scale with the character of development located within the interior portions of city blocks. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale,density and intensity of the neighborhood.The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play,promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood.This is a medium density zoning district.Off site parking facilities in this district to supply required parking for new development may be approved as part of the conditional use process. B. Uses:Uses in the SR-3 special development pattern residential district as specified in section 21A.33.020, "Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts",of this title,are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.oio of this chapter,and this section. C. Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width:The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district are as follows: Land Use Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width Municipal service uses,including city utility No minimum No minimum uses and police and fire stations Natural open space and conservation areas, No minimum No minimum public and private Public pedestrian pathways,trails and No minimum No minimum greenways Public/private utility transmission wires, No minimum No minimum lines,pipes and poles Single-family attached dwellings)and twin 1,500 square feet per Interior: 22 feet home dwellings dwelling unit Corner: 32 feet Single-family detached dwellings 2,000 square feet Interior: 3o feet Corner: 4o feet Two-family dwellings 3,00o square feet Interior: 44 feet Corner: 54 feet Utility substations and buildings 5,000 square feet 50 feet Other permitted or conditional uses as listed 2,000 square feet Interior: 30 feet in section 21A.33.020 of this title Corner: 40 feet Qualifying provisions: 1. Not more than 6 dwellings may be attached together. D. Maximum Building Height: 1. The maximum height of buildings with pitched roofs shall be: a. Twenty eight feet(28')measured to the ridge of the roof;or b. The average height of other principal buildings on the block face. 2. The maximum height of a flat roof building shall be twenty feet(20'). 3. Maximum exterior wall height adjacent to interior side yards shall be twenty feet(20') for exterior walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required yard. 20 Exterior wall height may increase one foot(1')(or fraction thereof)in height for each foot(or fraction thereof)of increased setback beyond the minimum required interior side yard.If an exterior wall is approved with a reduced setback through a special exception,variance or other process,the maximum allowable exterior wall height decreases by one foot(1')(or fraction thereof)for each foot(or fraction thereof)that the wall is located closer to the property line than the required side yard setback. a. Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes,the downhill exterior wall height maybe increased by one-half foot(0.5')for each one foot(1')difference between the elevation of the average grades on the uphill and downhill faces of the building. b. Exceptions: (1) Gable Walls:Walls at the end of a pitched roof may extend to a height necessary to support the roof structure except that the height of the top of the widest portion of the gable wall must conform to the maximum wall height limitation described in this section. (2) Dormer Walls: Dormer walls are exempt from the maximum exterior wall height if: (A) The width of a dormer is ten feet(to')or less;and (B) The total combined width of dormers is less than or equal to fifty percent(50%) of the length of the building facade facing the interior side yard; and (C) Dormers are spaced at least eighteen inches(18")apart. 4. Building height for initial construction of a building shall be measured as the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the established grade at any given point of building coverage.Building height for any subsequent structural modification or addition to a building shall be measured from finished grade existing at the time a building permit is requested.Building height for the R-1 districts,R-2 district and SR districts is defined and illustrated in chapter 21A.62 of this title. 5. Where buildings are stepped to accommodate the slope of terrain,each step shall have a horizontal dimension of at least twelve feet(12'). 6. a.For properties outside of the H historic preservation overlay district,additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the planning commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face.The planning commission will approve,approve with conditions,or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. b. Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H historic preservation overlay district shall be reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard:The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face.Where there are no existing buildings within the block face,the minimum depth shall be ten feet (1o').Where the minimum front yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat,the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail.For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995,the required front yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. 2. Corner Side Yard:Ten feet(10').For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995,the required corner side yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Single-family detached dwellings: Four feet(4'). 21 b. Single-family attached and twin home dwellings:When abutting a single-family dwelling,a four foot(4')yard is required,otherwise no interior yard is required.Where a yard is provided,it shall be not less than four feet(4'). 4. Rear Yard:Twenty percent(20%)of the lot depth but not less than fifteen feet(15') and need not exceed thirty feet(30'). 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards:Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020,table 21A.36.020B, "Obstructions In Required Yards",of this title. F. Maximum Building Coverage:The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed sixty percent(60%)of the lot area for detached dwellings and seventy percent(70%)for attached dwellings.For lots with buildings legally existing on April 12,1995,the coverage of existing buildings shall be considered legal conforming. G. Maximum Lot Size:With the exception of lots created by a subdivision or subdivision amendment recorded in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder,the maximum size of a new lot shall not exceed two hundred percent(200%)of the minimum lot size allowed by the base zoning district.Lots in excess of the maximum lot size maybe created through the subdivision process subject to the following standards: 1. The size of the new lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; 2. The configuration of the lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face;and 3. The relationship of the lot width to the lot depth is compatible with other lots on the same block face. H. Standards For Attached Garages: 1. Width Of An Attached Garage:The width of an attached garage facing the street may not exceed fifty percent(50%)of the width of the front facade of the house.The width of the garage is equal to the width of the garage door,or in the case of multiple garage doors,the sum of the widths of each garage door plus the width of any intervening wall elements between garage doors. 2. Located Behind Or In Line With The Front Line Of The Building:No attached garage shall be constructed forward of the"front line of the building"(as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this title),unless: a. A new garage is constructed to replace an existing garage that is forward of the "front line of the building".In this case,the new garage shall be constructed in the same location with the same dimensions as the garage being replaced; b. At least sixty percent(6o%)of the existing garages on the block face are located forward of the"front line of the building";or c. The garage doors will face a corner side lot line. 22 ATTACHMENT H - ANALYSIS OF AMENDMENT STANDARDS Zoning Map Amendments A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. In making a decision to amend the zoning map,the City Council should consider the following: .111Mr. Rationale Finding 1.Whether a proposed map Complies As reviewed previously in this staff report as amendment is consistent Key Consideration 1, the proposed zoning with the purposes, goals, amendment is consistent with the purposes, objectives, and policies of goals, and initiatives of the North Temple the city as stated through its Boulevard Plan and the Northwest various adopted planning Community Plan. documents; Also discussed in Key Consideration 1, the amendment is also supportive of Plan Salt Lake, a citywide plan which guides the direction of the city as a whole. 2.Whether a proposed map Complies The purposes stated for the SR-3- amendment furthers the Special Development Pattern specific purpose statements Residential District include: of the zoning ordinance. • To provide lot, bulk and use regulations, including a variety of housing types, in scale with the character of development located within the interior portions of city blocks. Although this petition does not include specific development approval, it is anticipated the property will be used for a twin home and four future single- family attached homes.The development of single-family attached homes will provide additional choice for housing types in the neighborhood while maintain similar height, bulk, and uses to the surrounding properties. • Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale, density and intensity of the neighborhood. The property is surrounded by SR-3 and R-1-7,000 zoning districts. The SR-3 zone is typically found adjacent to other single-family zones and considered an appropriate zone to transition to slightly greater density. The existing uses surrounding the property include single-family attached and detached homes.The proposed 23 SR-3 zone will provide opportunity for uses that are compatible with the scale and density of the neighborhood. • The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. The SR-3 zone would promote compatible development with the surrounding SR-3 and R-1-7,000 zone developments surrounding the property.The smaller lot sizes and possible attached single-family homes would promote sustainability.The potential for pedestrian and vehicular access from either 200 North or Hoyt Place would ensure a safe and comfortable development. • This is a medium density zoning district. At this point the formal development proposal is on hold pending the outcome of this rezone and negotiations for potential access from Hoyt Place. It is anticipated that the development will be for a twin home and four single-family attached homes to be located north of the single-family home at 834 W 200 North.The homes would have greater, but compatible density than what is required in the R- 1-5,000 or R-1-7,000 zone. 3. The extent to which a Complies The potential impacts this amendment may proposed map amendment have on adjacent properties is discussed in will affect adjacent Key Consideration 2 of this report. properties; During this review staff found the proposed zoning district and its permitted land uses as appropriate to the surrounding properties. It was also found that the proposed setbacks, maximum building height, and lot coverage standards are compatible with the surrounding zoning districts and are similar in massing and bulk as the development potential of the surrounding properties. 24 4.Whether a proposed map Complies The property is not located within an overlay amendment is consistent zoning district that imposes additional with the purposes and standards. provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose ladditional standards 5. The adequacy of public Complies During the review, all applicable City facilities and services departments were notified of the proposed intended to serve the amendments. No departments opposed the subject property, including, rezone or potential development; however, the but not limited to, roadways, applicant will need to continue to work with parks and recreational Public Utilities on the specific access and facilities, police and fire design of utilities for a future proposed protection, schools, development. It should also be noted, it has stormwater drainage yet to be determined whether the development systems, water supplies, will be accessed from 200 North, or the and wastewater and refuse preferred Hoyt Place. This rezone would make collection. it so access could be granted from either street. 25 ATTACHMENT I - DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS* *Comments were provided for the proposed Zoning Amendments,Planned Development, and Subdivision.However,only the Zoning Amendments are proposed for approval at this time. PLANNING DIVISION COMMENTS Comments by:Eric Daems Email:eric.daems@slcgov.com Phone:801-535-7236 Status:Make Corrections 1. Planned Developments require submittal of a landscape plan in conformance with 21A.48. 2. Please contact the City Urban Forester with regard to tree species to line Hoyt. 3. Please provide a Disclosure of Private Infrastructure Costs per 21A.55.11o. 4. Proposed shared driveway will require recorded agreements from both property owners per 21A.44.020.F.7.a&c 5. Planned Development approval will be needed for homes to be accessed from private driveway. 6. Please comment on proposed fencing material.Also,fencing in front yards of Lots 1&7 may not exceed 4'where 6'is shown(21A.40.12o.D&E) 7. Planned Development approval will be needed for lots to not have frontage on public street (21A.36.olo.C)and for side lot lines not to be at right angles to the public street(2o.12.o2o) 8. Please show building heights based on established grade. PUBLIC UTILITIES DIVISION COMMENTS Comments by:Jason Draper Email:Jason.draper@slcgov.com Phone:801-483-6751 Status:Make corrections •Review and acceptance of the preliminary plat does not provide subdivision improvement plan approval,utility or building permits. •Utilities cannot cross property lines without appropriate easements and agreements. •Public Utility permit,connection,survey and inspection fees will apply. •Please submit site subdivision improvement and utility plans for review.Other plans such as erosion control plans and plumbing plans may also be required depending on the scope of work.Submit supporting documents and calculations along with the plans. •A sewer main will be required at the property owner's expense.Required improvements on the public sewer system will be determined by the Development Review Engineer.A plan and profile and Engineer's cost estimate must be submitted for review.The property owner is required to bond for the amount of the approved cost estimate. •All utility design and construction must comply with APWA Standards and SLCPU Standard Practices. •Contact SLCPU Street Light Program Manager,Dave Pearson(801-483-6738),for information regarding street lights. •All utilities must public utility horizontal and vertical separation requirements. •Salt Lake City Public Utility Easements must be 20 feet minimum and no other utilities are allowed in the easement. ENGINEERING DIVISION COMMENTS Comments by:Scott Weiler Email:scott.weiler@slcgov.com Phone:801-535-6159 Status:Make Corrections 1. See attached redlines 26 TRANSPORTATION DIVISION COMMENTS Comments by:Michael Barry Email:Michael.barry@slcgov.com Phone:801-535-7147 Status:Make Corrections(fence) The plans show two(2)off street parking spaces for each residence which meets the minimum parking requirement for single family residences.Tandem parking is utilized by the six new residences which is allowed for single family residences.The parking spaces meet the dimensional requirements. If part of the project is rezoned to SR-3,then only one(1)off street parking space would be required for single family residences in that zone.The six foot(6')tall fence on 834 W 200 N must be not exceed thirty inches(30")in height within the sight distance triangle zone per 21A.40.12o.E.9;this is a ten foot(10')sight distance triangle. If the fence is fifty(50)per cent see through,then the fence shall be allowed to a height of four feet(4').Cross access agreements will need to be recorded as applicable. BUILDING SERVICES COMMENTS Comments by:Kevin Hamilton Email:kevin.hamilton@slcgov.com Phone:801-535-7120 Status:General Comments 833 West Hoyt PL is zoned R-1-5o0o and located within the Airport Flight Path Protection and National Historic overlay districts. 834 W 200 N is zoned R-1-7o0o and located within the Airport Flight Path Protection and National Historic overlay districts. A thorough review for compliance with the regulations of those zones will be undertaken when building permits for those properties are submitted. FIRE COMMENTS Comments by:Doug Bateman Email:douglas.bateman@slcgov.com Phone:801-535-6619 Status:General Comments Fire access roads shall be installed to within 150-feet of all first story exterior portions of the structures as measured by an approved route(height of building times 70%plus 4-feet is the distance from the wall to where the measurement is taken). Any fire department access road that is greater in length that 150-feet shall be provided with an approved turn a round. The specifications for the turn a round can be found in IFC appendix D,with the notable exception that if a hammerhead is used that the turn areas be increased to 8o-feet from 6o-feet(16o-feet total for the hammerhead) HOUSING&NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT Comments by:Lani Eggertsen-Goff Email:lanni.eggertsen-goff@slcgov.com Phone:801-535-6240 Status:No objections 27 ATTACHMENT J - PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS Public Notice,Meetings, Comments The following is a list of public meetings that have been held,and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed project since the application was submitted: • November 2018—Notice of the project was provided to the Fairpark Community Council,other recognized community organizations,as well as property owners and residents within 30o feet of the proposal. • July 2019-July 2020-The project was on hold or going through various revisions in attempt to work with neighboring properties for joint access from Hoyt Place • September 1,2020-Updated notifications of the project were provided to the Fairpark Community Council,other recognized community organization,as well as property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal. No recognized organizations requested the item to be discussed during a community council meeting. The following comment was received from a neighbor on 9/17/20,however it should be noted that the comment was in response to the proposed Planned Development,Subdivision,and Zone Amendment considered as one proposal: Neighbor expressed concern that the southernmost units would look directly into her rear yard.She felt they would create a loss of privacy for her and that would result in diminishing property values. She would not like the lot line to be adjusted between the property on Hoyt and 200 N. Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included: Public hearing notice mailed on March 18,2021 Public hearing notice posted on March 18,2021 Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve on March 18,2021 28 3. PLANNING COMMISSION C. Agenda/Minutes March 24, 2021 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation March 24, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission's discretion) This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms: • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings • SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at: • http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-032421 Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR MARCH 10, 2021 REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR CONSENT AGENDA 1. 1807 S 1900 E Time Extension Request - Susan Klinker, property owner, is requesting for a one- year time extension of approval for the conditional use approval for a detached 2-story accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 1807 South 1900 East. The applicant has indicated that additional time is needed due to delays related to the current COVID-19 pandemic. The Conditional Use was approved by the Planning Commission on April 22, 2020. The subject property is located in the R-1/7,000 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district within Council District 6, represented by Dan Dugan. (Staff contact: Linda Mitchell at (385) 386-2763 or linda.mitchell@slcgov.com) Case Number: PLNPCM2019-01065 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 1583 E Stratford Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments - Salt Lake City received a request from Erin Hoffman with Stratford Investment Properties, the property owner, to amend the Sugar House Master Plan and the zoning map for a property located at approximately 1583 East Stratford Ave. The proposal would rezone the entire property from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) to CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Business. The purpose of the amendments is to convert the existing building from multi-family residential to office. The property is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff contact: Nannette Larsen at 385-386-2761 or nannette.larsen©slcgov.com) Case Numbers: PLNPCM2020-000393; PLNPCM2020-000394 2. Conditional Use for an ADU at approximately 742 S. Navajo St - Andrea Palmer, property owner and Modal representative, is requesting Conditional Use approval for a detached accessory dwelling unit located in the rear yard of the subject property located at 742 S. Navajo St. The applicant is proposing a 425-square foot unit. The property is located within the R-1/5000 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district and is within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist at (385) 226-7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case Number: PLNPCM2021-00013 3. Nielsen Estates Rezone 833 W Hoyt Place and 834 W 200 North - Sattar Tabriz, representing property owner J&S Property Development LLC, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment from R-1- 5,000 and R-1-7,000 (Single-family Residential) to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) at the above-listed addresses. The applicant would like to rezone the properties for a future Planned Development that would include the preservation of the existing home and add six new single-family attached homes. However, the request is not tied to a development proposal. Although the applicant has requested the property be rezoned all the way to 200 North, consideration to have the property around the existing home remain zoned R-1-7,000 may be given if access to the remainder of the property can be secured from Hoyt Place. The property is located within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff contact: Eric Daems at (385) 226-3187 or eric.daems©slcgov.com) Case Number: PLNPCM2018-00877 WORK SESSION 1. Zoning 101 Training - Planning staff will provide a zoning 101 training for the commission and the public. For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division's website at slc.gov/planning/public- meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation Wednesday, March 24, 2021 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at approximately 5:45 pm. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. These minutes are a summary of the meeting. For complete commentary and presentation of the meeting, please visit https://www.youtube.com/c/SLCLiveMeetinqs. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Vice Chairperson, Amy Barry; Commissioners Maurine Bachman, Adrienne Bell, Carolynn Hoskins, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes, Crystal Young-Otterstrom and Sara Urquhart. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Director; Wayne Mills, Planning Manager; John Anderson, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Linda Mitchell, Principal Planner; Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner; Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner; Eric Daems, Senior Planner; Marlene Rankins; Administrative Secretary; Aubrey Clark, Administrative Secretary. Commissioner Brenda Scheer read the emergency proclamation for holding a virtual meeting. Planning Manager Wayne Mills explained the meeting instructions. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 10, 2021 MEETING MINUTES AND CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION Commissioner Urquhart moved to approve the March 10, 2021 meeting minutes as well as the Time Extension Request (listed in the Consent Agenda). Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioners Bell, Barry, Paredes, Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom, Lyon, Lee, Bachman and Urquhart voted "Aye". The motion passed to approve the meeting minutes as well as the 1807 S 1900 E Time Extension Request. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Commissioner Scheer reported that she had nothing to report. Commissioner Barry reported that she had nothing to report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR Planning Manager Wayne Mills reported that there are technically difficulties and how to proceed. Salt Lake City Planning Commission March 24, 2021 Page 1 CONSENT AGENDA 1807 S 1900 E Time Extension Request - Susan Klinker, property owner, is requesting for a one-year time extension of approval for the conditional use approval for a detached 2-story accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 1807 South 1900 East. The applicant has indicated that additional time is needed due to delays related to the current COVID-19 pandemic. The Conditional Use was approved by the Planning Commission on April 22, 2020. The subject property is located in the R-1/7,000 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district within Council District 6, represented by Dan Dugan. (Staff contact: Linda Mitchell at (385) 386-2763 or linda.mitchell@slcgov.com) Case Number: PLNPCM2019-01065 MOTION One-year time extension approved by the Commission. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1583 E Stratford Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments - Salt Lake City received a request from Erin Hoffman with Stratford Investment Properties, the property owner, to amend the Sugar House Master Plan and the zoning map for a property located at approximately 1583 East Stratford Ave. The proposal would rezone the entire property from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) to CN (Neighborhood Commercial) and amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Medium Density Residential to Neighborhood Business. The purpose of the amendments is to convert the existing building from multi-family residential to office. The property is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff contact: Nannette Larsen at 385-386-2761 or nannette.larsen©slcgov.com) Case Numbers: PLNPCM2020-00393; PLNPCM2020-00394 Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner, reviewed the information in this staff report (located in the case file). She stated that Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of denial to the City Council for the Master Plan and Zoning Map amendments. She stated that it was found by Planning Staff in the report that the proposed amendments do not meet the intent of the Master Plan. She reviewed the site location, the rezoning request and the Master Plan. Melanie Clark, Presenter, reviewed the application history and stated legal standards for the master plan and zoning. She cited Utah case law that talked about how public clamor is not a sufficient basis for land use decisions. She presented the plan to show what kind of business they are purposing to occupy the space. She stated that the property does not currently apply to the standards of affordable housing and that there is a need for commercial nodes in the area to meet the intent of the Sugarhouse Master Plan. Commissioner Scheer opened the meeting to the commission's questions. Commission and Staff discussed and made clarifications on: • Whether the property is owner occupied. • Whether the Staff initially recommended commercial neighborhood rezoning of the property. • The definition and location of a commercial node on the Sugarhouse Master Plan. Commissioner Scheer opened the meeting to the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING Brenda Koga — in opposition to the petition. Salt Lake City Planning Commission March 24, 2021 Page 2 Judi Short — Sugarhouse Neighborhood Council member - in opposition to the petition. Stated the remodel started prior to rezoning and continued even after the stop order was placed. Zachary Dussault— in opposition to the petition. Stated he feels it should be zoned RMU35. Debbie Mayo— in opposition to the petition. Aric Sharp— in opposition to the petition. Cindy Cromer— in opposition to the petition. Planning Manager Wayne Mills read an email from Lance Vanderhoof- in opposition to the petition. Nannette Laser held up her phone to let Tim Krueger comment - in opposition to the petition. Seeing no one else wished to speak, Commissioner Scheer closed the public hearing. MOTION Commissioner Crystal Young-Otterstrom stated, Based on the information in the staff report I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the proposed master plan amendment, as presented in petition PLNPCM2020-00394: Additionally, I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny the proposed zoning map amendment, as presented in petition PLNPCM2020-00393. Commissioner Carolynn Hoskins seconded the motion. Commissioners Bell, Barry, Paredes, Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom, Lyon, Lee, Bachman and Urquhart voted "Aye". The motion passed unanimously with a recommendation going forward to City Council to deny the request. Conditional Use for an ADU at approximately 742 S. Navajo St- Andrea Palmer, property owner and Modal representative, is requesting Conditional Use approval for a detached accessory dwelling unit located in the rear yard of the subject property located at 742 S. Navajo St. The applicant is proposing a 425-square foot unit. The property is located within the R-1/5000 (Single-Family Residential) zoning district and is within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist at (385) 226-7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case Number: PLNPCM2021-00013 Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, reviewed the information in the staff report (located in the case file.) Planning Staff finds the project generally meets the applicable standards of approval and therefore recommends the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use for the ADU. Commissioner Scheer asked for clarification on the on-street parking. Andrea Palmer, representing property owner Jessica Andrew and Modal Living, presented the site concept. She stated that the property owner is not very interested in renting out the ADU but having it be for use by guests and family members. Commissioner Scheer opened the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING Zachary Dussault - in favor of the petition. Seeing no one else wished to speak, Commissioner Scheer closed the public hearing. Salt Lake City Planning Commission March 24, 2021 Page 3 MOTION Commissioner Amy Barry stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission approve petition PLNPCM2021-00013. Commissioner Maurine Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioner Adrienne Bell recused herself. Commissioners Barry, Paredes, Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom, Lyon, Lee, Bachman and Urquhart voted "Aye". The motion passed with 8 "Ayes" and 1 recusal. Nielsen Estates Rezone 833 W Hoyt Place and 834 W 200 North -Sattar Tabriz, representing property owner J&S Property Development LLC, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment from R-1- 5,000 and R- 1-7,000(Single-family Residential)to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential)at the above-listed addresses. The applicant would like to rezone the properties for a future Planned Development that would include the preservation of the existing home and add six new single-family attached homes. However, the request is not tied to a development proposal. Although the applicant has requested the property be rezoned all the way to 200 North, consideration to have the property around the existing home remain zoned R-1-7,000 may be given if access to the remainder of the property can be secured from Hoyt Place. The property is located within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff contact: Eric Daems at (385) 226-3187 or eric.daems@slcgov.com) Case Number: PLNPCM2018-00877 Eric Daems, Senior Planner, reviewed the information in the staff report (located in the case file). He stated that planning staff recommends that the planning commission forward a positive recommendation to the city council with the conditions listed in the staff report. He outlined the proposed requested rezone amendment and key considerations to master plan compatibility. The Commission and Staff discussed and made clarifications on: • A future lot line adjustment or planned development • Whether the condition to preserve the existing house can still be met if access is required via 200 North Commissioner Scheer asked to hear from the applicant. Sattar Tabriz, representing applicant, stated that they want the best development for the community and the area. He commented on the long process the project has been through. He stated that home on the property is on the national registry for historic housing and they are committed to preserving the home. He commented on fire access, the driveway and property access. Commissioner Scheer opened the meeting to the Commission for questions. Commissioner Bell asked for clarification on whether the applicant was comfortable with the recommendations and conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Scheer opened the meeting to the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING David Charbonneau —Spoke in favor of the petition but expressed concern that the property line measurement is inaccurate. Salt Lake City Planning Commission March 24, 2021 Page 4 Pachuco Lautaro — Representing the Rose Park Brown Berets, opposed to the rezoning. He addressed that rezoning, if approved, will increase the property tax and the rent of adjacent properties and impact the whole community in general. He stated that the Master Plan is a fraud and not in the people's interest and the developments coming in are not affordable to the people who currently live in the neighborhood. Zachary Dussault— in favor of the petition. Planning Manager Wayne Mills read an email received from Jesse Anderson opposing the petition. Planning Manager Wayne Mills clarified that Hoyt Place is a private street not a public street. Commissioner Scheer closed the public hearing and opened the meeting to commissioners' comments. The Commission and Staff discussed the rezone including: • Unresolved utility issues between the two developments • Whether it would be appropriate to rezone without knowing the intention of the future Planned Development or Subdivision for Hoyt Place • Whether it is necessary for the project to be in keeping with the Master Plan goals of promoting affordable housing MOTION Commissioner Adrienne Bell stated, Based on the findings listed in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Zoning Map amendments from R-1- 5,000 and R-1-7,000 to SR-3 for petition (PLNPCM2018-00877), subject to complying with the conditions listed in the staff report: Commissioner Matt Lyon seconded to approve the motion. Commissioners Bell, Barry, Paredes, Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom, Lyon, Lee, Bachman and Urquhart voted "Aye". The motion passed unanimously. WORK SESSION Zoning 101 Training - Planning staff will provide a zoning 101 training for the commission and the public. Nick Norris outlined that the State Legislature passed a law requiring the Commission members to have 4 hours of training. He outlined what the state codes are and what the Master Plan is and how it is implemented. Sara Urquhart asked for clarification on what qualifies as a historic district. Staff and Commissioners identify the standards. Commissioner Amy Barry asked for clarification on the term "design review". Staff and the Commission discussed approval processes. Commissioner Scheer opened up discussion for when in person Planning Commission meetings will resume. Nick Norris said he doesn't think it will be too long before they can meet in person again. Possibly 3-6 months. Salt Lake City Planning Commission March 24, 2021 Page 5 The meeting adjourned at 8:49pm. Salt Lake City Planning Commission March 24, 2021 Page 6 4. ORIGINAL PETITION Petition PLNPCM2018-00877 0..• ".' "... . , ,.. _ A. Zoning Amendment i.:rf,1,;. .c, 'Sol ❑ Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance (Z Amend the Zoning Map OFFICE USE ONLY r/r ••Ritr- Date Received: j #: f 1 ic.19 MAP Lit;•-e0c77- ID I (c i i3 ,,. -, Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment: _ .) 1 c;I)-,9 E_- j?-) ----7 , (Z+-'' .'-e ,> ►.;) 'J ----1 z'' _ , (' PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property(or Area): t11.11 -�If `- }-�-) ,2 ( ki ) .> —.c-- g---- cc., 54-- , 1-1 ryel— )7L Name of Applicant: I " .Phone: 1 / f r // e) f:l L,'?G_ , — ti`5 Address of Applicant: E-mail of ARp jcant: Cell/Fax: M 7 1 ,4.1-42-(2_ C`"`-' Lc/4 V_;9 - . � I f 7c:1r41/4_ f .-42--,( Applicant's Interest in Subject Property: Q Owner ❑ Contractor N. Architect ❑ Other: 01.111 Name of Property Owner(if different from applicant): y . -_ E-mail of Property Owner: ` Phone: Miiii .Y/1,) c '`.1 c�c r_'V���ti?C�.l�.:( T cif-' , C-e yJ-I e'C-1 Z- - 61 61- 1 Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and Lim" made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings,for the purposes of public review by any interested party. ›' AVAILABLE CONSULTATION If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City Planning Counter at(801) 535-7700 prior to submitting the application. REQUIRED FEE Filing fee of$1,011 plus$121 per acre in excess of one acre, L Text amendments will be charged$100 for newspaper notice. . Plus additional fee for mailed public notices. nSIGNATURE l If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: /\-'--1- Yt- A l• -----cl J2 i "2--- rci-, Z 5 I z/g Updated 7/1/17 AS Property Development LLC Nielsen Estates Subdivision Zoning Amendment Supplemental Document October 25,2018 Purpose of Zoning Amendment The zoning amendment will facilitate re-development of a portion of Salt Lake City's interior of Block 70 of Plat 8 (north of 200 North and west of 800 West). The proposed SR-3 zone will allow development of well-scaled housing types consistent with development of interior portions of city blocks. It will also promote sustainable and compatible development patterns thereby preserving the existing character of the area. Furthermore, it will create a safe and comfortable neighborhood in which to live and play. Proposed Use of the Property The SR-3 zone will facilitate development of five single-family detached homes each with a minimum lot area of 2000 SF. Each home will have a dedicated off-street parking stall. In addition, one guest parking is proposed for the development.There are amenities proposed for the development in the SR-3 zone in two locations north and south sides of the proposed homes.With an area of approximately 1500 SF dedicated for amenities, a playground and BBQ area (with a small gazebo)and a community garden will be constructed. The Reason for Zoning Amendment The north,west and east sides of the subject property (833 West, Hoyt Place) are currently zoned as SR- 3. See attached SLC zoning map. This zoning amendment will provide consistent zoning of the interior of Block 70 of Plat 8 will be SR-3 zone.The proposed zoning amendment will facilitate a well planned community with scale and character consistent with neighboring properties.This historic development pattern is typical of interior blocks in many Salt Lake City neighborhoods and has successfully provided more affordable housing alternatives. Parcel Numbers The following parcels are proposed for zoning amendment: 1- The northerly 63Ft of the parcel at 834 West, 200 North with a parcel number of 08-35- 406-018-0000. 2- The entire area of the parcel at 833 West, Hoyt Place with a parcel number of 08-35- 406-018-0000. Zoning Map vs. Zoning Text Amendment The zoning amendment is for the amendment of the zoning map. Zoning text for SR-3 zone and R1-7 will remain unchanged. Ward Engineering Group ,/- Planning • Engineering • Surveying 231 West 800 South,Suite A Salt Lake City,UT 84101 Phone:801.487.8040 Fax:801.487.8668 www.wardeg.com June 12, 2020 Eric Daems, AICP Senior Planner Salt Lake City Corporation Subject: Zone Amendment under active application Project #PLNPCM2018-00877 Mr Daems: We would like to propose the following changes to the active application for J&S Property Development LLC Nielsen Estates Subdivision Zone Amendment Supplemental Document, dated October 25, 2018: Proposed Use of the Property "The SR-3 zone will facilitate development of six single-family attached homes, each with a minimum lot area of 1500 SF. Each home will have a dedicated attached single car garage and area for an additional parking spot in front of the garage." Parcel Numbers "The following parcels are proposed for zoning amendment: 1 . The northerly 63ft of the parcel at 834 west 200 north with a parcel number of 08-35- 406-018-0000. This parcel is proposed to be zone SR-3. 2. The entire area of the parcel at 833 west Hoyt Place with a parcel number of 08-35- 406-019-0000. This parcel is proposed to be zone SR-3. The rest of the parcel will remain as zone R-1-7000. 3. A 125SF portion of the parcel at 825 West Hoyt Place with a parcel number of 08-35- 406-022-0000. This area will be purchased for the development. It is currently zoned as SR-3 and will remain as such." Respectfully, WARD ENGINEERING GROUP 231 West 800 South Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Cc: Sattar Tabriz: Ward Engineering Group CIVIL•STRUCTURAL•SURVEYING&MAPPING•WATER RESOURCES•LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE•TRANSPORTATION•PLANNING 1 z Om,- LEGEND N 4 D- 825W HOYT ----- — 5 y y PLACE PORTION OF NEIGHBORING I ZONE R-1-7000 m W= Z PARCEL ID PARCEL TO BE PURCHASE 08-35-406-022-0000 F000 VELOPm<Nr J ZONE R-1-5000 N�� ct —I14.029 173.032 . ZONE SR-3 (0 d 0 a isl I I REZONING TO ZONE SR-3 H}O z It =N z W 1—( N i \ W W W 83PL PLACE PAR EL I N \` I J in in M PLACE PARCEL ID PARCEL ID 08-35-406-018-0000 Z W W 08-35-406-019-0000 3m I _ BUILDING COVERAGE(R-1/7,000) '1 C7 N REQUIRED PROVIDED u o )l G 0,r1 — )l - =<40% 18.06% �' )6 I 173.048 L N n S. W D _ 3 a EXISTING LOT LINE BETWEEN PARCEL ID 0.5-406-019L000 AND 3 PARCEL ID 00J5406L130000 EXISTING ZONING e. 1/16"=1'0" a :g IN ZONE F 2 2 o R-1-50002 PARCELI(To BE REZOBNEDININTTO GRBIE R-i,000(T PARCEL ID w�1�TING ZONING) E E. E J EW 74.988 173.032 / ; 7 i O ■143002— — p - - - 14U7 ,i A a < / \833W HOYT a e ~ 1- PLACE I a _o 8 0 834W 200 N U In ml 31 5 60.978 112.071 rl p 173.048'I ff -- 157.026 PROPOSED LOT LINE i BETWEEN PARCEL IN ZONE R-1,00 AND PARCEL IN ZONE AND SR-3 C (Z� F-I SHEET PROPOSED ZONING A-001 1/16"=1'0" z ,/ /�Ir i of`mlWi wlr�' u O�= 6A/`�� '�ag I -, 6� IIP t#11 I1, r 1 {&n.ah3 F .I� �'II � �' _. �I i l h!'� ,�; ' NOTE:THIS MAP IS COPIED FROM SLC ZONING MAP n mui= m 900 WEST `^:u r VA tik -,Q- x J II IPROJECT LOCATION w a Z O ;,pri(d17/7 _ Hyo z -, o S L ON Z J T W Z W W Q •I J _ J. , Y LL J M /�r rr ,.15= O. L L .{JI: g min ' En X := /A ., 1 / f� 7_ - L LI 1 rc H I1 F. -':<:ki zz X T o CVet CO ,_ y b O 71 :; y m :g e 900 WEST - - w';',. ler"ro-, '0) - 4 AP j. P 0, IJ !T St e vl N IJ I.' / , NI .4 w %% :: , Legend ° r , Zoning d 0 R-1-5000:Single Family Residential44 s li ,, nag 0 R-1-7000:Single Family Residential r µ 8°'' 4 . RMF-35:Multifamily Residential i r //14: v. - _ 4 J ril / [� SR-1:Special Development Pattern Residential ©�� H• Irk litiP" ❑ SR-1A:Special Development Pattern Residential ,y_ 0/0 SR-3:Special Development Pattern Residential Z riff N TSA-UC T Urban Center Transit Station 0 ,�/ A ri mI NJ ,; , TSA-UN-C:Urban Neighborhood Transit Station ,� :, c m , ., 111C. I NTSA-UN-T:Urban Neighborhood Transit Station SHEET o � A-101A ., O � 1— LEGEND N c.i = 825W HOYT > N J PLACE PORTION OF NEIGHBORING — ZONE R-1-7000 COCI W I Z PARCEL ID PARCEL TO BE PURCHASED 08-35-406-022-0000 FOR DEVELOPMENT 1 ZONE R-1-5000 N Q J re 14.029 173.032 ZONE SR-3 N a 0 co REZONING TO ZONE SR-3 H } Z Z F _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _� —� HOc� Z a t, a4 o WIH ~ N O >- Io c) Z u W I N W W 833W HOYT 834W 200 N Cn PLACE PARCEL ID M CO co I PARCEL ID 08-35-406-018-0000 Z CO 08 35 406 019 0000 co co (0 &k : IMEMEINIMINERM I; o o CO 2 ! co w ▪ 0 0) i c co L, — — — — `1 ”— " - - • Q) .� 173.048 .� v E 0 CZ c 0 A, w W v L a 2 o e E 0 v / t6 o a a EXISTING LOT LINE BETWEEN ° 0 PARCEL ID 08-35-406-018-0000 AND PARCEL ID 08-35-406-019-0000 <h SN \. EXISTING ZONING 1/ 16" = 1' 0" Nw-1 0 J 'Ft E R N W LL a NI a 1,2 o-13 '� c m N 17 >a.(/) i w p OT B n W } L g2 PARCEL ID 08-35-406-019-0000 IN ZONE PARCEL ID 08-35-406-018-0000 IN ZONE o u N p R-1-5000(TO BE REZONED INTO SR3) R-1-7000(TO MAINTAIN EXISTING ZONING) W 2 _� Z o Q �o c z a C o� W cn R -- Q a O PARCEL ID 08-35-406-022-0000 IN ZONE p SR-3(TO BE PURCHASED AND 74.988 173.032 z , z 2 MAINTAIN SR-3 ZONE) rn 112.057 w S co o 0 o 143.002 CO a p — — — — — — — — — — — — _... O 0 N 0 _/ � N O Q o o F ,_ 66 0_ 833W HOYT I o z z o 0 PLACE zo " c K E U m O I1 L p p Z 834W 200 N CO .,-LL ..., — P. o v ...... . o I I Na 0 co Z 0 LT_ j CC d o. W o 60. 378 _ 112.071 o I 173.048 o rn o — — — — — — — — — — — — - 157.026 0 N C c, 8 9 PROPOSED LOT LINE v a BETWEEN PARCEL IN ZONE R-1-700 y AND PARCEL IN ZONE AND SR-3 a 0 a M a W N 4 (0 r s — o SHEET 2 0 PROPOSED ZONING A-001 z 1/ 16" = 1' 0" W J LL .) 5. MAILING LIST OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR OWN_CITY OWN_STATE OWN_ZIP JOHN GRIFFITHS 1021 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 RODNEY& MERILEE SABINO LIVING TRUST 05/19/2020 1064 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 PAWPURR UT ALPHA, LLC 11257 S TRENT DR SOUTH JORDAN UT 84095 ANTONIO J VALDEZ; MELODY A VALDEZ(JT) 121 S JEREMY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 MIKE ORTHNER 1216 N 900E BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 Current Occupant 150 N 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 WYNETHA BRIDGEWATER;JAKE LEE (JT) 155 N 700 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 878-880 WEST 200 NORTH LLC 1590 N MANDALAY RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 GREGORIO VASQUEZ TELLEZ;ARMIDA BLANCAS TELLEZ(JT) 173 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 184 N 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 185 N WESTTEMPLE ST#112 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 THOMAS E DEVROOM 213 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JOSE SANCHEZ 216 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 DEAN A TRUJILLO;JENNIFER M TRUJILLO (JT) 219 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 220 N 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 JOHN G STORRS 223 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MATT MERTLICH 228 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SHIREL WOODCOX 229 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 APOLO T MAUAI;THELMA MAUAI (JT) 230 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SWW LV TRST 234 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 235 N 800 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 ARAM NASR 236 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 241 N 800 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 LM TR 246 N 600 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 EDWARD DEL RIO 246 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MARICRUZ L VARGAS 247 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JENNIFER SIMPSON 250 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 251 N 800 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 BERNADETTE DESCHINE 257 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 258 N 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 JORDAN K GREENE;AMANDA MALLORY FOSTE (JT) 260 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JASON S HARDELL 266 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 258N 900W,A SERIES OF RCJ PROPERTIES, LLC 267 E EAGLE RIDGE DR NORTH SALT LAKE UT 84054 Current Occupant 267 N 800 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 SMITH FAMILY TRUST 10/29/2019 311 PARK VIEW CIR BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 ORSON T PORTER; MARISA L PORTER (JT) 371 E RENA AVE MIDVALE UT 84047 795 WASATCH PROPERTIES, LLC 4122 S 500 W MURRAY UT 84123 LLB IRR TR 420 N 1200 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 HOYT PLACE DEVELOPMENT LLC 628 N PUGSLEY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 TANNER KNIGHT 696 E SPRUCE GLEN RD MURRAY UT 84107 J &S PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, LLC 7318 S RACQUET CLUB DR COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121 OLSEN FAMILY TRUST 08/16/2017 805 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MATHEW CODY BUNDERSON;TARYN ANNA BUNDERSON (JT) 810 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 GUILLERMO ENRIQUEZ; MARIA A ENRIQUEZ(TC) 815 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 819 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 DURAEL SPIGHT;JESSICA SPIGHT(JT) 821 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 823 W 200 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 824 W HOYT PL Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 825 W HOYT PL Salt Lake City UT 84116 SHEA M MEARS; MICHAEL ORTHNER(JT) 826 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 BECKY ROBINSON 827 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 829 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 830 W 200 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 831 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 833 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 833 W HOYT PL Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 834 W 200 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 834 W HOYT PL Salt Lake City UT 84116 MCCALL CHRISTENSEN 837 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SARA PARKER 840 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 841 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 842 W HOYT PL Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 843 W HOYT PL Salt Lake City UT 84116 ROSA D NEGRETE; PATTY CARDENAS(JT) 845 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 845 W HOYT PL Salt Lake City UT 84116 PERRY E SPIGHT; MARGARET SPIGHT(JT) 846 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 849 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 ALFONSO JR. ULIBARRI 852 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ARMANDO MIRANDA; ROSALBA MIRANDA(JT) 858 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 858 W HOYT PL Salt Lake City UT 84116 AMBER SECKLETSTEWA; ERIC SECKLETSTEWA (JT) 859 W HOYT PL SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 860 W HOYT PL Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 861 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 862 W 200 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 PETER M LASUO 866 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 867 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 MICHAEL WOLF HOFFMAN 872 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 878 W 200 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 WALGREEN CO PO BOX 1159 DEERFIELD IL 60015 JO ANN 0 TWISDALE;TOMMY M TWISDALE (TC) PO BOX 16915 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 960 W., LC PO BOX 1773 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110 TRUMAN MARKETING LLC PO BOX 294 LAYTON UT 84041 Salt Lake City Planning Division Eric Daems PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 Item B6 s•%% "'z •••., MOTION SHEET i CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY .s, s ■]L "CP1 AR �� • ••4•S•�I T TO: City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE: September 7,2021 RE: Permitting Restaurants in the PL— Public Lands Zoning District PLNPCM2o2o-00503 MOTION i(close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O.BOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT .``y 4 n -47% CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY 1.11 .r; w1�1N1� C- " 'n • got ,,SgI „us\",,, Item Schedule: Briefing:August 17,2021 TO: City Council Members Set Date:August 17,2021 Public Hearing: September 7,2021 FROM: Brian Fullmer Potential Action: September 21,2021 Policy Analyst DATE: September 7,2021 RE: Permitting Restaurants in the PL—Public Lands Zoning District PLNPCM2o2o-00503 BRIEFING UPDATE At the August 17, 2021 briefing a Council Member asked if alcohol could be served at restaurants in the Public Lands zoning district. Planning staff responded there is potential for this,but it would initiate another process and set of regulations. Another Council Member asked about revisiting additional uses in the Open Space(OS)zone.The Council took a straw poll and indicated support for looking at including restaurants in the OS zone.A motion will be included in the adopting motion sheet that would initiate a petition to allow restaurants in the OS zone. The following information was provided for the August 17, 2021 Council briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about a zoning text amendment initiated by Mayor Mendenhall to amend the land use table in Section 21A.33.o7o Salt Lake City Code and add restaurants as a permitted use within the Public Lands(PL)zoning district.Currently restaurants are not permitted or conditional uses within the zone but are accessory uses to serve and contribute to a principle use and are located on the same lot as well as under the same ownership as the principal use. Planning staff identified 113 Public Lands parcels meeting the minimum 20,000 square foot requirement for a permitted use,with 25 of those owned by Salt Lake City Corporation. Others are owned by the Salt Lake City Board of Education,the State or Federal government(not under City jurisdiction)or are CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O.BOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 privately owned. (See attachment B (page 20 of the Administration's transmittal)for a map of parcels zoned PL.)While these parcels would meet the minimum lot size for permitted use,there are other requirements including lot width and building setbacks that might not be met.It is Planning staffs opinion potential impact of permitting restaurants in the Public Lands zone would be minimal and likely happen on only a few parcels within the city. Number of parcels PL Parcels greater PL parcels greater PL parcels greater PL parcels greater zoned PL than 20,000 sf(which than 20,000 sf owned than 20,000 sf owned than 20,000 sf owned could potentially by Salt Lake City by Salt Lake City by other entities accommodate a Board of Education (government or restaurant use) private) 247 113 25 65 23 Planning staff noted an example of a restaurant that could benefit from the proposed change. Cytybyrd Café in the City&County Building operates as an accessory use to the principle governmental use of the building.This limits hours the cafe can operate to Monday—Friday until 4:oo pm.Under the proposed change allowing restaurants as a permitted use Cytybyrd could stay open into the evenings and on weekends. Planning staff stated the proposed text amendment might activate other buildings that are underutilized or unprogrammed after peak operating hours. It should be noted the Open Space,Natural Open Space,and Public Lands 2 zoning districts are similar to the Public Lands zoning district,but they are separate and would not be affected by the proposed change. In an analysis of standards for zoning text amendments, Planning staff found the proposal complies with all standards. See Attachment D(pages 23-24)of the Administration's transmittal for the detailed analysis. Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed text amendment. Goal of the briefing:Review the proposed text amendment, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTION 1. Is the Council supportive of the proposed text amendment? 2. The Council may wish to inquire if there is any notification process required for adjacent property owners if uses change/expand within a certain distance of a property line, or if there are instances where that could be helpful (for example,if a parcel is located adjacent to residences). KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified two key considerations which are summarized below. For the complete analysis see pages 16-18 of the Administration's transmittal. Key Consideration #1:Adopted Master Planning Documents A guiding principle in Plan Salt Lake is to create a"balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an environment for commerce,local business,and industry to survive."Planning staff noted the Salt Lake City Urban Design Element speaks to implementing pedestrian-oriented design to activate public spaces. It is Planning staffs opinion allowing restaurants in the PL zone would encourage use in these often underutilized publicly owned spaces. Page 12 Key Consideration #2: Impacts for Allowing Restaurants in PL Zoned Properties Potential benefits of permitting restaurants: • Activate existing buildings and public spaces underutilized or unprogrammed after peak business hours. • Allow broader property use and allow local businesses to open and existing businesses to extend operations. • Restaurant owners would sign a lease with Salt Lake City(for City owned parcels),generating revenue. • New development would be required to follow Public Lands Zoning District standards. Potential issues with permitting restaurants: • Signage o During City department review of the proposal the issue of regulating private signs on public property was raised. Currently City Code states only portable signs are allowed on publicly owned land.The code may need to be amended to allow signage to promote restaurants. • Parking o Restaurants are required to have two parking spaces per i,000 square feet of usable floor area. Shared parking is allowed when more than one use shares the same parking facility.If the new off-street parking ordinance is adopted by the Council,this parking requirement would remain the same. • Commercialization of public spaces o During previous planning processes some residents shared concerns about commercializing public spaces.The City could generate revenue from private businesses operating on government land,but there are few properties that meet requirements so Planning staff stated competition with the private market would be minimal.A resident commented to Planning staff they support allowing restaurants as a conditional use subject to restrictions, particularly if alcohol is served. Current code does not permit alcohol establishments in the PL zone. In the key considerations summary Planning staff stated the following: "Staff supports allowing restaurants in the Public Lands Zoning District because in addition to supporting parks and open spaces,the zone already allows a variety of commercial uses.The existing commercial element of the zone makes it different than the Open Space or Natural Open Space Zoning Districts,which are designed to protect undeveloped open space and limit the number of commercial uses allowed." PUBLIC PROCESS • August 4, 2020 Planning staff contacted all community council chairs and recognized organizations about the proposal.None requested additional information or provided comments during the 45-day comment period. • August 4,2o2o-September 20, 2020 proposal information and request for comments was posted to the City online open house page. • October 15, 2020 Public hearing notice posted on City and State websites. Page 13 • October 17, 2020 Public hearing notice published in the newspaper. • As of publication of the Planning Commission staff report five comments were received by Planning staff.Three were supportive of the proposal,one was opposed,and one asked for clarification.To date Council staff has not received any comments on the proposal.Any comments received will be forwarded to Council Members. Page 14 ERIN MENDENHALL . DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor �' ��� ��'it y and NEIGHBORHOODS �' Blake Thomas c/1= n Director eIT`" CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Lis (Jul 14,202115:02 MDT) Date Received: 07/14/2021 Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 07/14/2021 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: July 7, 2021 Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director Department of Community&Neighborhoods SUBJECT: Petition PLNPCM2020-00503 Permitting Restaurants in the PL Public Lands Zoning District STAFF CONTACT: Amanda Roman, Principal Planner (385) 386-2765, amanda.roman@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council amend the text of the zoning ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: A zoning text amendment, initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall,to amend the land use table in the zoning ordinance and add restaurants as a permitted use within the Public Lands District (Section 21A.33.070). Under the current ordinance, restaurants may operate as an accessory use,but are not permitted as a standalone entity.Accessory uses are intended to serve and contribute to a principal use and must be located on the same lot and under the same ownership as the principal use. In response to public inquiry, Mayor Mendenhall asked Planning staff to review the Zoning Ordinance and provide a recommendation on whether permitting restaurants to operate independently of a principal use is appropriate within the zone. The purpose of the Public Lands zone (section 21A.32.070) is to delineate areas of public use and control the potential redevelopment of public uses, lands, and facilities. The majority of the land under the zoning designation is owned by government entities. If amended, restaurants would SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O.BOX 145487,SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269 adhere to the same regulations as other permitted uses in the zone, which requires permitted and conditional uses to be located on lots with a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 75 feet. If adopted, the proposed text amendment would provide opportunities for new businesses to open and for existing businesses to expand their hours of operation. Permitting restaurants would activate existing buildings and public spaces that are underutilized or unprogrammed after peak hours. For example, Cytybyrd Café, which is located within the City and County Building, could expand their hours of operation to provide dinner service and could remain open on weekends. There are approximately 115 existing parcels in Salt Lake City (5%)that are zoned Public Lands and are at least 20,000 square feet in size. The Planning Commission Staff Report in Exhibit 3B provides a comprehensive review of the parcels that would be potentially affected by the proposed zoning text amendment. PUBLIC PROCESS: Community Council Notice: A notice of application was sent to all Salt Lake City Recognized Community Organizations on August 4, 2020 regarding the proposed text amendment. The Recognized Organizations were given 45 days to respond with any concerns or to request staff to meet with them and discuss the proposed amendment. No Community Council requested that staff attend a meeting and no formal comments were submitted. Public Open House: The petition was posted to the Planning Division's Online Open House webpage from August 4— September 20, 2020. Five public comments were submitted during the comment period. The public comments are included in the Planning Commission staff report in Exhibit 3B. Planning Commission Meeting: On October 28, 2020 the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed zoning text amendment. One citizen spoke in support of the request. One citizen had concerns on how the City determines the market rate when negotiating a lease, as there doesn't appear to be a standard lease for commercial and non-profit activities operating in public buildings. The Commission asked staff for clarification on permitted uses within the Public Lands zone and other zones under the Special Purpose District. The Commission voted 5-1 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the text amendment, consistent with the staff recommendation. EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Hearing 3. Planning Commission A) Mailing Notice B) Staff Report C) Agenda/Minutes/Newspaper Notice 4. Original Petition TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. ORDINANCE 2. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 4. PLANNING COMMISSION - OCTOBER 28, 2020 A. NEWSPAPER NOTICE B. STAFF REPORT C. AGENDA AND MINUTES 5. ORIGINAL PETITION 1. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2021 (Amending Section 21A.33.070 of the Salt Lake City Code to allow restaurant uses in the PL Public Lands District) An ordinance amending Section 21A.33.070 of the Salt Lake City Code to allow restaurant uses in the PL Public Lands District, pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00503. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 28, 2020 to consider a request made by Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall (Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00503) to amend Section 21A.33.070 (Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts) of the Salt Lake City Code to allow restaurant uses in the PL Public Lands District; and WHEREAS, at its October 28, 2020 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition; and WHEREAS, following a public hearing on this matter, the city council finds that adopting this ordinance is in the city's best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.33.070. That Section 21A.33.070 of the Salt Lake City Code(Zoning: Land Use Tables: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts) shall be, and hereby is amended to modify only the row in that table pertaining to "Restaurant"use, which row shall read and appear as follows: Permitted And Conditional Uses By District Use RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-20 OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH EI MU Restaurant P7 P P The codifier is instructed to only make revisions to the table at Section 21A.33.070 as it pertains to the row on that table pertaining to "Restaurant"uses as part of this ordinance and make no other revisions. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2021. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Bill No. of 2021. Date:Ma 27, 2021 Published: . • By: Ordinance amending PL district regs to allow restaurant use aul .Niel n,Senior City Attorney 2. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2020-00503 June 24, 2020 Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall initiated a petition to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to add restaurants as a permitted use within the PL—Public Lands Zoning District. The amendment affects section 21A.33.070 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts. July 7, 2020 Petition PLNPCM2020-00503 assigned to Amanda Roman, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. August 4, 2020 Petition posted to the Planning Division's Online Open House webpage. The public comment period ended on September 20, 2020. October 15, 2020 Planning Commission hearing notice posted on City and State websites. October 17, 2020 Planning Commission hearing notice published in newspaper. October 28, 2020 Planning Commission reviewed the petition and conducted a public hearing. The commission then voted 5:1 to send a positive recommendation to the City Council. November 9, 2020 Ordinance requested from City Attorney's office. November 18, 2020 Planning Commission ratified minutes of the October 28, 2020 meeting. 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020-00503 Permitting Restaurants in the PL—Public Lands Zoning District Zoning Text Amendment A zoning text amendment, initiated by Mayor Erin Mendenhall, to amend the land use table in the zoning ordinance and add restaurants as a permitted use within the Public Lands District(Section 21A.33.070). Under the current ordinance, restaurants may operate as an accessory use, but are not permitted as a standalone entity. Accessory uses are intended to serve and contribute to a principal use and must be located on the same lot and under the same ownership as the principal use. The purpose of the Public Lands zone(section 21A.32.070) is to delineate areas of public use and control the potential redevelopment of public uses, lands, and facilities. The majority of the land under the zoning designation is owned by government entities. If amended,restaurants would adhere to the same regulations as other permitted uses in the zone, which requires permitted and conditional uses to be located on lots with a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 75 feet. As part of their study, the City Council is holding two advertised public hearings to receive comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance on the same night of the second public hearing. The hearing will be held electronically: DATE: Date#1 and Date#2 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: **This meeting will not have a physical location. **This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing, please visit our website at https://www.slc.gov/council/ to learn how you can share your comments during the meeting. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801)535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments(c�slcgov.com.All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal, please call Amanda Roman at 385-386-2765 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at amanda.roman@slcgov.com. You may review the file online at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/citizen,by selecting the Planning tab, and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2020-00503. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION A. Mailing Notice October 28, 2020 4770 S.5600 W. Utah WEST VALLEY CITY.UTAH 84118 Media FED.TAX I.D.#87-0217663 Deseret News Group a[uk�unbunr 801-204-6910 PROOF OF PUBLICATION CUSTOMER'S COPY Wilco of Mac Hearing CUSTOMER NAME AND ADDRESS ACCOUNT NUMBER —1 On Wednesday,October hold 2020,the arl City Planning Commission will a public hearing to con- sider making recommendations to the City Council re- garding the following pennons: PLANNING DIVISION, 9001394298 1.wr,rrn as oax es ki vt Beat 62tds Sang Dbtttd T M,t�sbrrtt - tryor Erin Menderttalt has ACCOUNTS PAYABLE "fatend ro rte„aar„endment sto tthn in$Lordinc PO BOX 145480 Ponds Zoning District under the current ordinance res DA l E taurants are allowed ro operate as an accessory use only.The amendment would allow restaurants to oper- ate as a principal use.The purpose of the PI district is SALT LAKE CITY UT 84 114 10/19/2020 to provide areas in the city for public uses and regu- late the development of those uses. TM oosed v�wn,h,ert affects section 21 A.33.070 Table tofp Per- mitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Dis- ACCOUNTNAME trios of the zoning ordinance.Related provisions of Ti- ACCOUNT mrtqayy also b.asssnded as part of this pp.efrltion. (Scoff aatoct: rrtonsd0 Roman at (385) 386- Z763 or ananda.romonlpskpay.00m) Cae tenter PLANNING DIVISION, 2.hoard OrdYsrna Mrnd nenfs- The City Cotmdl TELEPHONE ORDER 4 / INVOICE NUMBER is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regu- letian regarding bnlh--rrh The',noosed amendments ..ould modify city code to ali n ins state la+, eikni- 8015357759 noting the tit 's use of a•billboard bank•• (a meitwd 0001301867 / for managyi billboard relocations) to align more closely witch Utah state law regulating billboads. The PUBLICATION SCHEDULE State law would reggucontinue to e billbt new oard d modification ti and relocation. The amendments also include specifics START I0/I7/2020 END 10'17'2020 llaandscapi elf' � easy asppileeibcc fledis'inar acre law.The proposed msendment%affect Osopter 21 446 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title CUSTOMER REFERENCE NUMBER 21 A-zoni may also be amended as port of this peti- tion.The would apppply Citywide.(Staff contact: Casesiogov.mm)Can(Mutes Wm -00se .stewart(_a. Planning Commission Meeting 10/28/2020 The public hearing will begin at 5:30 via weber. CAPTION a'sk-p-a"pprolr 1 ozl�zozo to' h�'r pm.: tiny This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building.Commission Menhbers will con. Notice of Public Hearing On Wednesday. October 28. 2020, the Salt Lake City Planning C tine Iythe following PammishOri meefngs tig.on aatabble on ti I/I •touTube:www.youtube.eom•slclivenheetirgs • SLCty Charnel 17 Live: www.slctv.comi IIvestream:SLCty-live;z 61 LINES 2 COLUMN(S) If you are interested in partkipating during the Public hearing portion of the meeting or provide general TIMES TOTAL COST T 1 s email;piaming.ccrmentsigskgon cam. uoAlap 2 157.50 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION AS NEWSPAPER AGENCY COMPANY. LLC dba UTAH MEDIA GROUP LEGAL BOOKER. I CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED ADVERTISEMENT OF Notice of Public Hearing On Wednesday,October 28. 2020,the Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider making recommendations t FOR PLANNING DIVISION,WAS PUBLISHED BY THE NEWSPAPER AGENCY COMPANY. I.LC dba IJTAH MEDIA GROUP. AGENT FOR DESERET NEWS AND THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE. DAILY NEWSPAPERS PRINTED IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WITH GENERAL CIRCULATION IN UTAH. AND PUBLISHED IN SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY IN THE STATE OF UTAH. NOTICE IS ALSO POSTED ON UTAHLEGALS.COM ON THE SAME DAY AS THE FIRST NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION DATE AND REMAINS ON UTAHLEGALS.COM INDEFINITELY.COMPLIES WITH UTAH DIGITAL SIGNATURE ACT UTAH CODE 46-2-101: 46-3-104. PUBLISHED ON Start 10/17/2020 End 10/17/2020LA Imet.n.,06do<4-' DATE 10/19/2020 SIGNATURE STATE OF UTAH COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME ON THIS 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER IN T11F YEAR 2020 BY LORAINE GUDMUNDSON. qt.), LENEA TAPUSOA.NChfiPUBuC'STATEOFUT ri� COMMSS0N#712892a;• CCMM. EXP.07-06-2024 NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE 4. PLANNING COMMISSION B. Staff Report October 28, 2020 ,,,, " Staff R fritiat PLANNING DIVISION z C 'U h (. DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS IT To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Amanda Roman,Principal Planner (801)535-766o or amanda.roman@slcgov.com Date: October 28,2020 Re: PLNPCM2o2o-00503 Permitting Restaurants in the PL-Public Lands Zone Text Amendment Zoning Text Amendment PROPERTY ADDRESS: Citywide PARCEL ID:Not applicable MASTER PLAN:Not applicable ZONING DISTRICT:PL-Public Lands REQUEST: Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall initiated a petition to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to add restaurants as a permitted use within the PL - Public Lands Zoning District. The amendment will affect section 21A.33.070 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts. Under the current code, restaurants are not Permitted or Conditional Uses with the zone. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings in the staff report,Planning Staff finds the proposed text amendment adequately meets the standards for general text amendments and therefore recommends that Planning Commission transmit a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment. ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposed Text Amendment B. Public Lands Zoning Map C. Petition to Initiate D. Analysis of Standards E. Public Process and Comments F. Department Review Comments PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND:Mayor Mendenhall initiated an amendment to section 21A.33.070 to potentially permit restaurants within the PL-Public Lands Zoning District. Under the current code,restaurants are not permitted as standalone entity,but are allowed as an accessory use. An accessory use is defined as a use that: A. Is subordinate in area,extent and purpose to, and serves a principal use; B. Is customarily found as an incident to such principal use; C. Contributes to the comfort, convenience or necessity of those occupying,working at or being serviced by such principal use; D. Is,except as otherwise expressly authorized by the provisions of this title,located on the same zoning lot as such principal use; and E. Is under the same ownership or control as the principal use. The Mayor asked Planning staff to review the Public Lands Zoning District regulations and provide input on the pros and cons of adding restaurants as a permitted use after receiving inquiries from business owners who wish to operate independently of the principal use.An example of this is Cytybyrd Cafe, which is located within the City and County Building. The restaurant, which operates as an accessory to the main governmental use of the building, may only remain open while the City and County Building is open.This means the restaurant is allowed to operate Monday—Friday until 4 PM and must close on the weekends.These limited hours impact their opportunity to serve customers and ultimately reduces their profit margins. If restaurants were allowed as a principal use, Cytybyrd Cafe could increase their business hours past 4 PM on Monday—Friday and remain open on weekends. Special Purpose Districts The Public Lands Zoning District is under the Special Purpose District umbrella. Section 21A.33.o70 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts only permits 32 of 131 listed uses within the Public Lands zone.An additional io uses maybe allowed upon Conditional Use approval. The intent of Special Purpose Districts is described as: Certain geographic areas of the city contain land uses or platting patterns that do not fit traditional zoning classifications (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial) or uniform bulk regulations. These areas currently contain special land uses (e.g., airports or medical centers) which have a unique character, or contain mixed land uses which are dffficult to regulate using uniform bulk and density standards. Because these areas have unique land uses, platting patterns and resources, special districts are needed to respond to these conditions. These special purpose districts are further intended to maintain the integrity of these areas, allow for greater flexibility in site design, and achieve the specialized goals for these areas. The Open Space Zoning District and the Natural Open Space District are also under the Special Purpose District umbrella. While they are similar to the Public Lands Zoning District, they are their own specific zones with different regulations and standards and are generally made up of public parks and open space rather than built public facilities.The proposed text amendment will not change any development regulations or permitted land uses within these zones. Of the three zones,Public Lands allows the most development. Public Lands Zoning District The purpose of the Public Lands Zoning District is to specifically delineate areas of public use and to control the potential redevelopment of public uses, lands and facilities. The zone allows some commercial uses but also includes parks and open space. • Permitted uses include art galleries,libraries,offices,off-site parking(including park and ride lots),reception centers,research and development facilities,schools,and utilities. • Conditional uses include fairgrounds, government facilities, jails, reception centers, and stadiums. • The zone also supports low impact uses such as gardens, farm stands, outdoor recreation, parks,and open space. Open Space Zoning District The purpose of the Open Space Zoning District is to preserve and enhance public and private open space,natural areas,and improved park and recreational areas. • Permitted uses include some development such as amphitheaters, government facilities, outdoor storage,and utilities. • Conditional uses include the adaptive reuse of a landmark site,living quarters for a caretake or security guard,and reception centers. • Low impact uses include agriculture,botanical gardens,farm stands,and public parks. Natural Open Space District The purpose of the Natural Open Space Zoning District is to specifically delineate natural areas of special environmental or scenic value and support the preservation of these areas through limited development.The zone consists of primarily undeveloped land.The only four land uses permitted in the zone are informal amphitheaters,open space,and in the case of existing residential dwellings,the zone allows daycares and home occupations. DISCUSSION: The proposed changes have been reviewed against the four Zoning Text Amendment Standards in section 21A.50.050 of the Zoning Ordinance. The following information was gathered through an analysis of the existing properties in Salt Lake City.In short,of the 2,368 existing parcels,the proposed text amendment would potentially affect 115 parcels.Further analysis is required to determine which of the parcels could accommodate a restaurant or other permitted use. The zoning map provided in Attachment B shows the parcels meeting the minimum lot size for permitted uses(20,00o square feet) in green and parcels above 5 acres in blue.The yellow parcels are under 20,000 square feet and are not eligible for development.The same information is provided below for clarity. o Salt Lake City currently has 2,368 individual parcels within city boundaries. o Of these parcels, 247 are within the Public Lands Zoning District, the majority of which are government owned. o 115 Public Lands parcels meet the minimum lot size for permitted uses, which is 20,000 SF (.4591 acres). o There are 36 parcels above 21,780 SF(5 acres),which is the square footage required for public schools. o 25 of the 115 parcels are owned by Salt Lake City Corporation. o 12 of the 115 parcels are owned by the State or Federal government,thus not under Salt Lake City's jurisdiction. o 3 of the 115 Public Lands parcels are privately owned. Total Number PL parcels over PL parcels over PL parcels PL parcels over Privately number of parcels 20,000 SF 5 acres(the over 20,000 20,000 SF owned owned of SLC zoned PL (which could majority of SF owned by by the State or PL parcels Parcels potentially which are Salt Lake Federal over 20,000 accommodate a owned by the City Government(not SF restaurant use) SLC Board of Corporation under the City's Education) jurisdiction) 2,368 247 115 36 25 12 3 While there are 115 Public Lands parcels that meet the minimum lot size required for a permitted use, that doesn't suggest the properties meet the other underlying zoning requirements such as lot width and building setbacks. External factors including location, parking, and development costs may also limit the number of parcels where a restaurant could locate.Many of the parcels are already developed or are intended for use by public schools.Additionally,land owned by the State or Federal government is not under Salt Lake City's jurisdiction,thus doesn't have to comply with the City's underlying zoning requirements.The impact of permitting restaurants is expected to be minimal and will likely only occur on a few parcels in the city. KEY CONSIDERATIONS: The key considerations below were identified through department review, public comments, and an analysis of the zoning ordinance and the City's guiding documents such as Plan Salt Lake and the Salt Lake City Urban Design Element. Adopted Master Planning Documents One of the guiding principles in Plan Salt Lake is to create a"balanced economy that produces quality jobs and fosters an environment for commerce,local business,and industry to thrive". One of the City's initiatives is to support the growth of small businesses,entrepreneurship and neighborhood nodes. Permitting additional uses in the Public Lands zone creates more economic opportunities for local businesses.The Salt Lake City Urban Design Element speaks to implementing pedestrian-oriented design to activate public spaces.Allowing restaurants in this zone would encourage their use in publicly owned spaces that are often underutilized. Impacts from Allowing Restaurants in PL Zoned Properties Potential Benefits of Permitting Restaurants • Permitting restaurants would activate existing buildings and public spaces that are currently underutilized or unprogrammed after peak business hours. • Restaurants would allow for a broader use of properties and provide an opportunity for local businesses to open and existing businesses to expand their operations. • Restaurant owners would have to sign a lease with Salt Lake City or the government entity that owns the land,which generates revenue and allows the entity to regulate the use. • Any new development would be required to adhere to the Public Lands Zoning District standards outlined in section 21A.32.o70 of the Zoning Ordinance. Outside of public schools, all other permitted uses, such as a restaurant, must meet the following criteria: o Minimum Lot Area: 20,000 square feet(.4591 acres) o Minimum Lot Width: 75 feet o Maximum Building Height: Thirty-five feet(35') o Minimum Yard [setback] Requirements: • Front, Rear and Corner Side Yards: Thirty feet(30') • Interior Side Yard: Twenty feet(20') o Landscape Yards: All front and corner side yards must meet the requirements outlined in chapter 21A.48.Landscape Buffers: Landscape buffers are required when a lot in the PL Public Lands District abuts a lot in a Single-Family or Two- Family Residential District. Landscaping buffer requirements can be found in chapter 21A.48. Potential Issues with Permitting Restaurants Issue 1: Signage Planning staff asked other city departments and divisions to review and provide feedback on the proposal. During the review process, the issue of how to regulate private signage on public property was raised. Section 21A.46 - Signs On Public Property states, "Except for portable signs authorized pursuant to section 21A.46.055 of this chapter,no sign shall be located on publicly owned land or inside street rights of way, except signs erected by permission of an authorized public agency." Unless the signage code is amended, restaurants will be held to the standard above. This code may have to be addressed in the future as restaurants often provide signage to promote their business. Issue 2: Parking Per table 21A.44.030 Schedule of Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements, restaurants are required to have two(2)parking spaces per 1,00o square feet of useable floor area.Shared parking is allowed when multiple uses share the same off-street parking facility. A new off-street parking ordinance has been transmitted to the City Council after receiving a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission on January 8, 2020. If adopted, the off-street parking requirement for restaurants would remain the same. All departmental review comments can be reviewed in Attachment F. Issue 3:Commercialization of Public Spaces There have been some concerns from residents and through past planning processes that commercializing public spaces is not appropriate.While the City would generate some revenue from private businesses wishing to operate on government owned land,the number of properties available is limited so the competition with the private market would be minimal. Regarding the current proposal, one resident spoke to this issue. They are in favor of allowing restaurants as a Conditional Use,subject to forceable restrictions,particularly if they are allowed to serve alcohol.Current code does not permit alcohol establishments within the zone.The Public Lands—2 zone was established during the development of Library Square. This zone limits the size and types of permitted uses on public lands to minimize the impact a commercial business may have.While this is a separate zoning district, the uses are similar to the Public Lands zone. Summary: After reviewing applicable code requirements, staff believes adding restaurants as a permitted use aligns with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and city-wide planning documents. Only ii5 existing properties are zoned Public Lands that also meet the minimum lot size requirement of 20,000 SF for a permitted use. Upon a complete zoning review, these properties may not meet the other zoning standards outlined in code, thus could not accommodate the use. In addition, most properties are owned by a government entity so the business owner would have to sign a lease to operate on the property,which allows the use to be regulated to a higher extent. Staff agrees that the commercialization of public lands can be inappropriate. But because the Public Lands Zoning District has a limited number of permitted uses,adding restaurants to the land use table would not create additional impacts that couldn't be mitigated through the existing regulations outlined in code.Adding a commercial element to the zone would also encourage a greater use of these properties which typically only support daytime uses.Staff supports allowing restaurants in the Public Lands Zoning District because in addition to supporting parks and open spaces,the zone already allows a variety of commercial uses.The existing commercial element of the zone makes it different than the Open Space or Natural Open Space Zoning Districts,which are designed to protect undeveloped open space and limit the number of commercial uses allowed. After reviewing city-wide planning documents, zoning regulations, and the existing land uses within the Public Lands Zoning District,staff has concluded that permitting restaurants will uphold the intent of the zone and is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city, thus recommends the Planning Commission transmit a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed text amendment. NEXT STEPS: The City Council has the final authority to make changes to the text of the Zoning Ordinance. The recommendation of the Planning Commission for this request will be forwarded to the City Council for their review and decision. ATTACHMENT A: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT 21A.33.o70: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS: To view TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS in PDF, click HERE Legend: C = Conditional P = Permitted Permitted And Conditional Uses By District Use RP BP FP AG AG-2 AG-5 AG-2o OS NOS A PL PL-2 I UI MH EI MU Restaurant P7 P P ATTACHMENT B: PUBLIC LANDS ZONING MAP PL - Public Lands Zoning District Parcels - '";' •------"..-111111111111111111 eisiaLL1 •. 4 lk.._ ,_.* ...• 'I. 1- k .. ' 1 ,, — _ .,.. ..,. __ , . i„. •I Ils II, 6, •11P_I * ' _ . ... '''f• '4.• -::iri teN• i . '-,, A AV i .47:ri..-: 1., "3 - .viS 1 •,-..-ze,"•-_•-- '. • ., \ --AP.I.,,,.• ". • -. iitt"L-. . ' :.? •I.r' 4 44 • ..a . .. • 01,:/"" *.4 . ' . ,111,: ,,,,40044,,,.ik e • 1 ;•00 .1..-Tp. . , - - , , -- . _ r .., •- rt*..-1.. k -.. .. -,-..,.- - •,,..., , -.. ,..., . .i - k..„•-• . - ,.. : I,It - 'al' i• •-• : .Z..0„, - ... ...- 1 - .5 4 . 1. . ''''.;* v.* -i114,14`1.."'.'-'4. io, • 5'' 1 * • I .t...%.. . -41.4 .:s . ..,•.-e??Ls . - ^k.;- Ll'-I:. abut. I7::ii.,:- • 'L- . I-: J. --: . , — - . 7.-"" .44..$.t 1 _ - .- 1 . -QM: I,.. 1 IN - . AI _-.. ,.. --• . •-... , .. . . , ?v, 6.•44,1!::,di.40,14.- .z....- . •. -v.. 4..' ths.,....:, '0 •-• * -,1 .. r•• J . --: ' ''IllkireMET-LICrjv-:-. ' '' t. 1 • - '' '''..)--i )-er...-n. '•'•: 0 .. - ..--_ = • _ . ,,,,-if.,..?'5- .4• • , , • - -17.4,.-9: l'i III4:: .`-,II -( ... .... ,1 tf-• - . - •. 7",11.TWIL to ilt• ' ' -16 • 4:;-. . •1-r ', • . . ..f'. -n.4...:.- .,.-.. •,-* . .4,q, ,-• , , . . ,,,, # ,8 . -11. .,;;.i*gr --" " - ' , , r • ti :C.' ../i ' ' - --.•, -, _ .' 3:...'- - '-._ I..?I - •-- ^ - • - -.... . .4- I ..' . •• - . • • ., V "I ..; i . ., ' . .t. • • 1 :4 . ' 1-j 44F, I I 7" . i • • la- • i , 6 - - . . t . 911V- -_, '_ :,, . ;; , - - '''• .• . g, 1..a, _ , I I a • . . i. 111 ". . 1 4:' ,.. •,.. •-IL- n. i• ., — . ... . '''. I, o••..T.PA . • t . ,qua0 -. .„ - •- a.-__ -44-. .'.-Ttio- — . - ....• _ t .-: • _ a. % Properties Zoned PL , GIS ACRES • 1.. 0 - .44 acres .45 - 5 acres - .,,, ,, - _ _ . .,: ' ', - ; . -17: --. * • = f • , e s 5.1 - 59.8 acres - - ' Salt Lake City Planning Division.1 0/12t2020 ATTACHMENT C: PETITION TO INITIATE MEMORANDUM f 17f PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENTo COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS `l T� To: Mayor Erin Mendenhall Cc: Lisa Shaeffer,Chief Administ alive Officer;Jennifer McGrath,Deputy Director Department of Community and Neighborhoods; From: Nick Norris,Planning Director Date: June 24,2020 Re: Zoning amendment related to restaurant in the PL Public Lands Zoning District The Planning Division has been asked to provide input on the pros and cons of adding restaurants as a permitted use in the PL Public Lands Zoning District. The PL zoning district primarily includes government properties that are used for public schools,government buildings,and government operations. The purpose of the district is to provide areas in the city for public uses and regulate the development of those uses. The zoning district includes lands owned by the State of Utah and the United States.These lands are not subject to the zoning regulations,with the exception of public schools,which are subject to some local regulations. The zoning district contains some unique land uses that include a variety of food serving establishments, including the City and County Building and Smiths Ballpark and other unique properties such as the Wasatch Plunge building on 30o West. Adding restaurants to the table of permitted and conditional uses would be required for the use to be allowed in the zoning district. The benefits of doing this include: • Promoting broader use of the buildings and properties that are zoned PL,specifically those sites that already include similar uses such as the restaurant in the City and County Building and potentially restaurants on the Smith Ballpark property. • Activating existing public spaces that are typically difficult to program and activate due to the nature of the site. • Supports the incubation and provides opportunity for local businesses. • Generates some revenue for the government entity that owns the property. There may be some concerns with taking this approach,including: • Public lands containing commercial businesses competing with private property. This issue arose during the redevelopment of the Library Block and adding commercial space inside the library. The solution was to limit the size and type of uses to reduce competition with private property by creating a new zone(PL-2). • There may be barriers created by other zoning regulations,such as off-street parking requirements, that make it difficult to establish the use on property that does not have adequate parking to begin with. • Processing a zoning amendment requires diverting staff resources from other city priorities. A zoning amendment process can be started by one of four entities: • a property owner, • Mayor, • City Council,or • Planning Commission. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406 WWW.SLC.GOV PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 The Planning Division typically provides a memo to the Mayor to sign to initiate a zoning amendment. The memo explains the issue,provides a brief description of the process,and the resources required.For this potential proposal,the process would follow the typical engagement processes that include notification of all community councils and a 45-day comment period. Following the 45-day comment period the Planning Division would prepare for a public hearing with the Planning Commission. After the Planning Commission makes a recommendation,the matter is transmitted to the City Council for a decision. In the interest of time and to avoid redundancy,this memo includes a signature block to initiate the petition if that is the decided course of action. If the decided course of action is to not initiate the application,the signature block can remain blank. Please notify the Planning Division when the memo is signed or if the decision is made to not initiate the petition. Please contact me at ext.6173 or nick.normis(d'slcgov.c om if you have any questions.Thank you. Concurrence to initiate the zoning text amendment petition as noted above. El/ --.16--4-q July 2,2020 Erin Mendenhall,Mayor Date • Page 2 ATTACHMENT D: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS 21A.50.050:A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. In making a decision concerning a proposed text amendment, the City Council should consider the following: Factor Finding Rationale 1. Whether a proposed text Complies One of the guiding principles of the 2015 Plan amendment is consistent with Salt Lake is to create a balanced economy that the purposes,goals,objectives, fosters an environment for commerce,local and policies of the city as business,and industry to thrive.Expanding the stated through its various number of properties where a restaurant can adopted planning documents; operate supports business owners and the local economy. The Salt Lake City Urban Design Element encourages greater use of public areas for eating, entertainment,etc.It also speaks to the importance of prioritizing street-level activity when developing pedestrian-oriented spaces. Properties zoned Public Lands typically have daytime activity,but once the primary use closes for the evening the property isn't fully utilized. Permitting restaurants would expand the operational hours and allow for more"eyes on the street". 2.Whether a proposed text Complies The purpose statement of the Public Lands amendment furthers the District is to specifically delineate areas of public specific purpose statements of use and to control the potential redevelopment of the zoning ordinance; public uses,lands and facilities.The majority of the properties zoned Public Lands are government owned.Any development or business proposals on City-owned land would have to comply with the underlying zoning requirements,complete a site plan review,and receive various department approvals. State and Federally owned properties function independently and do not have to adhere to the City's Zoning Ordinance. 3.Whether a proposed text Complies The proposed change primarily affects the base amendment is consistent with zoning district.If a parcel which is zoned Public the purposes and provisions Lands is also located within the airport overlay of any applicable overlay district or a local historic district,the proposal zoning districts which may will have to comply with the applicable standards impose additional standards; of the overlay district. and 4.The extent to which a Complies The proposed text amendment would diversify proposed text amendment the use of existing public spaces and promote implements best current, activity in spaces that are currently underutilized professional practices of or unprogrammed.Promoting additional uses urban planning and design. increases street activity and allows more opportunities for"eyes on the street",thus increasing security. Restaurants would adhere to the established zoning standards outlined in section 21A.32.070 of code,such as,lot size,lot width,setbacks,and landscape buffers.Of the 247 properties zoned Public Lands only 115 properties could potentially meet the zoning requirements to accommodate a restaurant. ATTACHMENT E: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed amendment: Recognized Organizations Notice: Staff contacted all community council chairs and recognized organizations on August 4, 2020.None of the community councils requested additional information or provided comments within the 45-day comment period. Open House: From August 4,2020 to September 20,2020,information and a request for comments regarding the proposal was posted to the City's Online Open House page. Public Hearing Notice: A notice of the public hearing for this text amendment includes: — Public hearing notice published in the newspaper on October 17,2020. — Public hearing notice was posted on City and State websites on October 15,2020. Public Comments: At the time of the publication of this staff report, five public comments have been received. The comments are included below.Any additional comments received will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. From: Steve Alder To: Roman,Amanda Subject: (EXTERNAL) Date: Monday,August 10,2020 12:31:23 PM Facilities on public lands. I am confused by the zone, since the city seems to deny that it has any zoning authority on state or federal lands, how does the city have any power to restrict or permit food or beverage services on public lands and if it can why can't the city zone research park. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Jason Cowan To: Roman,Amanda Subject: (EXTERNAL)Petition Number: PLNPCM2020-00503 Permitting Restaurants Date: Saturday,August 15,2020 2:27:23 PM Hello Ms. Roman, I am in support of permitting restaurants to use land deemed PL Zone. Restaurants need all the help they can get during this time and if expanding their operations to these PL zoned areas its good for us all. Thank you. Jason Cowan To call or text: From: James Webster To: Roman,Amanda Subject: (EXTERNAL)Restaurants on public lands Date: Wednesday,September 9,2020 12:35:47 AM This appears as a gateway to enable Jon Bates et.al.to further commercialize public institutional lands as an unwarranted"educational or research mission". Traffic impacts alone merit denial. Jim Webster,RLA Sent from my iPhone Sent from my iPhone From: Scott Kislinq To: Roman,Amanda Cc: Judi Short Subject: (EXTERNAL)PLNPCM2020-00503 comment Date: Saturday,September 12,2020 1:49:31 PM Dear Commissioner, I am in favor of including restaurants as a Conditional use in PL Zones, subject to enforceable restrictions,especially if restaurants are allowed to serve alcohol—a necessary element for their financial success. I strongly believe sufficient constraints must be in place to prevent the appearance of commercializing our parks. It's always difficult to tie proposals such as this to any particular language in the applicable Master Plans,but I believe that conditionally approving this use certainly addresses the spirit of the documents. Warm regards, Scott Kislin SatL e City,UT From: Rene smink To: Roman,Amanda Subject: Re: (EXTERNAL)Restaurant in public lands zoning district:yes please Date: Monday,September 14,2020 11:13:29 AM Perfect I vote YES Regards, Un Saludo, Met vriendelijke groet, Rene H.A. Smink From: Roman, Amanda <Amanda.Roman@slcgov.com> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2020 09:02 To: Rene smink > Subject: RE: (EXTERNAL) Restaurant in public lands zoning district : yes please Rene, I hope you are well.Yes,if the amendment is approved and restaurants are listed as a"Permitted Use" then Cytybyrd would be able to operate on the weekends. Best, Amanda Roman Principal Planner PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION TEL 801-535-7660 www.slc.gov/planninq From: Rene smink > Sent: Sunday, September 13, 2020 8:46 PM To: Roman, Amanda <Amanda.Roman@slcgov.com> Subject: Re: (EXTERNAL) Restaurant in public lands zoning district : yes please Thanks , would this mean that the city bird at washington square could open weekends? Regards, Un Saludo, Met vriendelijke groet, Rene H. A. Smink ATTACHMENT F: DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS Public Utilities (Jason Draper at jason.draper@slcgov.com) "Public Utilities does not object to the proposed text amendment.All restaurants will be required to meet public utility standards,policies, and ordinances.All restaurants require grease removal systems.There may be cost associated with restaurants including meter costs, and sewer lateral replacement or installation to accommodate this use." Transportation (Michael Barry at michael.barry@slcgov.com) "Each restaurant will need to accommodate the required off-street parking." Public Lands (Kristin Riker at kristin.riker@slcgov.com) "I [Kristin Riker] have spoken with Public Services Attorneys and with Planning regarding the impact of this action. I am supporting to move this forward." Engineering(Scott Weiler at scott.weiler@slcgov.com) Engineering has no objections. HAND (Lani Eggertsen-Goff at lani.eggertsen-goff@slcgov.com) HAND does not have any concerns related to this proposal. Zoning, Building and Fire (Gregory Mikolash at gregory.mikolash@slcgov.com) There are no zoning,building, or fire related issues associated with this request. Sustainability(Vicki Bennett at vicki.bennett@slcgov.com) No concerns from Sustainability. Police (Scott Teerlink at scott.teerlink@slcgov.com) No concerns from Police on this proposal. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION C. Agenda & Minutes October 28, 2020 JOINT MEETING SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION & APPEALS (VARIANCE) HEARING MEETING AGENDA This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation October 28, 2020, at 5:30 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission's discretion) JOINT APPEALS HEARING AND PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING: As provided by City Code, a conditional use that includes a requested variance, may be heard simultaneously. Items 1 and 1A on the agenda will be heard during the same public hearing. After the public hearing is closed by the Planning Commission and concurred to by the Appeals Hearing Officer, the Commission will make a decision on the conditional use first, followed by the Appeals Hearing Officer. This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the meeting can still access the meeting how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the joint meeting, they are available on the following platforms: • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings • SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCty-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or in providing general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at: • http://tinv.cc/slc-pc-appeals-10282020 Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 AND OCTOBER 14, 2020 REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR Extensions of Previous Approvals: the commission will discuss granting a one-year extension to all land use applications that are set to expire during the current public health emergency. Due to City building being closed and city staff working remotely, increased construction costs due to disruptions with the supply chain, and the impact of the current pandemic, submitting required plans and documents necessary to avoid a land use approval from expiring is requiring a longer period of time. The Planning Commission may consider granting an extension for all land use approvals that require an approved extension from the commission. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 1. Conditional Use for an ADU at approximately 1977 South Scenic Drive - Tim and Cathy Chambless, owners, request approval of a conditional use to establish a 1,313 square foot Acc-essory Dwelling Unit attached to the rear of their home at approximately 1977 South Scenic Drive. The subject property is located in the FR-3/12,000 Zone and is within Council District 6, represented by Dan Dugan. (Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 315-8115 or caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00620 The Planning Commission will open the public hearing, which will serve as the public hearing for both the Planning Commission and the Appeals Hearing Officer. VARIANCE HEARING 1A. Variance for an ADU at approximately 1977 South Scenic Drive — Tim and Cathy Chambless, owners, request the granting of a variance to allow a proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit to encroach between 13 and 15 feet into the required 35-foot rear yard at approximately 1977 South Scenic Drive. The subject property is located in the FR-3/12,000 Zone and is within Council District 6, represented by Dan Dugan. (Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 315-8115 or caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case number PLNZAD2020-00490 Note: The Appeals Hearing Officer will not make a decision on this matter during the meeting and will issue a decision at a later date. Once the Appeals Hearing is closed the Planning Commission meeting will be resume business. PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING 2. Special Exception for Height at approximately 1400 East Federal Way - Geoffrey Tice, applicant, requests a special exception for additional building height to add a second story to the home located at 1400 East Federal Way. By ordinance the maximum building height is 20' for flat roofs; the applicant is requesting special exception approval to build to 27'6" in height. The property is located within the R-1-5,000 Zone and is within Council District 3, represented by Chris Wharton. (Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 315-8115 or caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00465 3. Block 67 Changes to Building Design at approximately 131 South 300 West - A request by Emir Tursic, architect, to modify the approved hotel building of the Block 67 development located at approximately 131 S 300 W. The Planning Commission approved the Conditional Building and Site Design Review and Planned Development on November 8, 2017. The proposed modifications include changes to the design and massing of the building and material changes. These changes are required by ordinance to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The site is zoned D-4 (Downtown Secondary Central Business District). The subject property is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Molly Robinson at (385) 226-8656 or molly.robinson@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2017-00448 & PLNPCM2017-00418 4. Central Station West Apartments Planned Development & Design Review at approximately 577 West 200 South - Eric Balls representing Gardner Batt LLC, has requested Planned Development and Design Review approval for the Central Station West Apartments project to be located at approximately 577 West 200 South. The proposed project is for a 65-unit apartment building on a 0.46-acre (20,000 square feet) parcel. The proposed building will be six stories in height. The property is located in the G-MU —Gateway- Mixed Use zoning district. The G-MU zoning district requires Planned Development approval for all new principal buildings and uses. In addition, Design Review approval has been requested in order to address some design aspects of the building including material choices, the length of blank walls and street-level glass requirements on the west façade of the building. The proposal is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at (801) 535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00187 & PLNPCM2020-00647 5. Permitting Restaurants in the PL Public Lands Zoning District Text Amendment- Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a text amendment to the zoning ordinance pertaining to restaurant uses within the PL — Public Lands Zoning District. Under the current ordinance restaurants are allowed to operate as an accessory use only. The amendment would allow restaurants to operate as a principal use. The purpose of the PL district is to provide areas in the city for public uses and regulate the development of those uses. The proposed amendment affects section 21A.33.070 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at (385) 386-2765 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00503 6. Billboard Ordinance Amendments - The City Council is requesting amendments to the zoning ordinance regulations regarding billboards. The proposed amendments would modify city code to align with state law, eliminating the city's use of a "billboard bank" (a method for managing billboard relocations)to align more closely with Utah state law regulating billboards. The amendments would continue to prohibit new billboards. State law would regulate future billboard modification and relocation. The amendments also include specifics on size, height, and spacing of billboards, along with landscaping, when not already specified in the state law. The proposed amendments affect Chapter 21A.46 of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Casey Stewart at (385) 226-8959 or casey.stewart@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2020-00351 OTHER BUSINESS Chairperson and Vice Chairperson elections For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division's website at slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Agenda items may not be heard in the order listed. The Appeals Hearing Officer reserves the right to change the order of agenda items as deemed necessary. To request the files for the above items please contact the Staff Planner. Visit the Planning Division website at www.slcgov.com/planning/planning-public-meetings for copies of the Appeals Hearing Officer meeting/hearing agendas,staff reports and decisions. Staff reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting SALT LAKE CITY JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING & APPEALS (VARIANCE) HEARING This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation Wednesday, October 28, 2020 A roll is being kept of all who attended the joint Planning Commission Meeting & Appeals (Variance) Hearing. The meeting was called to order at 5:31:07 PM. Audio recordings of the joint Planning Commission meeting & Appeals (Variance) Hearing are retained for a period of time. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Adrienne Bell; Vice Chairperson, Brenda Sheer; Commissioners, Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Carolynn Hoskins, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon, and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Commissioners Andres Paredes, and Sara Urquhart were excused. Appeals Hearing Officer: Mary J. Woodhead. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Molly Robinson, Planning Manager; John Anderson, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Caitlyn Miller, Principal Planner; David Gellner, Principal Planner; Amanda Roman, Principal Planner; Casey Stewart, Senior Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary. 5:33:14 PM Chairperson, Adrienne Bell, read the Salt Lake City emergency proclamation. 5:34:12 PM Appeals Hearing Officer, Mary J. Woodhead concurs. APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 AND OCTOBER 14, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 5:35:37 PM Commissioner Scheer moved to approve the September 30, 2020 and October 14, 2020 meeting minutes. Commissioner Young-Otterstrom seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Bachman, Lee, Young-Otterstrom, Lyon, and Scheer voted "Aye". Commissioner Hoskins abstained from voting for the October 14, 2020 meeting as she was not present. The motion passed 6-1. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:37:10 PM Chairperson Bell stated she had nothing to report. Vice Chairperson Scheer stated she had nothing to report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:37:21 PM Molly Robinson, Planning Manager, reminded the commission regarding the added meeting for December 2, 2020. Salt Lake City Planning Commission October 28, 2020 Page 1 8:35:12 PM Permitting Restaurants in the PL Public Lands Zoning District Text Amendment - Mayor Erin Mendenhall has initiated a text amendment to the zoning ordinance pertaining to restaurant uses within the PL — Public Lands Zoning District. Under the current ordinance restaurants are allowed to operate as an accessory use only. The amendment would allow restaurants to operate as a principal use. The purpose of the PL district is to provide areas in the city for public uses and regulate the development of those uses. The proposed amendment affects section 21A.33.070 Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses for Special Purpose Districts of the zoning ordinance. Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at (385) 386-2765 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00503 Amanda Roman, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. PUBLIC HEARING 8:45:29 PM Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing; Cindy Cromer — Stated her concerns on how the City determines the market rate negotiating a lease. There doesn't appear to be standard lease for commercial and non-profit activities in public buildings. Zachary Dussault— Stated his support of the request. Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Bell closed the Public Hearing. The Commission and Staff discussed the following: • Clarification on permitted uses MOTION 9:10:55 PM Commissioner Lyon stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed text amendment, PLNPCM2020-00503 Permitting Restaurants in the PL — Public Lands Zone Text Amendment. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Commissioners Hoskins, Lyon, Lee, Bachman, and Barry voted "Aye". Commissioner Scheer voted "Nay". The motion passed 5-1. Salt Lake City Planning Commission October 28, 2020 Page 6 5. ORIGINAL PETITION Petition PLNPCM2020-00503 4 MEMORANDUM 4= 'x PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS C1 T� To: Mayor Erin Mendenhall Cc: I isa Shaeffer,Chief Administrative Officer;Jennifer McGrath,Deputy Director Department of Community and Neighborhoods; From: Nick Norris,Planning Director Date: June 24,2020 Re: Zoning amendment related to restaurant in the PL Public Lands Zoning District The Planning Division has been asked to provide input on the pros and cons of adding restaurants as a permitted use in the PL Public Lands Zoning District. The PL zoning district primarily includes government properties that are used for public schools,government buildings,and government operations. The purpose of the district is to provide areas in the city for public uses and regulate the development of those uses. The zoning district includes lands owned by the State of Utah and the United States.These lands are not subject to the zoning regulations,with the exception of public schools,which are subject to some local regulations. The zoning district contains some unique land uses that include a variety of food serving establishments, including the City and County Building and Smiths Ballpark and other unique properties such as the Wasatch Plunge building on 30o West. Adding restaurants to the table of permitted and conditional uses would be required for the use to be allowed in the zoning district. The benefits of doing this include: • Promoting broader use of the buildings and properties that are zoned PL,specifically those sites that already include similar uses such as the restaurant in the City and County Building and potentially restaurants on the Smith Ballpark property. • Activating existing public spaces that are typically difficult to program and activate due to the nature of the site. • Supports the incubation and provides opportunity for local businesses. • Generates some revenue for the government entity that owns the property. There may be some concerns with taking this approach,including: • Public lands containing commercial businesses competing with private property. This issue arose during the redevelopment of the Library Block and adding commercial space inside the library. The solution was to limit the size and type of uses to reduce competition with private property by creating a new zone(PL-2). • There may be barriers created by other zoning regulations,such as off-street parking requirements, that make it difficult to establish the use on property that does not have adequate parking to begin with. • Processing a zoning amendment requires diverting staff resources from other city priorities. A zoning amendment process can be started by one of four entities: • a property owner, • Mayor, • City Council,or • Planning Commission. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406 WWW.SLC.GOV PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 The Planning Division typically provides a memo to the Mayor to sign to initiate a zoning amendment. The memo explains the issue,provides a brief description of the process,and the resources required.For this potential proposal,the process would follow the typical engagement processes that include notification of all community councils and a 45-day comment period. Following the 45-day comment period the Planning Division would prepare for a public hearing with the Planning Commission. After the Planning Commission makes a recommendation,the matter is transmitted to the City Council for a decision. In the interest of time and to avoid redundancy,this memo includes a signature block to initiate the petition if that is the decided course of action. If the decided course of action is to not initiate the application,the signature block can remain blank. Please notify the Planning Division when the memo is signed or if the decision is made to not initiate the petition. Please contact me at ext.6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com if you have any questions.Thank you. Concurrence to initiate the zoning text amendment petition as noted above. July 2,2020 Erin 1 ndenhall,Mayor Date •Page 2 Item B7 J ;s•%% "'z••••. MOTION SHEET SHEET ,4AnriefCITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY _ :t/1=IMF ,(TI: 31 ■].�are„aP�1 IIR 71,se 1 TO: City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet Policy Analyst DATE: September 7,2021 RE: Text amendment: Fence,Wall and Hedge Height PLNPCM2o2o-oo5ii MOTION i I move the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 I move the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O.BOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF t\,),4 LIi ---- • 4e-w40.� = REPORT 1- -141414, ,� , CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO: City Council Members FROM: Nick Tarbet,Policy Analyst PROJECT TIMELINE: DATE: September 7,2021 Briefing August 17,2021 Set Date:August 17,2021 Public Hearing:Sept 7,2021 RE: Text amendment: Fence,Wall and Potential Action:Sept 21,2021 Hedge Height PLNPCM2o2o-oo5ii Work Session Briefing The Council did not have significant questions or concerns about the text amendment. However, this petition is related to the Special Exception process that the Council is currently considering. At the August 24 public hearing for the special exception petition,the Council asked Planning staff to research and come back with potential recommendations that would include options to mitigate the impact of outdoors dining adjacent to residential zones. (Planning staff forwarded recommendations for the Council to consider. Small group meetings are being set up to discuss the options.A follow-up work session briefing will then be scheduled.) During the briefing the Council asked if the fence/wall/hedge petition should be held back and adopted on the same night as the Special Exception petition in order to avoid any potential text conflicts. Planning staff noted that may create some problems for current petitions. In order to avoid that issue; Planning staff recommends deleting the authorized special exception for extra height in 21A.52 as part of the fence/wall/hedge height application.The current ordinance includes the change that would delete the reference to extra fence height in 21A.52.o3o.A.3. If, after the September 7 public hearing the Council is supportive of moving forward with the petition, potential action is scheduled for September 21. The following information was provided for the August 17 work session briefing.It is provided again for background purposes. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning ordinance regulations to remove the Special Exception process that allows for over-height fences and define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and approved by right. If approved,the Planning Commission or Historic Landmark Commission will be able to modify fence,wall, or hedge height as part of their approval of a use application in order to mitigate impacts according to the approval standards for the applicable land use application, such as the conditional use process. The proposed amendments would limit fence,wall, and hedge height to four feet(4') in front yards and six feet(6') in the side or rear yards for all zoning districts, except for a few specific instances such as: • When a residential district abuts a nonresidential district • Manufacturing and extractive industries zoning districts • Public facilities and recreation facilities where a greater height is necessary to protect public safety • Private game courts • Temporary construction fencing • Decorative pillars and arches. The Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council. Policy Questions • The draft ordinance would allow fences or walls to exceed maximum height regulation for Public Utility Facilities when the fence or wall is necessary to restrict access and promote safety of public utility buildings or structures,provided that the portion of the fence or wall which exceeds a height of 6 feet is at least 8o%transparent. In no event, shall the fence or wall securing a public utility building or structure exceed 12 feet in height. When the City added a taller fence in the front yard setback of the City owned buildings on the southeast corner of 600 South and 200 East,the Council received some negative constituent feedback about it,particularly with regard to the height. The Council may wish to ask the administration to explain what circumstances are considered necessary to restrict access and promote safety of public, and if those standards can be further defined to increase predictability for the public. The Council may also wish to ask for more specificity with regard to over- height fences adjacent to athletic fields. Page 12 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Ordinance Changes Since Planning Commission Approval: Following the recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission the Attorney's Office created the Ordinance. During their review a few minor details in the proposed amendment were modified due to legal, grammatical and technical issues that were identified: • Removed authority of Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission (21A.21o.E.4.i)to modify fence height through any land use application.The Attorney's Office noted that a Conditional Use process is the only process with direct standards that could be tied to fence height. Please note that fence height can still be modified through the Planned Development process. • Clarified when fences tied to private recreational activities may receive additional height (21A.21o.E.4.d). • Made minor edits throughout to text and definitions to provide clarity. Substance and meaning of the proposal did not change. Key Issues Pages 3-5 of the Planning Commission staff reports includes a summary of four key issues identified by the Planning Staff. A short summary of those is provided below. See the planning commission staff report to view the full analysis. • Consistency&Clarity The over height fence special exception results in an unpredictable development patterns, as well as unpredictable expectations for applicants. Often, applicants assume that the act of applying equals approval and are confused when it is denied. Planning Staff believes it is rare for an over height fence to be approved in the front yard.As such,if applications are routinely denied or discouraged,then the ordinance should not provide an exception. • Staff&City Resources The Fence Height Text Amendment is being reviewed separately from a larger application to remove all special exceptions. The Council was briefed on the special exception amendments on July 20, the public hearing in set for August 17 The purpose of the special exception amendments is to simplify the zoning ordinance by updating regulations and eliminating special exceptions, reallocate staff resources away from Page 13 processing land use applications that favor individual properties and toward updating overall zoning codes to align with adopted master plans, increase predictability and reduce neighbor conflicts that are created by requests for exceptions to the zoning regulations for single parcels (Special Exception Staff report,July 20,2021) • Community Character The purpose of the fence regulations as stated in ordinance section 21A.40.120.A is"to achieve a balance between the private concerns for privacy and site design and the public concerns for enhancement of the community appearance, and to ensure the provision of adequate light,air and public safety." Staff has found that allowing greater fence height typically has a negative impact on neighborhood character. • Appropriate instances for over height fences The following were determined to be situations or uses where over height fences are appropriate and could be allowed by-right: o Public Facilities, such as municipal structures, schools, or utility buildings o Recreation Facilities, such as around parks, open space, or similar recreation areas o Athletic fields or courts, such as driving ranges,baseball fields, athletic fields; or similar facilities o Temporary construction fencing o Decorative pillars attached to fences that meet the height requirements Following public review of the draft ordinance,the following over height allowances were added to address concerns raised: o The Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission will retain the ability to approve taller fences to mitigate a negative impact associated with a land use application. (This was changed to only apply to Conditional Use Applications and Planned Developments.) o Side or rear yard fences in single family zones which are next to nonresidential zones o Gates, arches or trellises attached to fences that meet the height requirements. o In the M-2 Heavy Manufacturing and EI Extractive Industries zoning districts fences, walls, or hedges may be up to a maximum of 6 feet in height up to the front yard setback line. o If there is no minimum front yard setback in the underlying zoning district, a fence, wall, or hedge at a maximum of 6 feet in height can be placed io feet from the front property line. Page 14 ERIN MENDENHALL V �L 1,, DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor _ = and NEIGHBORHOODS �; Blake Thomas n Director et 14 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Lis (Ju114,202115:03MDT) Date Received:07/14/2021 Lisa Shaffer,Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 07/14/2021 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: July 7, 2021 Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas,Director,Department of Community&Neighborhoods SUBJECT: PLNPCM2020-00511 STAFF CONTACT: Krissy Gilmore,AICP,Principal Planner (385)214-9714,kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council amend the text of the zoning ordinance as requested and recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This is a request by the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance regulations to remove the Special Exception process that allows for over-height fences (Chapter 21A.52.030) and to define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and approved by right(Chapter 21A.40.120). The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and hedge height to four feet(4') in front yards and six feet (6')in the side or rear yards for all zoning districts,except for a few specific instances. Those instances include: • When a residential district abuts a nonresidential district • Manufacturing and extractive industries zoning districts • Public facilities and recreation facilities where a greater height is necessary to protect public safety • Private game courts • Temporary construction fencing • Decorative pillars and arches SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O.BOX 145487,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269 Additionally, the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission would have the authority to grant additional fence,wall, or hedge height through the Conditional Use process. The amendments proposed to Chapter 21A.40 will affect all zoning districts throughout Salt Lake City. PUBLIC PROCESS: Community Council Notice: A notice of application was sent to all recognized community organizations (community councils) on July 22, 2020 per City Code 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage. The recognized organizations were given 45 days to respond with any concerns or to request staff to meet with them and discuss the proposed zoning amendment. Two community councils (East Bench Community Council and Sugar House Community Council) submitted formal comments expressing concerns with the proposal. Concerns were primarily on the lack of ability to consider unique circumstances if the special exception is removed. No community councils requested that staff attend a meeting to review the proposal. Public Open House: An online open house was held from July 22'2020 through July 27, 2020. Planning Commission Meeting: On January 13, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. Five citizens provided testimony related to the request. Two citizens spoke in support of the request, one against the request, and two with general comments and questions. The Commission requested clarification on fencing materials and their durability, discussed fence heights when a property is adjacent to multi-family, and fencing to secure vacant property. Ultimately, the Commission made a recommendation with a condition that staff allow fencing up to 6-feet in front yards of vacant lots, as well as to add a maximum fence height of up to 8-feet when fences in residential zoning districts abut non- residential uses. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Ordinance Changes Since Planning Commission Approval: Following the recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission the Attorney's Office created the Ordinance. During their review a few minor details in the proposed amendment were modified due to legal, grammatical and technical issues that were identified: • Removed authority of Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission (21A.210.E.4.i) to modify fence height through any land use application. The Attorney's Office noted that a Conditional Use process is the only process with direct standards that could be tied to fence height. Please note that fence height can still be modified through the Planned Development process. • Clarified when fences tied to private recreational activities may receive additional height (21A.210.E.4.d). • Made minor edits throughout to text and definitions to provide clarity. Substance and meaning of the proposal did not change. EXHIBITS: 1. Ordinance 2. Project Chronology 3. Notice of City Council Hearing 4. Planning Commission A) Mailing Notice B) Staff Report C) Agenda/Minutes/Newspaper Notice 5. Mailing List TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Ordinance 2. Project Chronology 3. Notice of City Council Hearing 4. Planning Commission—January 13, 2021 Public Hearing A. Mailing Notice B. Staff Report C. Agenda/Minutes/Newspaper Notice 5. Mailing List 1. ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2021 (An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to fence, wall, and hedge height requirements) An ordinance amending various sections of Title 21 A of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to fence, wall, and hedge height requirements pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00511. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission(the "Planning Commission") held a public hearing on January 13, 2021 to consider a request by the Salt Lake City Council (the "City Council") to amend the Salt Lake City Code to remove the Special Exception process under Section 21A.52.030 and adjust the City's height requirements for fences, walls, and hedges; and WHEREAS, at its January 13, 2021 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation of approval to the City Council to adopt changes to the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to fence,wall,and hedge height; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council desires to alter the requirements for fence, wall, and hedge height as provided herein; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds, after holding a public hearing on this matter, that adopting this ordinance is in the city's best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.62.040. That Section 21A.62.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Definition of Terms) shall be and hereby is amended to add a new definition of Primary Façade, which definition shall be inserted into the list of definitions in alphabetical order and shall read and appear as follows: PRIMARY FACADE: the side of a building that faces a public or private street and includes the main customer or resident entrance. Buildings located in zoning districts that include a mix of residential and that have sides of the building that face multiple streets shall be interpreted to have a principal façade along each side of the building that faces a street. SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection 21A.40.120. That Section 21A.40.120 of the Salt Lake City Code(Regulation of Fences, Walls, and Hedges) shall be and hereby is amended as follows: 21A.40.120: REGULATION OF FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES: A. Purpose: Fences, walls and hedges serve properties by providing privacy and security, defining private space and enhancing the design of individual sites. Fences also affect the public by impacting the visual image of the streetscape and the overall character of neighborhoods. The purpose of these regulations is to achieve a balance between the private concerns for privacy and site design and the public concerns for enhancement of the community appearance, and to ensure the provision of adequate light, air and public safety. B. Location: All fences, walls or hedges shall be erected entirely within the property lines of the property they are intended to serve. C. Building Permit Required: 1. A building permit shall be obtained prior to construction of any fence that does not exceed six feet(6') in height and is not made of concrete or masonry or does not require structural review under the Uniform Building Code regulations. The permit is to ensure compliance with adopted regulations. 2. A building permit and fee are required for fences and walls which exceed six feet(6') in height and all fences or walls of any height that are constructed under the International Building Code. The permit is to ensure compliance with all Zoning Ordinance standards and requirements (location, height, types of materials) as well as to ensure the structural integrity of the pilasters and foundation system which will be verified by plan review and site inspection. 3. The application for a permit must include plans identifying the location and height of the proposed fence or wall. If the fence or wall is constructed of masonry or concrete of any height or exceeds six feet(6') in height, construction details showing horizontal and vertical reinforcement and foundation details shall be shown on the plans. 4. The building permit fee for a fence will be a general permit fee based on construction costs or valuation of the work as shown in the consolidated fee schedule. 5. Construction of any fence in the following districts shall also comply with the additional fencing regulations found in the following subsections of this title: a. FP Foothills Protection District(21A.32.040I), b. H Historic Preservation Overlay District(21A.34.020E), and c. Foothill Residential FR-1, FR-2 and FR-3 Districts (21A.24.010P). D. Design Requirements: 1. Residential districts (chapter 21A.24, "Residential Districts", of this title): a. Allowed Materials: Fences and walls shall be made of high quality, durable materials that require low maintenance. Acceptable materials for a fence include chainlink, wood, brick, masonry block, stone, tubular steel, wrought iron, vinyl, composite/recycled materials (hardy board) or other manufactured material or combination of materials commonly used for fencing. Other materials of similar quality and durability, but not listed herein, may be used upon approval by the Zoning Administrator through an administrative interpretation application. b. Prohibited Materials: Fences and walls shall not be made of or contain: (1) Scrap materials such as scrap lumber and scrap metal. (2) Materials not typically used or designated/manufactured for fencing such as metal roofing panels, corrugated or sheet metal, tarps or plywood. 2. Nonresidential districts (chapters 21A.26 through 21A.34 of this title: commercial districts, manufacturing districts, downtown districts, gateway districts, special purpose districts and overlay districts): a. Allowed Materials: Fences and walls shall be made of high quality, durable materials that require minimal maintenance. Acceptable materials for fencing in nonresidential districts include, but are not limited to, chainlink,prewoven chainlink with slats, wood, brick, tilt-up concrete, masonry block, stone, metal, composite/recycled materials or other manufactured materials or combination of materials commonly used for fencing. Other materials of similar quality and durability,but not listed herein, may be used upon approval by the Zoning Administrator through an administrative interpretation application. b. Prohibited Materials: Fences or walls in nonresidential districts shall not be constructed of or contain: (1) Scrap materials such as scrap lumber and scrap metal. (2) Materials not typically used or designated/manufactured for fencing such as metal roofing panels, corrugated or sheet metal, tarps or plywood. E. Height Restrictions and Gates: 1. Fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with the following regulations based on the following zoning districts: a. Residential Zoning Districts: (1) Except as permitted in subsection 21A.24.010.P and 21A.12.E.4 of this code a fence, wall or hedge located between the front property line and front building line of the facade of the principal structure that contains the primary entrance shall not exceed 4 feet in height. (2) A fence, wall, or hedge located at or behind the primary facade of the principal structure shall not exceed 6 feet in height. (3) Where there is no existing principal structure, the height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall not exceed 4 feet in a front yard area or 6 feet in the rear or side yard areas. ,7,7/ A Principal Principal Structure Structure Not to Scale,Illustrative Only PRIMARY FACADE j 4 FT.FENCE 6 FT.FENCE b. Nonresidential Zoning Districts: (1) A fence, wall, or hedge located between the front property line and the primary facade of the principal structure shall not exceed 4 feet in height. (2) A fence, wall or hedge located at or behind the primary façade of the principal structure shall not exceed 6 feet in height. Principal Structure 4 FT.FENCE I I I I 6 FT.FENCE I I Not to Scale,Illustrative Only — PRIMARY FACADE 6 FT.FENCE (3) Not withstanding Subsection 21A.40.120.1.b.(1), in the M-2 and El zoning districts fences, walls, or hedges may be up to 6 feet in height if located between the front property line and the front yard setback line. (4) If there is no minimum front yard setback in the underlying zoning district, a fence, wall, or hedge of a maximum 6 feet in height may be placed no closer than 10 feet from the property line. (5) Outdoor storage, when permitted in the zoning district, shall be located behind the primary façade of the principal structure and shall be screened with a solid wall or fence and shall comply with the requirements in Section 5.60.12. 2. Double Frontage Lot: A fence, wall, or hedge located on a property where both the front and rear yards have frontage on a street may be a maximum of 6 feet in height in a front yard provided the fence, wall, or hedge: a. is located in a provided yard that is directly opposite the front yard where the primary entrance to the principal building is located; b. is in a location that is consistent with other 6 foot tall fence locations on the block; c. complies with Sight Distance Triangle requirements of this Title; and d. complies will all other fence, wall, and hedge requirements of this Title. e. Not exceed 6 feet in height in a front yard. front yard -O/// / // /// / — 7 r sPrincipali Structure so" rear yard / Not to Scale,Illustrative Only — PRIMARY FACADE j 4 FT.FENCE 6 FT.FENCE 3. Vacant Lots. Fencing to secure vacant or undeveloped lots may be up to 6 feet in height, provided the fence is not closer than 5 feet to a public sidewalk and is no less than 80% transparent. Once the property is developed, the fence will be required to comply with the height restrictions of this Title. 4. Additional Fence Height Allowed. Notwithstanding any other Section of this Chapter, the following regulations apply: a. Adjacent to Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Fences, walls, or hedges in the FR, SR, and R-1 zoning districts shall not exceed 6 feet in height in the side or rear yard except where they abut a Commercial, Downtown, Manufacturing, or Special Purpose Zoning District. The maximum height shall be 8 feet. This exception does not apply to fences, walls, or hedges in the corner side yard or front yard, and only applies where the lot abuts the nonresidential district. b. Public Utility Facilities. Fences or walls may exceed the maximum height regulations when the fence or wall is necessary to restrict access and promote safety of public utility buildings or structures,provided that the portion of the fence or wall which exceeds a height of 6 feet is at least 80%transparent. In no event, shall the fence or wall securing a public utility building or structure exceed 12 feet in height. TOP 6 FT.OF THE FENCE AT LEAST 80%OPEN G Q G G G G 0 G G — X � D f x � � 1 Not to Scale,Illustrative Only c. Recreation Facilities. For fences or walls constructed around parks, open space, or other outdoor recreation areas, the maximum height fence shall be up to 10 feet in height and may be located in any required yard, provided that the fence or wall is no less than 80%transparent above a height of 6 feet. Fences or walls for which a greater height is necessary to protect public safety, such as, driving ranges, baseball fields, athletic fields; or similar facilities may be allowed within the subject property to a height necessary to contain the recreation equipment. d. Private Game Courts, Swimming Pools, and Other Similar Recreation Equipment. Fences or walls constructed around private game courts, swimming pools, or other similar recreation equipment expressly permitted in Section 21A.36.020.B, may be up to 10 feet in height provided that the fence or wall is no less than 80 percent transparent above a height of 6 feet. TOP 4 FT.OF THE FENCE AT LEAST 80%OPEN \ V V • V • F • V V • VY VI I \ JA/A JA/•/A NA4 \/• A • JA/A IA\JA 0 LL Not to Scale,Illustrative Only e. Construction Fencing. Temporary fencing to secure construction sites during the planning, demolition, or construction process is permitted to a maximum of 10 feet in height in any required yard. f. Pillars. Pillars shall be allowed to extend up to 18 inches above the allowable height of a fence or wall; provided, that the pillars shall have a maximum diameter or width of no more than 18 inches; and provided, that the pillars shall have a minimum spacing of no less than 6 feet apart, measured face to face. g. Gates and Arches. The height of gates shall conform to the applicable maximum fence height where the gate is located except that decorative elements on gates such as scrolls, finials, and similar features may extend up to one foot above the maximum fence height. In addition, arches or trellises up to 12 feet in height and 5 feet in width may be constructed over a gate if integrated into the fence/gate design. A maximum of two such arches shall be permitted per property. 5 FT.MAX 1-1 2 IIP 6 FT.MAX N I I Not to Scale,Illustrative Only h. Barbed or Razor Wire Fences. Where permitted, barbed wire and razor wire fences may be up to 12 feet in height. i. Conditional Uses. A fence, wall, or hedge may exceed the allowable height requirements of this Chapter where additional fence height is imposed as a reasonable condition to mitigate the anticipated detrimental effects of a conditional use. Where such additional height is imposed as a reasonable condition, such height shall not exceed the minimum height necessary to mitigate the anticipated detrimental effects of the conditional use. 5. Vision Clearance and Safety. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, a fence, wall, or hedge shall comply with the Sight Distance Triangle Requirements of this Section. a. Corner Lots; Sight Distance Triangle: No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in excess of 3 feet if the fence, wall or hedge is located within the sight distance triangle extending 30 feet either side of the intersection of the respective street curb lines, or edge lines of roadway where curbing is not provided as noted in section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. b. Corner Side, Side, Rear Yards; Sight Distance Triangle: Fences, walls or hedges may be erected in any required corner side yard(extending to a point in line with the front facade of the principal structure for residential zoning districts and up to any required front yard setback line for all other zoning districts), required side yard or required rear yard to a height not to exceed 6 feet. The zoning administrator may require either increased fence setback or lower fence height along corner side yards to provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys. c. Intersection of Driveway; Sight Distance Triangle: Solid fences, walls and hedges shall not exceed 30 inches in height within the sight distance triangle as defined in section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. d. Sight Distance Triangle And See Through Fences: Within the area defined as a sight distance triangle, see through fences that are at least 50% open shall be allowed to a height of 4 feet. e. Alternative Design Solutions. To provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys, the zoning administrator, in consulting with the development review team, may require alternative design solutions, including,but not restricted to, requiring increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns created by the location of buildings, grade change or other preexisting conditions. 6. Height Measurement. The height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall be measured from the finished grade of the site as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this title. In instances of an abrupt grade change at the property line, the height for fences that are located on top of a retaining wall shall be measured from the top of the retaining wall. LL Not to Scale,Illustrative Only 7. Gates:. No gate, whether crossing a driveway, walkway, or part of a fence, shall be erected to a height in excess of the standards outlined in this subsection E. To regulate the location of gates and their impact on vehicular staging within the public right of way, passenger vehicles shall require a minimum 17 foot 6 inch setback from back edge of sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided, and large truck driveways shall require a 100 foot setback from back edge of sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided. All gates are to swing inward to the property or be a roll gate that does not impact the staging area. F. General Requirements: 1. Except when constructed of materials that have been designed or manufactured to remain untreated, all fences or walls shall periodically be treated with paint or chemicals so as to retard deterioration. 2. Fences or walls shall be constructed with good workmanship and shall be secured to the ground or supporting area in a substantial manner and engineered so that the structure of columns or posts and the material used for the intervening panels are adequately constructed to support the materials and withstand wind loads. 3. All fences or walls (including entrance and exit gates) shall be maintained in good repair, free of graffiti, structurally sound, so as to not pose a threat to public health, safety, and welfare. G. Barbed Wire Fences: 1. Permitted Use: Barbed wire fencing is allowed as a permitted use in the AG, AG-2, AG- 5, AG-20, A, CG, M-1, M-2 and D-2 districts. 2. Special Exception: Barbed wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as a special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, in all zoning districts except for those listed above as permitted uses. The planning commission may approve as special exceptions, the placement of barbed wire fences, for security reasons, or for the keeping out of animals around nonresidential properties, transformer stations, microwave stations, construction sites or other similar publicly necessary or dangerous sites, provided the requested fence is not in any residential district and is not on or near the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence. 3. Location Requirements: Barbed wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front yard setbacks nor along frontages on streets defined as gateway streets in Salt Lake City's adopted urban design element master plan. 4. Special Design Regulations: No strand of barbed wire shall be permitted less than six feet (6')high. No more than three (3) strands of barbed wire are permitted. The barbed wire strands shall not slant outward from the fence more than sixty degrees (60°) from a vertical line. No barbed wire strand shall project over public property. If the barbed wire proposed slants outward over adjoining private property the applicant must submit written consent from adjoining property owner agreeing to such a projection over the property line. 5. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission may approve, as a special exception, the building permit for a barbed wire fence if it is found that the applicant has shown that the fence is reasonably necessary for security in that it protects people from dangerous sites and conditions such as transformer stations, microwave stations or construction sites. H. Razor Wire Fences: 1. Special Exception: Razor wire fencing may be approved for nonresidential uses as a special exception pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title, in the A, CG, D-2, M-1 and M-2 zoning districts. The planning commission may approve as a special exception the placement of razor wire fences, for security reasons, around commercial or industrial uses, transformer stations, microwave stations, or other similar public necessity or dangerous sites; provided, that the requested fence is not on the property line of a lot which is occupied as a place of residence. 2. Location Requirements: Razor wire fencing shall not be allowed in required front or corner side yard setback. 3. Special Design Regulations: No strand of razor wire shall be permitted on a fence that is less than seven feet(7') high. Razor wire coils shall not exceed eighteen inches (18") in diameter and must slant inward from the fence to which the razor wire is being attached. 4. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission may approve razor wire fencing if the commission finds that the applicant has shown that razor wire is necessary for the security of the property in question. I. Exemption: The A airport district is exempt from all zoning ordinance fence regulations. The department of airports has administrative authority to regulate and approve fencing within the A airport district. All fencing that the department of airports requires of its clients within the A district is subject to review and approval by the airport. J. Electric Security Fences: 1. Permitted Use: Electric security fences are allowed as a permitted use in the M-1 and M- 2 zones. Electric security fences on parcels or lots that abut a residential zone are prohibited. 2. Special Exception: Electric security fences on parcels or lots adjacent to a commercial zone may be approved as a special exception pursuant to the requirements in chapter 21A.52 of this title. 3. Location Requirements: Electric security fences shall not be allowed in required front yard setbacks or on frontages adjacent to residentially zoned properties. 4. Compliance With Adopted Building Codes: Electric security fences shall be constructed or installed in conformance with all applicable construction codes. 5. Perimeter Fence Or Wall: No electric security fence shall be installed or used unless it is fully enclosed by a nonelectrical fence or wall that is not less than six feet(6') in height. There shall be at least one foot (1') of spacing between the electric security fence and the perimeter fence or wall. 6. Staging Area: All entries to a site shall have a buffer area that allows on site staging prior to passing the perimeter barrier. The site shall be large enough to accommodate a vehicle completely outside of the public right of way. 7. Height: Electric security fences shall have a maximum height of ten feet(10'). 8. Warning Signs: Electric security fences shall be clearly identified with warning signs that read: "Warning-Electric Fence" at intervals of not greater than sixty feet (60'). Signs shall comply with requirements in chapter 21A.46, "Signs", of this title. 9. Security Box: Electric security fences shall have a small, wall mounted safe or box that holds building keys for police, firefighters and EMTs to retrieve in emergencies SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Subsections 21 A.52.030.A. That Subsection 21A.52.030.A shall be and is hereby amended as follows: 21A.52.030: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AUTHORIZED: A. In addition to any other special exceptions authorized elsewhere in this title, the following special exceptions are authorized under the provisions of this title: 1. Accessory building height, including wall height, in excess of the permitted height provided: a. The extra height is for architectural purposes only, such as a steep roof to match existing primary structure or neighborhood character. b. The extra height is to be used for storage of household goods or truss webbing and not to create a second level. c. No windows are located in the roof or on the second level unless it is a design feature only. d. No commercial use is made of the structure or residential use unless it complies with the accessory dwelling unit regulations in this title. 2. Accessory structures in the front yard of double frontage lots, which do not have any rear yard provided: a. The required sight visibility triangle shall be maintained at all times. b. The structure meets all other size and height limits governed by the zoning ordinance. 3. Additional building height in commercial districts are subject to the standards in chapter 21A.26 of this title. 4. Additional foothills building height, including wall height, shall comply with the standards in chapter 21A.24 of this title. 5. Additional residential building height, including wall height, in the R-1 districts, R-2 districts and SR districts shall comply with the standards in chapter 21A.24 of this title. 6. Any alternative to off street parking not listed in chapter 21A.44 of this title intended to meet the number of required off street parking spaces. 7. Barbed wire fences may be approved subject to the regulations of chapter 21A.40 of this title. 8. Conditional home occupations subject to the regulations and conditions of chapter 21A.36 of this title. 9. Dividing existing lots containing two (2) or more separate residential structures into separate lots that would not meet lot size, frontage width or setbacks provided: a. The residential structures for the proposed lot split already exist and were constructed legally. b. The planning director agrees and is willing to approve a subdivision application. c. Required parking equal to the parking requirement that existed at the time that each dwelling unit was constructed. 10. Use of the front yard for required parking when the rear or side yards cannot be accessed and it is not feasible to build an attached garage that conforms to yard area and setback requirements, subject to the standards found in chapter 21A.44 of this title. 11. Grade changes and retaining walls are subject to the regulations and standards of chapter 21A.36 of this title. 12. Ground mounted central air conditioning compressors or systems, heating, ventilating, pool and filtering equipment located in required side and rear yards within four feet(4') of the property line. The mechanical equipment shall comply with applicable Salt Lake County health department noise standards. 13. Hobby shop, art studio, exercise room or a dressing room adjacent to a swimming pool, or other similar uses in an accessory structure, subject to the following conditions: a. The height of the accessory structure shall not exceed the height limit established by the underlying zoning district unless a special exception allowing additional height is allowed. b. If an accessory building is located within ten feet(10') of a property line, no windows shall be allowed in the walls adjacent to the property lines. c. If the accessory building is detached, it must be located in the rear yard. d. The total covered area for an accessory building shall not exceed fifty percent(50%) of the building footprint of the principal structure, subject to all accessory building size limitations. 14. In line additions to existing residential or commercial buildings, which are noncomplying as to yard area or height regulations provided: a. The addition follows the existing building line and does not create any new noncompliance. b. No additional dwelling units are added to the structure. c. The addition is a legitimate architectural addition with rooflines and exterior materials designed to be compatible with the original structure. 15. Operation of registered home daycare or registered home preschool facility in residential districts subject to the standards of chapter 21A.36 of this title. 16. Outdoor dining in required front, rear and side yards subject to the regulations and standards of chapter 21A.40 of this title. 17. Razor wire fencing may be approved subject to the regulations and standards in chapter 21A.40 of this title. 18. Replacement or reconstruction of any existing noncomplying segment of a residential or commercial structure or full replacement of a noncomplying accessory structure provided: a. The owner documents that the new construction does not encroach farther into any required rear yard than the structure being replaced. b. The addition or replacement is compatible in design, size and architectural style with the remaining or previous structure. 19. Underground building encroachments into the front, side, rear and corner side yard setbacks provided the addition is totally underground and there is no visual evidence that such an encroachment exists. 20. Window mounted refrigerated air conditioner and evaporative swamp coolers located in required front, corner, side and rear yards within two feet(2') of a property line shall comply with applicable Salt Lake County health department noise standards. 21. Vehicle and equipment storage without hard surfacing in the CG, M-1, M-2 or EI districts, subject to the standards in chapter 21A.44 of this title. 22. Ground mounted utility boxes may be approved subject to the regulations and standards of section 21A.40.160 of this title. 23. Legalization of excess dwelling units may be granted subject to the following requirements and standards: a. Purpose: The purpose of this subsection is to implement the existing Salt Lake City community housing plan. This plan emphasizes maintaining existing housing stock in a safe manner that contributes to the vitality and sustainability of neighborhoods within the city. This subsection provides a process that gives owners of property with one or more excess dwelling units not recognized by the city an opportunity to legalize such units based on the standards set forth in this subsection. b. Review Standards: A dwelling unit that is proposed to be legalized pursuant to this subsection shall comply with the following standards. (1) The dwelling unit existed prior to April 12, 1995. In order to determine whether a dwelling unit was in existence prior to April 12, 1995, the unit owner shall provide documentation thereof which may include any of the following: (A) Copies of lease or rental agreements, lease or rent payments, or other similar documentation showing a transaction between the unit owner and tenants; (B) Evidence indicating that prior to April 12, 1995, the city issued a building permit, business license, zoning certificate, or other permit relating to the dwelling unit in question; (C) Utility records indicating existence of a dwelling unit; (D) Historic surveys recognized by the Planning Director as being performed by a trained professional in historic preservation; (E) Notarized affidavits from a previous owner, tenant, or neighbor; (F) Polk, Cole, or phone directories that indicate existence of the dwelling unit (but not necessarily that the unit was occupied); and (G) Any other documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public record which indicates the existence of the excess unit prior to April 12, 1995. (2) The excess unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling unit since April 12, 1995. In order to determine if a unit has been maintained as a separate dwelling unit, the following may be considered: (A) Evidence listed in subsection A24b(1) of this section indicates that the unit has been occupied at least once every five (5) calendar years; (B) Evidence that the unit was marketed for occupancy if the unit was unoccupied for more than five (5) consecutive years; (C) If evidence of maintaining a separate dwelling unit as required by subsections A24b(2)(A) and A24b(2)(B) of this section cannot be established, documentation of construction upgrades may be provided in lieu thereof. (D) Any documentation that the owner is willing to place into a public record which provides evidence that the unit was referenced as a separate dwelling unit at least once every five (5)years. (3) The property where the dwelling unit is located: (A) Can accommodate on site parking as required by this title, or (B) Is located within a one-fourth (1/4) mile radius of a fixed rail transit stop or bus stop in service at the time of legalization. (4) Any active zoning violations occurring on the property must be resolved except for those related to excess units. c. Conditions Of Approval: Any approved unit legalization shall be subject to the following conditions: (1) The unit owner shall apply for a business license, when required, within fourteen (14) days of special exception approval. (2) The unit owner shall allow the City's building official or designee to inspect the dwelling unit to determine whether the unit substantially complies with basic life safety requirements as provided in title 18, chapter 18.50, "Existing Residential Housing", of this Code. Such inspection shall occur within ninety (90) days of special exception approval or as mutually agreed by the unit owner and the City. (3) All required corrections indicated during the inspection process must be completed within one year unless granted an extension by the Zoning Administrator. d. Application: In addition to the application requirements in this chapter, an applicant shall submit documentation showing compliance with the standards set forth in subsection A24b of this section. 24. Designation, modification, relocation, or reinstatement of a vintage sign as per chapter 21A.46 of this title. 25. Additional height for sports related light poles such as light poles for ballparks, stadiums, soccer fields,golf driving ranges and sport fields or where sports lights are located closer than thirty feet(30') from adjacent residential structures. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance take effect immediately after it has been published in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-713. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2021. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2021. Published: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date:May 6, 2021 By: P u1 C. ielson enior City Attorney Ordinance amending fence,wall,and hedge height requirements 2. CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2020-00511 July 7, 2020 Petition was assigned to Krissy Gilmore,Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. July 22, 2020 Email sent to all Recognized Community Organizations informing them of the petition. July 22, 2020 Online Open House for project began. August 27, 2020 Online Open House concluded. December 29, 2020 Planning Commission hearing notices posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. Newspaper notice was also requested to be printed. January 13, 2021 Planning Commission reviewed the petition and held a public hearing. The commission voted unanimously to send a positive recommendation to the City Council. February 1, 2021 Ordinance review requested from City Attorney's office. 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height Zoning Text Amendment - A request by the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance regulations to remove the Special Exception process that allows for over-height fences (Chapter 21A.52.030)and to define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and approved by right (Chapter 21A.40.120). The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and hedge height to four feet(4') in front yards and six feet(6') in the side or rear yards for all zoning districts, except for a few specific instances. Those instances include when a residential district abuts a nonresidential district, manufacturing and extractive industries zoning districts, public facilities and recreation facilities where a greater height is necessary to protect public safety, private game courts, and construction fencing. Additionally, the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission would have the authority to grant additional fence, wall, or hedge height as part of a land use application. The amendments proposed to Chapter 21A.40 will affect all zoning districts throughout Salt Lake City. As part of their study, the City Council is holding two advertised public hearings to receive comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance on the same night of the second public hearing. The hearing will be held electronically: DATE: Date#1 and Date#2 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: **This meeting will not have a physical location. **This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing, please visit our website at https://www.slc.gov/council/ to learn how you can share your comments during the meeting. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801)535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments(&slcgov.com.All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal,please call Krissy Gilmore at 385-214-9714 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com. You may review the file online at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/citizen,by selecting the Planning tab, and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2020-00511. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. 4. PLANNING COMMISSION A. Mailing Notice December 29, 2020 • i PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING January 13, 2021, at 5 30 p m. T . 7hi, 'wroth/ will hr un elrrlrnmir rrtrrlinU lnlr'.aunt In dull I Ohl'Gill/ ( "' I n1rr'Urnr1) I'rnr ItllmUlmU1 ,tin 2 n/,2r1:21l(;?)(h) A public hearing will be held on the following matter. Fence Height Zoninq_Ordinance Amendment - A request by the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance regulations to remove the special excention process that allows for over-height fences (Chapter 21A.52 030) and to define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and approved by right The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and hedge height to four feet (4 ) in front lards and six feet (6') in the side or rear yards, except for in a few specific instances Those instances include when a residential district abuts a nonresidential distr ct in extraction industries and manufacturing districts, public facilities and recreation facilities where a greater height is necessary to protect public safety. private game courts, and construction fencing. Additionally, the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission would have the authority to grant additional fence wall. or hedge height as part of a land use application. The amendments proposed to Chapter 21A.40 will affect all zoning districts throughout Salt Lake City. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Krissy Gilmore at (801) 535-7780 or kristina.gilmore©slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00511 This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will connect remotely. The Planning Commission meeting will be available on the following platforms: • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings • SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCty-Live/2 Providing Comments: If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email: planning.comments©slcgov.com or connect with us on WebEx at: • http://tiny.cc/sic-pc-01132021 For instructions on how to use WebEx visit www.sic qov/planninq,public-meetings I UI' I'lr1I11I1llO ( ulllIIH,',ltml shU// I't'Ilorts, wit! minutes, I'tstt the f'Itilnnrttt llt['l:Ilrn s urh,ltr u( Report,. will he lro,ted the l'rttlutt prior to the meeting un,l rrullulr, well he )ro,te(l two ,lull, utter Mel) ore rotated, which tl,muiiy occurs tit the lira► ret)ulurl!) ,ehet/ulrtl meetlmt) o/ the I'Itumunt/ Goutnit„tom. • I 1 T.) (1.) / > r X 7- r, > • • • A (IP > Z •" (J) -0 (/) CI) 0 Cu a r— co 0 r— Ci) (1) 0 --• (-71Z co ---• c 0 co 4s. • Om. •••-•• a CA o • •• -• Owl -• _. ..... "• -- CA CA C) 0 CD -• 6 6 . 4. PLANNING COMMISSION B. Staff Report January 13, 2021 Staff PLANNING DIVISION n"� DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS crT� To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Krissy Gilmore,kristina.gilmore@?slcgov.com, 801-535-778o Date: January 13, 2020 Re: PLNPCM2o2o2o-oo5ii Fence Height Zoning Amendment Zoning Text Amendment PROPERTY ADDRESS: Citywide PARCEL ID: N/A MASTER PLAN: N/A ZONING DISTRICT:All Zoning Districts REQUEST: This is a request by the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance regulations to remove the Special Exception process that allows for over-height fences (Chapter 21A.52.o30) and to define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and approved by right (Chapter 21A.4o.120). The proposed amendments would limit fence,wall,and hedge height to four feet(4')in front yards and six feet(6')in the side or rear yards for all zoning districts,except for a few specific instances. Those instances include when a residential district abuts a nonresidential district, manufacturing and extractive industries zoning districts,public facilities and recreation facilities where a greater height is necessary to protect public safety, private game courts, and construction fencing. Additionally, the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission would have the authority to grant additional fence, wall, or hedge height as part of a land use application. The amendments proposed to Chapter 21A.4o will affect all zoning districts throughout Salt Lake City. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report and the standards to consider for zoning text amendments, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding this proposal. ATTACHMENT A. Proposed Code Text B. Existing Code Text C. Analysis of Standards —Zoning Text Amendment D. Public Process and Comments SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM PO BOX 14548o SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84114-548o TEL 801.535.7757 FAX 801.535.6174 E. Department Review Comments PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND: The proposed amendments to the Special Exception and Fence Height zoning code are Key Points primarily intended to provide uniformity and • Removes the Special Exception process to request additional fence height. clear expectations to the public for when an over • Defines instances where additional fence height fence,wall,or hedge is appropriate, as well height could be appropriate. as to remove the complicated and costly special • Generally, limits fence height to 4' in the exception process. front yard. Currently,fences,walls,and hedges are limited to • Developments could still request excess four feet in height in front yards (up to the front fence height through land use applications façade of the building) and six feet in the side and that already require review by the Planning rear yards in all zoning districts. Though an over Commission and Historic Landmark height fence can be approved through the Special Commission. Exception process,excess fence height is generally only approved in limited circumstances due to compatibility issues with the development pattern and character of Salt Lake City neighborhoods. The proposed amendment defines specific instances when an over height fence is appropriate and can be approved by-right and removes the special exception process. For reference, special exceptions are minor changes to an incidental use of the property or a dimensional requirement in the zoning ordinance, such as additional fence height. The process includes a mailed notice to next door neighbors for input before a decision. The decisions are usually made by planning staff, but controversial requests or requests that cannot be approved by staff are referred to the Planning Commission or Historic Landmark Commission. Defined Terms 21A.62:Fence:A structure erected to provide privacy or security which defines a private space and may enhance the design of individual sites.A wall or similar barrier shall be deemed a fence. The Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance does not specifically define wall or hedge.Any word not defined in the Zoning Ordinance shall be defined in Webster's Collegiate Dictionary(see 21 A.62.oio).The Webster's Collegiate Dictionary includes the following definitions: Wall: (a)a high thick masonry structure forming a long rampart or an enclosure chiefly for defense—often used in plural; (b)a masonry fence around a garden,park,or estate; (c)a structure that serves to hold back pressure(as of water or sliding earth) Hedge: a fence or boundary formed by a dense row of shrubs or low trees The above is a list of helpful definitions to review as the proposed amendment is considered. The full proposed regulations can be read in the full code proposal in Attachment A.New regulations and changed regulations are underlined in that attachment. Some of the proposed changes are discussed further in the Key Considerations section due to public input. PLNPCM2o2o-oo5ii Fence Height Text Amendment Applicable Review Processes and Standards Review Processes: Zoning Text Amendment Zoning text amendments are reviewed against four standards, pertaining to whether proposed code is consistent with adopted City planning documents, furthers the purposes of the zoning ordinance, are consistent with other overlay zoning codes, and the extent they implement best professional practices.Those standards are addressed in Attachment C. City Code amendments are ultimately up to the discretion of the City Council and are not controlled by any one standard. LEY CONSIDERATIONS: The key considerations and concerns below have been identified through the analysis of the project, community input, Planning Commission input, and department reviews: 1. Consistency&Clarity 2. Staff&City Resources 3. Community Character 4. Appropriate instances for over height fences Consideration 1. Consistency&Clarity An increasing number of requests for over height fences have been received for special exception review. A review of all special exception applications shows that fence height has been the top requested special exception for the last three years (io4 applications). The application tracking system does not easily show how many have been approved or denied,but staff believes that it is rare for an over height fence to be approved in the front yard due to compatibility issues.Majority of the approved over height fences were likely in the side or rear yards. Planning Commission has also heard at least two requests for over height fences in the last year. Both were denied by the Commission. The over height fence special exception results in an unpredictable development pattern, as well as unpredictable expectations for applicants. Often, applicants assume that the act of applying equals approval and are confused when it is denied. If applications are routinely denied or discouraged, such as fence height,then the ordinance should not provide an exception. Consideration 2: Staff&City Resources The Fence Height Text Amendment is being reviewed separately from a larger application to remove all special exceptions. The following briefly summarizes the issue of staff and city resources, and the removal of Special Exceptions: Special exceptions require staff resources to be allocated to processing applications that only benefit individual property owners instead of addressing citywide growth issues and implementing master plans through other code updates. This creates equity issues because the city resources are required by code to be directed to those neighborhoods where most applications come from.More than 85%of all land use applications received come from property owners east of I-15. The special exception fee is subsidized by the general fund. The application fee in 2019 was $259. The average staff processing time is about 20 hours. The fee covers between 37%and 48%of the cost to process. That percentage decreases to 14-18%of the cost for applications that must be reviewed by the Planning Commission or Historic Landmark PLNPCM2o2o-oo5ii Fence Height Text Amendment Commission. Special exception application fees generate about$38,00o in revenue for the city but cost at least$8o,000 to process. The number of special exception applications has increased by 400%since 2011 forcing an inequitable subsidy of city resources to the benefit of individual property owners without any benefit to the general public. Source: Special Exception Code Changes Staff Report, Published September 25, 2020 (http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%2°Commission/2o2o/oo6o6StaffRepo rt.pdf) Consideration 2: Neighborhood Character The purpose of the fence regulations as stated in ordinance section 21A.4o.i2o.A is "to achieve a balance - between the private concerns for privacy and site , design and the public concerns for enhancement of the community appearance, and to ensure the provision of adequate light, air and public safety." As to the compliance with the above purposes, building a fence that exceeds the height limits in the front of the property would create a walled-in effect and establish a greater level of privacy than is generally expected in Salt Lake City. Furthermore, generally, excess fence height is not compatible with the development pattern and character of the Salt Lake City, which is one of low or no fences in the front yard area. Example of open front yards The current review standards for Special Exceptions(21A.52.o3o.A.3)discuss that an over height fence, wall, or hedge may be granted if it is "determined that there will be no negative impacts upon the established character of the affected neighborhood and streetscape, maintenance of public and private views, and matters of public safety."Staff is of the opinion that it is generally very difficult to meet the above provision. The character of Salt Lake City neighborhoods is generally one of low or no fences in the front yard areas.Additionally,the excessive side and rear yard heights,though more flexible in height allowance,are also generally not excessive and should not be to protect private and public views. Finally,fence height requirements of 4 feet in the front yard and 6 feet in the side and rear yards are common nationwide and are found in most city zoning ordinances. Lower fence heights in the front yard are generally required because of the safety aspect(view of the driver), as well as in the interest of preserving an unobstructed view of open yards. Consideration 3:Appropriate instances for over height fences Through best practice research, discussions with various city divisions, and an analysis of when over height fences have been approved in Salt Lake City, the following were determined to be situations or uses where over height fences are appropriate and could be allowed by-right: - Public Facilities,such as municipal structures,schools, or utility buildings - Recreation Facilities, such as around parks,open space, or similar recreation areas - Athletic fields or courts, such as driving ranges, baseball fields, athletic fields; or similar facilities - Temporary construction fencing PLNPCM2o2o-oo5ii Fence Height Text Amendment - Decorative pillars attached to fences that meet the height requirements Following public review of the draft ordinance,the following over height allowances were added to address concerns raised: - The Planning Commission and Historic Landmark Commission will retain the ability to • approve taller fences to mitigate a negative impact associated with a land use application. - Side or rear yard fences in single family zones which are next to nonresidential zones - Gates, arches or trellises attached to fences that - r meet the height requirements. - In the M-2 Heavy Manufacturing and EI a *�■__■■ate■ Rii941111114, Extractive Industries zoning districts fences, walls, or hedges may be up to a maximum of 6 feet in height up to the front yard setback line. - If there is no minimum front yard setback in the Example of a gate and trellis underlying zoning district, a fence, wall, or hedge at a maximum of 6 feet in height can be placed 10 feet from the front property line. Staff believes these additions address concerns expressed during the public input phase, while also meeting community character objectives described above,such as avoiding a walled in effect. DISCUSSION: The proposed code updates have been reviewed against the Zoning Amendment standards in Attachment C. Excess fence height is generally not compatible with the development pattern and character of Salt Lake City neighborhoods and should be discouraged in the interest of proving uniformity and clear expectations to the public. Removing the special exception process and defining instances where taller fences could be approved by-right provides predictability for property owners, as well as frees up staff resources to focus on citywide projects. Due to these considerations,staff is recommending that the Commission forward a favorable recommendation on this request to the City Council. NEXT STEPS The Planning Commission can provide a positive or negative recommendation for the proposal and can request that changes be made to the proposal. The recommendation and any requested changes will be sent to the City Council,who will hold a briefing and additional public hearing on the proposed changes. The City Council may make modifications to the proposal and approve or decline to approve the proposed changes. If ultimately approved by the City Council,the changes would be incorporated into the City Zoning code and new development would be required to follow the new regulations. PLNPCM2o2o-oo5ii Fence Height Text Amendment ATTACHMENT A: Proposed Code This attachment includes a"clean"version of the code without strikethroughs and underlines that show deleted and new text, and a"draft"version that identifies such deletions and new text with strikethroughs and underlines. PLNPCM2o2o-oo511 Fence Height Text Amendment Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text-Clean Version 1 2 MODIFICATIONS TO FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS 3 4 21A.40.120.E: REGULATION OF FENCES,WALLS AND HEDGES: 5 6 E. Height Restrictions And Gates: 7 Fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with the following unless otherwise permitted by this 8 Title: 9 1. Residential Zoning Districts: 10 a. Except for the special foothills regulations as outlined in subsection 21A.24.010P, 11 and subsection 21A.120.E.3 of this title, no fence, wall or hedge shall be erected 12 to a height in excess of 4 feet between the front property line and the primary 13 façade of the principal structure that contains the primary entrance. 14 15 b. Fences, walls or hedges located at or behind the primary façade of the principal 16 structure shall not exceed 6 feet. The zoning administrator may require either 17 increased fence setback or lower fence height along corner side yards to provide 18 adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys. 19 20 c. When there is no existing principal structure, fence, wall, or hedge height shall 21 not exceed 4 feet in a front yard area or when adjacent to a public street or 6 feet 22 in the rear or interior side yard areas. 23 L Primary Primary Structure Structure %///n i ii J '. , ///j/;/i/ //�// :712/ //ice //' ,/ /2/ //,/,//7// _///:, //,;/;://';. ,/2 /.//,/z,zA Not to Scale,Illustrative Only — FRONT FACADE 4 FT.FENCE 6 FT.FENCE 24 25 *Primary Façade is the side of a building that faces a public street and includes the main 26 customer or resident entrance. 27 2. Nonresidential Zoning Districts: 28 a. The maximum height for fences, walls, or hedges when between the front 29 property line and primary façade of the principal structure shall be 4 feet and 30 when located at or behind the primary façade of the principal structure shall be 6 1 Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text-Clean Version 31 feet. In the M-2 and EI zoning districts fences, walls, or hedges may be up to a 32 maximum of 6 feet in height up to the front yard setback line. If there is no 33 minimum front yard setback in the underlying zoning district, a fence, wall, or 34 hedge at a maximum of 6 feet in height can be placed 10 feet from the front 35 property line. 36 j Primary Structure 4 FT.FENCE A ,_ 6 FT.FENCE 37 38 39 b. Outdoor storage,when allowed in the Zoning District, shall be located behind the 40 primary facade of the principal structure and shall be screened with a solid wall or 41 fence. 42 43 c. Double Frontage Lots. A fence, wall, or hedge located on a property where both 44 the front and rear yards have frontage on a street may be a maximum of six feet in 45 height in a front yard provided the fence, wall, or hedge: 46 a. Is located in a provided yard that is directly opposite the front yard 47 where the primary entrance to the principal building is located; 48 b. Is in a location that is consistent with other six foot tall fence locations 49 on the block; 50 c. Complies with any clear view triangle requirements of this Title; and 51 d. Complies with all other fence,wall, and hedge requirements of this 52 Title. 2 Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text-Clean Version front yard_>�������// / / /�j / rear yard --> �yJJJ�/ �/////, /I r _ D Not to Scale,Illustrative Only — PRIMARY FACADE 7 4 FT.FENCE T 6 FT.FENCE 53 1 54 3. Allowances for additional height for fences, walls, or hedges unless otherwise permitted 55 by this Title: 56 a. Adjacent to Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Fences, walls, or hedges in the FR, 57 SR, and R-1 zoning districts shall not exceed 6 feet in height in the side or rear yard 58 except where they abut a Commercial, Downtown, Manufacturing, or Special Purpose 59 Zoning District. This exception does not apply to fences, walls, or hedges in the corner 60 side yard or front yard, and only applies where the lot abuts the nonresidential district. 61 b. Public Facilities. Fences or walls for which a greater height is necessary 62 because of an association with uses that require high fences to protect public safety or 63 fences that are required by federal or state law, such as,but not limited to, institutional 64 uses, utility buildings or structures for municipal service uses,public schools, or similar 65 facilities may be allowed up to a maximum height of 12 feet provided the fence or wall is 66 no less than 80%transparent above a height of six feet. C o c a o a o 0 o a o a o 3 o a o 3 `>' r r_T, 67 68 c. Recreation Facilities. For fences or walls constructed around parks, open space, 69 or other outdoor recreation areas, the maximum height fence shall be up to 10 feet in 70 height and may be located in any required yard,provided that the fence or wall is no less 71 than 80 percent transparent above a height of six feet. Fences or walls for which a greater 72 height is necessary to protect public safety, such as, driving ranges,baseball fields, 3 Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text-Clean Version 73 athletic fields; or similar facilities may be allowed within the subject property to a height 74 necessary to contain the recreation equipment. 75 d. Private Game Courts, Swimming Pools, and Other Similar Recreation 76 Equipment. For fences or walls constructed around private game courts, swimming pools, 77 or other similar recreation equipment,the maximum height shall be up to 10 feet 78 provided that the fence or wall is no less than 80 percent transparent above a height of six 79 feet. TOP 4 FT.OF THE FENCE AT LEAST 80%OPEN, ill Y y — — o X � � X 80 81 e. Construction Fencing. Temporary fencing to secure construction sites during 82 the planning, demolition, or construction process is permitted to a maximum of 10 feet in 83 height in any required yard provided the fence complies with site distance triangle 84 requirements of this Title. 85 f. Pillars. Pillars shall be allowed to extend up to 18 inches above the allowable 86 height of a fence or wall; provided, that the pillars shall have a maximum diameter or 87 width of no more than 18 inches; and provided, that the pillars shall have a minimum 88 spacing of no less than 6 feet, measured face to face. 89 g. Gates and Arches. The height of gates shall conform to the applicable 90 maximum fence height where the gate is located except that decorative elements on gates 91 such as scrolls, finials, and similar features may extend up to one foot above the 92 maximum fence height. In addition, arches or trellises up to 12 feet in height and five feet 93 in width may be constructed over a gate if integrated into the fence/gate design. A 94 maximum of two such arches shall be permitted per parcel. 4 Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text-Clean Version 5 FT.MAX 2 1110. I = 6 FT.MAX 11111111111 I1111111111111111111 95 96 97 g. Barbed or Razer Wire Fences: Where permitted, barbed wire and razor wire 98 fences may be up to 12 feet in height. 99 h. Commission Authority. The Planning Commission or Historic Landmark 100 Commission can modify fence, wall, or hedge height as part of their approval of a land 101 use application in order to mitigate impacts according to the approval standards for the 102 applicable land use application. 103 4. Vision Clearance and Safety: 104 a. Corner Lots; Sight Distance Triangle: No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be 105 erected to a height in excess of three feet if the fence,wall or hedge is located within the 106 sight distance triangle extending thirty feet either side of the intersection of the respective 107 street curb lines, or edge lines of roadway where curbing is not provided as noted in 108 section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. Intersection Of Driveway; Sight Distance 109 Triangle: Solid fences, walls and hedges shall not exceed thirty inches in height within 110 the sight distance triangle as defined in section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. 111 c. Sight Distance Triangle And See Through Fences: Within the area defined as a 112 sight distance triangle, see through fences that are at least 50 percent open shall be 113 allowed to a height of four feet. 114 d. Alternative Design Solutions: To provide adequate line of sight for driveways 115 and alleys, the zoning administrator, in consulting with the development review team, 116 may require alternative design solutions, including,but not restricted to, requiring 117 increased fence setback and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns created by 118 the location of buildings, grade change or other preexisting conditions. 119 5. Height Measurement: The height of a fence, wall, or hedge shall be measured from the 120 "finished grade" of the site as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this title. In instances of an 121 abrupt grade change at the property line, the height for fences that are located on top of a retaining 122 wall shall be measured from the top of the retaining wall. 123 5 Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text-Clean Version 124 125 6. Gates: No gate, whether crossing a driveway,walkway, or part of a fence, shall be 126 erected to a height in excess of the standards outlined in this subsection E. To regulate the 127 location of gates and their impact on vehicular staging within the public right of way,passenger 128 vehicles shall require a minimum seventeen foot six inch setback from back edge of sidewalk, or 129 property line when a sidewalk is not provided, and large truck driveways shall require a one 130 hundred foot setback from back edge of sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not 131 provided. All gates are to swing inward to the property or be a roll gate that does not impact the 132 staging area. 133 F. General Requirements: 134 1. Except when constructed of materials that have been designed or manufactured to remain 135 untreated, all fences or walls shall periodically be treated with paint or chemicals so as to retard 136 deterioration. 137 2. Fences or walls shall be constructed with good workmanship and shall be secured to the 138 ground or supporting area in a substantial manner and engineered so that the structure of 139 columns or posts and the material used for the intervening panels are adequately constructed to 140 support the materials and withstand wind loads. 141 3. All fences or walls (including entrance and exit gates) shall be maintained in good repair, 142 free of graffiti, structurally sound, so as to not pose a threat to public health, safety, and welfare. 143 21A.52.030: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AUTHORIZED: 144 (removed Special Exception authorization for over-height fences, walls, or hedges) 6 Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text-Redlined Version 1 2 MODIFICATIONS TO FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS 3 4 21A.40.120.E: REGULATION OF FENCES,WALLS AND HEDGES: 5 6 E. Height Restrictions And Gates: 7 Fences, walls, and hedges shall comply with the following unless otherwise permitted by this 8 Title: 9 10 1. General Height: 11 1. a. Residential zoning aigtrict Zoning Districts: 12 a. Except for the special foothills regulations as outlined in subsection 21A.24.010P, 13 and subsection 21A.120.E.3 of this title, no fence, wall or hedge shall be erected 14 to a height in excess of feur4 feet(1)between the front property line and front 15 building line of the primary façade of the principal structure that contains the 16 primary entrance. 17 18 b. Fences, walls or hedges located at or behind the primary facade of the principal 19 structure shall not exceed 6 feet. The zoning administrator may require either 20 increased fence setback or lower fence height along corner side yards to provide 21 adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys. 22 b. 23 c. When there is no existing principal structure, fence,wall, or hedge height shall 24 not exceed 4 feet in a front yard area or when adjacent to a public street or 6 feet 25 in the rear or interior side yard areas. 26 JJidA Primary Structure - Not to Scale,Illustrative Only - FRONT FACADE 4 FT.FENCE jl 6 FT.FENCE 27 28 *Primary Façade is the side of a building that faces a public street and includes the main 29 customer or resident entrance. 1 Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text-Redlined Version 30 2. Nonresidential Zoning Districts: 31 a. No fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in excess of four feet(4') 32 when within any required front yard area. Fencing for outdoor storage shall be 33 located behind any required front yard area. The maximum height for fences, 34 walls, or hedges when between the front property line and primary façade of the 35 principal structure shall be 4 feet and when located at or behind the primary 36 façade of the principal structure shall be 6 feet. In the M-2 and EI zoning districts 37 fences, walls, or hedges may be up to a maximum of 6 feet in height up to the 38 front yard setback line. If there is no minimum front yard setback in the 39 underlying zoning district, a fence, wall, or hedge at a maximum of 6 feet in 40 height can be placed 10 feet from the front property line. 41 4 FT.FENCE A 6FT.FENCE --- 42 43 44 b. Outdoor storage, when allowed in the Zoning District, shall be located behind the 45 primary facade of the principal structure and shall be screened with a solid wall or 46 fence. 47 48 c. Double Frontage Lots. A fence, wall, or hedge located on a property where both 49 the front and rear yards have frontage on a street may be a maximum of six feet in 50 height in a front yard provided the fence, wall, or hedge: 51 a. Is located in a provided yard that is directly opposite the front yard 52 where the primary entrance to the principal building is located; 53 b. Is in a location that is consistent with other six foot tall fence locations 54 on the block; 55 c. Complies with any clear view triangle requirements of this Title; and 56 d. Complies with all other fence, wall, and hedge requirements of this 57 Title. 2 Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text-Redlined Version front yard--> / ////: / rear yard -- / �yJJJ�/ i/////, /' r _ Not to Scale,Illustrative Only — PRIMARY FACADE j 4 FT.FENCE C 6 FT.FENCE 58 59 3. Allowances for additional height for fences, walls, or hedges unless otherwise permitted 60 by this Title: 61 a. Adjacent to Nonresidential Zoning Districts. Fences, walls, or hedges in the FR, 62 SR, and R-1 zoning districts shall not exceed 6 feet in height in the side or rear yard 63 except where they abut a Commercial, Downtown, Manufacturing, or Special Purpose 64 Zoning District. This exception does not apply to fences, walls, or hedges in the corner 65 side yard or front yard, and only applies where the lot abuts the nonresidential district. 66 „g di trict b. Public Facilities. Fences or walls for which a greater height is 67 necessary because of an association with uses that require high fences to protect public 68 safety or fences that are required by federal or state law, such as, but not limited to, 69 institutional uses, utility buildings or structures for municipal service uses, public 70 schools, or similar facilities may be allowed up to a maximum height of 12 feet provided 71 the fence or wall is no less than 80%transparent above a height of six feet. tO 72 73 c. Recreation Facilities. For fences or walls constructed around parks, open space, 74 or other outdoor recreation areas, the maximum height fence shall be up to 10 feet in 75 height and may be located in any required yard,provided that the fence or wall is no less 76 than 80 percent transparent above a height of six feet. Fences or walls for which a greater 77 height is necessary to protect public safety, such as, driving ranges, baseball fields, 3 Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text-Redlined Version 78 athletic fields; or similar facilities may be allowed within the subject property to a height 79 necessary to contain the recreation equipment. 80 d. Private Game Courts, Swimming Pools, and Other Similar Recreation 81 Equipment. For fences or walls constructed around private game courts, swimming pools, 82 or other similar recreation equipment, the maximum height shall be up to 10 feet 83 provided that the fence or wall is no less than 80 percent transparent above a height of six 84 feet. TOP 4 FT.OF THE FENCE AT LEAST 80%OPEN, — o X � � X 85 86 e. Construction Fencing. Temporary fencing to secure construction sites during 87 the planning, demolition, or construction process is permitted to a maximum of 10 feet in 88 height in any required front yard areayard provided the fence complies with site distance 89 triangle requirements of this Title. 90 f. Pillars. Pillars shall be allowed to extend up to 18 winches above 91 the allowable height of a fence or wall; provided, that the pillars shall have a maximum 92 diameter or width of no more than 18eighteen inches " ; and provided, that the pillars 93 shall have a minimum spacing of no less than 6,ix feet(6'), measured face to face. 94 2. g. Gates and Arches. The height of gates shall conform to the applicable 95 maximum fence height where the gate is located except that decorative elements on gates 96 such as scrolls, finials, and similar features may extend up to one foot above the 97 maximum fence height. In addition, arches or trellises up to 12 feet in height and five feet 98 in width may be constructed over a gate if integrated into the fence/gate design. A 99 maximum of two such arches shall be permitted per parcel. 4 Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text-Redlined Version 5 FT.MAX 2 1110. I 6 FT.MAX 111111111111 I1111111111111111111 100 101 102 g. Barbed or Razer Wire Fences: Where permitted, barbed wire and razor wire 103 fences may be up to 12 feet in height. 104 h. Commission Authority. The Planning Commission or Historic Landmark 105 Commission can modify fence, wall, or hedge height as part of their approval of a land 106 use application in order to mitigate impacts according to the approval standards for the 107 applicable land use application. 108 4. Vision Clearance and Safety: 109 a. Corner Lots; Sight Distance Triangle: No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be 110 erected to a height in excess of three feet (3')if the fence, wall or hedge is located within 111 the sight distance triangle extending thirty feet( )-either side of the intersection of the 112 respective street curb lines, or edge lines of roadway where curbing is not provided as 113 noted in section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. 114 The zoning administrator may require cithcr incrcascd fcncc setback or lower 115 fcncc height along corncr side yards to provide adequate linc of sight for driveways and 116 alleys. 117 Intersection Of Driveway; Sight Distance Triangle: Solid fences, walls and 118 hedges shall not exceed thirty inches_ in height within the sight distance triangle as 119 defined in section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. 120 5. c. Sight Distance Triangle And See Through Fences: Within the area 121 defined as a sight distance triangle, see through fences that are at least 50€r€ty percent 122 percent )-open shall be allowed to a height of four feet (4'). 123 6. d. Alternative Design Solutions: To provide adequate line of sight for 124 driveways and alleys, the zoning administrator, in consulting with the development 125 review team, may require alternative design solutions, including, but not restricted to, 126 requiring increased fence setback and/or lower fence height,to mitigate safety concerns 127 created by the location of buildings, grade change or other preexisting conditions. 5 Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text-Redlined Version 128 7. Measuring: Measuring the 5. Height Measurement: The height of a fence, wall, or hedge 129 shall be measured from the "finished grade" of the site as defined in 130 section 21A.62.04021A.62.040 of this title. 131 8. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission or historic landmark 132 commission may approve taller fencing if it is found that In instances of an abrupt grade change 133 at the property line, the extra height is necessary for for fences that are located on top of a 134 retaining wall shall be measured from the estop of the property in question as defined 135 in chapter 21A.52 of this title.retaining wall. 136 —9 s E 137 138 6. Gates: No gate, whether crossing a driveway,walkway, or part of a fence, shall be 139 erected to a height in excess of the standards outlined in this subsection E. To regulate the 140 location of gates and their impact on vehicular staging within the public right of way,passenger 1141 vehicles shall require a minimum seventeen foot six inch_ (17'6") setback from back edge of 142 sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided, and large truck driveways shall 1143 require a one hundred foot(100') setback from back edge of sidewalk, or property line when a 144 sidewalk is not provided. All gates are to swing inward to the property or be a roll gate that does 145 not impact the staging area. 146 F. General Requirements: 147 1. Except when constructed of materials that have been designed or manufactured to remain 148 untreated, all fences or walls shall periodically be treated with paint or chemicals so as to retard 149 deterioration. 150 2. Fences or walls shall be constructed with good workmanship and shall be secured to the 151 ground or supporting area in a substantial manner and engineered so that the structure of 152 columns or posts and the material used for the intervening panels are adequately constructed to 153 support the materials and withstand wind loads. 154 3. All fences or walls (including entrance and exit gates) shall be maintained in good repair, 155 free of graffiti, structurally sound, so as to not pose a threat to public health, safety, and welfare._ 156 • " 157 above the allowable height of a fence or wall; provided, that the pillars shall have a 158 maximum diameter or width of no more than eighteen inches (18"); and provided, that 6 Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text-Redlined Version 159 the pillars shall have a minimum spacing of no less than six feet(6'), measured face to 160 face. 161 H. Encroachments: Encroachments into the "sight distance triangle" for driveways as defined 162 and illustrated in chapter 21A.62 of this title, may be approved by the zoning administrator. This 163 regulation shall also apply to sight distance triangles for alleys. 164 - 165 21A.52.030: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AUTHORIZED: 166 3. Additional height for fences, walls or similar structures may be granted to exceed the height 167 limits established for fences and walls in chapter 21A.40 of this title if it is determined that there 168 will be no negative impacts upon the established character of the affected neighborhood and 169 streetscape, maintenance of public and private views, and matters of public safety. Approval of 170 fences, walls and other similar structures may be granted under the following circumstances 171 subject to compliance with other applicable requirements: 172 a. Exceeding the allowable height limits; provided, that the fence, wall or structure is 173 constructed of wrought iron, tubular steel or other similar material, and that the open, 174 spatial and nonstructural area of the fence, wall or other similar structure constitutes at 175 least eighty percent(80%) of its total area; 176 ' 177 engineer determines that permitting the additional height would cause an unsafe traffic 178 condition; 179 c. Incorporation of ornamental features or architectural embellishments which extend 180 above the allowable height limits; 181 d. Exceeding the allowable height limits, when erected around schools and approved 182 183 e. Exceeding the allowable height limits, in cases where it is determined that a negative 184 impact occurs because of levels of noise,pollution, light or other encroachments on the 185 rights to privacy, safety, security and aesthetics; 186 f. Keeping within the character of the neighborhood and urban design of the city; 187 188 where the clear character of the neighborhood in front yard areas is one of open spaces 189 from property to property; or 190 h. Posing a safety hazard when there is a driveway on the petitioner's property or 191 neighbor's property adjacent to the proposed fence,wall or similar structure. 192 (removed Special Exception authorization for over-height fences, walls, or hedges) 7 ATTACHMENT B: Existing Code Text PLNPCM2o2o-oo511 Fence Height Text Amendment Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text—Original Chapter 1 MODIFICATIONS TO FENCE HEIGHT REGULATIONS 2 3 21A.40.120.E: REGULATION OF FENCES,WALLS AND HEDGES: 4 5 E. Height Restrictions And Gates: 6 1. General Height: 7 a. Residential zoning districts: Except for the special foothills regulations as outlined in 8 subsection 21A.24.010P of this title, no fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in 9 excess of four feet(4')between the front property line and front building line of the facade of the 10 principal structure that contains the primary entrance. 11 b. Nonresidential zoning districts: No fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a height in 12 excess of four feet(4') when within any required front yard area. Fencing for outdoor storage 13 shall be located behind any required front yard area. 14 2. Corner Lots; Sight Distance Triangle: No solid fence, wall or hedge shall be erected to a 15 height in excess of three feet(3') if the fence, wall or hedge is located within the sight distance 16 triangle extending thirty feet(30') either side of the intersection of the respective street curb 17 lines, or edge lines of roadway where curbing is not provided as noted in section 21A.62.050, 18 illustration I of this title. 19 3. Corner Side, Side, Rear Yards; Sight Distance Triangle: Fences, walls or hedges may be 20 erected in any required corner side yard(extending to a point in line with the front facade of the 21 principal structure for residential zoning districts and up to any required front yard setback line 22 for all other zoning districts), required side yard or required rear yard to a height not to exceed 23 six feet(6'). The zoning administrator may require either increased fence setback or lower fence 24 height along corner side yards to provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys. 25 4. Intersection Of Driveway; Sight Distance Triangle: Solid fences, walls and hedges shall 26 not exceed thirty inches (30") in height within the sight distance triangle as defined in 27 section 21A.62.050, illustration I of this title. 28 5. Sight Distance Triangle And See Through Fences: Within the area defined as a sight 29 distance triangle, see through fences that are at least fifty percent(50%) open shall be allowed to 30 a height of four feet(4'). 31 6. Alternative Design Solutions: To provide adequate line of sight for driveways and alleys, 32 the zoning administrator, in consulting with the development review team, may require 33 alternative design solutions, including, but not restricted to, requiring increased fence setback 34 and/or lower fence height, to mitigate safety concerns created by the location of buildings, grade 35 change or other preexisting conditions. 36 7. Measuring: Measuring the height of a fence shall be from the "finished grade" of the site 37 as defined in section 21A.62.040 of this title. 38 8. Special Exception Approval Standards: The planning commission or historic landmark 39 commission may approve taller fencing if it is found that the extra height is necessary for the 40 security of the property in question as defined in chapter 21A.52 of this title. 1 Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text—Original Chapter 41 9. Gates: No gate, whether crossing a driveway, walkway, or part of a fence, shall be 42 erected to a height in excess of the standards outlined in this subsection E. To regulate the 43 location of gates and their impact on vehicular staging within the public right of way,passenger 44 vehicles shall require a minimum seventeen foot six inch(17'6") setback from back edge of 45 sidewalk, or property line when a sidewalk is not provided, and large truck driveways shall 46 require a one hundred foot(100') setback from back edge of sidewalk, or property line when a 47 sidewalk is not provided. All gates are to swing inward to the property or be a roll gate that does 48 not impact the staging area. 49 F. General Requirements: 50 1. Except when constructed of materials that have been designed or manufactured to remain 51 untreated, all fences or walls shall periodically be treated with paint or chemicals so as to retard 52 deterioration. 53 2. Fences or walls shall be constructed with good workmanship and shall be secured to the 54 ground or supporting area in a substantial manner and engineered so that the structure of 55 columns or posts and the material used for the intervening panels are adequately constructed to 56 support the materials and withstand wind loads. 57 3. All fences or walls (including entrance and exit gates) shall be maintained in good repair, 58 free of graffiti, structurally sound, so as to not pose a threat to public health, safety, and welfare. 59 G. Exceptions: Pillars shall be allowed to extend up to eighteen inches (18") above the 60 allowable height of a fence or wall; provided, that the pillars shall have a maximum diameter or 61 width of no more than eighteen inches (18"); and provided, that the pillars shall have a minimum 62 spacing of no less than six feet(6'), measured face to face. 63 H. Encroachments: Encroachments into the "sight distance triangle" for driveways as defined 64 and illustrated in chapter 21A.62 of this title, may be approved by the zoning administrator. This 65 regulation shall also apply to sight distance triangles for alleys. 66 67 21A.52.030: SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS AUTHORIZED: 68 3. Additional height for fences, walls or similar structures may be granted to exceed the height 69 limits established for fences and walls in chapter 21A.40 of this title if it is determined that there 70 will be no negative impacts upon the established character of the affected neighborhood and 71 streetscape, maintenance of public and private views, and matters of public safety. Approval of 72 fences, walls and other similar structures may be granted under the following circumstances 73 subject to compliance with other applicable requirements: 74 a. Exceeding the allowable height limits; provided, that the fence,wall or structure is 75 constructed of wrought iron, tubular steel or other similar material, and that the open, 76 spatial and nonstructural area of the fence, wall or other similar structure constitutes at 77 least eighty percent (80%) of its total area; 2 Fence Height Chapter Proposed Text—Original Chapter 78 b. Exceeding the allowable height limits on any corner lot; unless the city's traffic 79 engineer determines that permitting the additional height would cause an unsafe traffic 80 condition; 81 c. Incorporation of ornamental features or architectural embellishments which extend 82 above the allowable height limits; 83 d. Exceeding the allowable height limits, when erected around schools and approved 84 recreational uses which require special height considerations; 85 e. Exceeding the allowable height limits, in cases where it is determined that a negative 86 impact occurs because of levels of noise,pollution, light or other encroachments on the 87 rights to privacy, safety, security and aesthetics; 88 f. Keeping within the character of the neighborhood and urban design of the city; 89 g. Avoiding a walled-in effect in the front yard of any property in a residential district 90 where the clear character of the neighborhood in front yard areas is one of open spaces 91 from property to property; or 92 h. Posing a safety hazard when there is a driveway on the petitioner's property or 93 neighbor's property adjacent to the proposed fence, wall or similar structure. 3 ATTACHMENT C: Analysis Of Zoning Text Amendment Standards ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 21A.5o.o50: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. In making a decision to amend the zoning map,the City Council should consider the following: CONSIDERATION FINDING RATION 1. Whether a proposed The proposed Though no citywide plans specifically discuss fence text amendment is amendments are height, Plan Salt Lake includes Guiding Principle 8: consistent with the generally Beautiful City,which is focused on providing an attractive purposes,goals, consistent with built form that protects views of natural spaces, and objectives,and policies the goals and reflects our commitment to high quality neighborhoods of the City as stated policies the and protecting neighborhood character. through its various City's plans. The proposed amendments are in line with the adopted adopted planning and utilized Master Plans and additional adopted documents; planning documents,and is considered a vital segment of the stability of neighborhoods. 2. Whether a proposed The proposal The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to "promote the text amendment furthers generally health,safety,morals,convenience,order,prosperity and the specific purpose furthers the welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake statements of the zoning specific purpose City, to implement the adopted plans of the City, and ordinance; statements of carry out the purposes of the Municipal Land Use the zoning Development and Management Act (State Code)." The ordinance by proposed amendments provide consistency and ensuring their predictability to reduce land use conflicts, better enforcement and allowing enforcement and administration of the City's administration. zoning ordinance. The proposed changes maintain conformity with the general purpose statements of the zoning ordinance and ensure that the code can be legally administered and enforced to further those ordinance purposes. Additionally, according to Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Guidebook, tall fences, over grown shrubbery and other barriers blocking sight lines adjacent to pedestrian paths could shield an attacker. Alternatively, low hedges or fences, allow for "eyes on the street" and usually discourage crime and vandalism, meeting safety goals of the purpose statement. 3.Whether a proposed The proposal is The proposed text amendment is citywide and is not tied text amendment is consistent with directly to any property or specific geographic location consistent with the and does not within the City.Therefore,the amendment would not be purposes and provisions impact the subject to any overlay zoning district standards. of any applicable overlay enforceability of PLNPCM2o2o-oo5ii Fence Height Text Amendment zoning districts which any existing The proposed amendments do allow for the Planning may impose additional appeal process Commission and Historic Landmark Commission to standards; and references in any approve additional fence height as part of a land use zoning overlays. application review. 4. The extent to which The proposed As discussed,the proposed changes clearly outline when a proposed text changes over height fences are appropriate, removing the amendment implements eliminate legal somewhat unpredictable process and outcome of special best current, conflicts, exceptions. The proposed amendments allow for better professional practices of improve administration and streamlining of city code. The urban planning and enforceability regulations do not relate to any specifics relating to design. and professional practices of design. Additionally, urban administration design practices discourage the use of excessively tall of City Code, fences, specifically in front yards, due to visual and so appearance and safety. implement best professional practices. PLNPCM2o2o-oo511 Fence Height Text Amendment ATTACHMENT D: Public Process And Comments The following attachment lists the public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities related to the proposed project. All written comments that were received throughout this process are included within this attachment. The following is a list of public meetings that have been held,and other public input opportunities related to the proposal: • Early notification/online Open House notices e-mailed out July 22, 2020 o Notices were e-mailed to all recognized community organizations (community councils)per City Code 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage o Two community councils (East Bench Community Council and Sugar House Community Council) submitted formal comments. No community councils requested that staff attend a meeting to review the proposal. Both community councils expressed concerns with the proposed amendment. o Numerous public comments were received, which are included on the following pages.The majority of the comments focused on two specific projects and concerns associated with not allowing a taller fence in those instances. Other comments requested more consideration to what situations could grant additional fence height, such as for properties next to public lands. Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included: • Public hearing notice mailed on December 30, 2020 • Public hearing notice published to newspaper January 2, 2021 • Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listsery on December 30, 2020 PLNPCM2o2o-oo5ii Fence Height Text Amendment From: Aimee Burrows To: Gilmore,Kristina Subject: (EXTERNAL)PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height Date: Thursday,September 10,2020 11:49:30 AM Attachments: EBCC Minutes 8.19.20.pdf Hello Krissy, I just realized that this email will get to you after the close of the Public Comment Period for the Fence Height Zoning Amendment,but I'm still going to send it. The membership of East Bench Community Council voted against this amendment at our meeting on August 19, 2020. There were 15 council members in attendance and the vote was unanimous. Please see the attached meeting minutes. Thank you, Aimee Burrows, Chair East Bench Community Council ebcc.chair@gmail.com 5 '' , SAC www_eostbenchslc_org EAST BENCH COMMUNITY COUNCIL General Meeting Agenda Zoom Meeting, 7 pm, Wednesday, August 19, 2020 25 Participants in All, including Jamie Stokes Community Liaison from Mayor's Office, Detective Meinzer, Jonathon Bates, Andrew King, Shawn Wood, and Julianne Sabula for Research Park presentation, and Dan Dugan as our city council representative 1. Welcome, Introduce Board Members in Attendance: Karrington, Burrows, Moore, Wright, Overdevest, Eyre 2. Business Items Remaining general meetings for this year: Sept 16, October 21, November 18 Please sign up for updates from Dan Dugan https://www.slc.gov/district6/ and SLC Council https://www.slc.gov/council/ U of U alerts https://alert.utah.edu/ updates, and Mayor's update https://www.slc.gov/mayor/ Lots of local government partners post on NextDoor. The EBCC includes the St Mary's and Arcadia Heights neighborhoods. 3. SLC Fire Department Newsletter— no fire representative SLC Fire Station 13, Parleys Way 801-799-3473 I fire@slcgov.com 4. SLC Police Department Report Det. Nathan Meinzer, SLCPD CIU 801-799-3625 I ciudistrict6slcgov.com a. Traffic issues-they are aware of a growing presence of street racing, bigger on the west side, making sure it doesn't come up to Foothill b. Allowing police to be more proactive now that Covid is ramping down a little, more citations being issued c. Car prowls — 14 last month, our district is unique in that we have the most long term residents in our area, so monitor any suspicious behavior, anyone we don't recognize from our neighborhood, please call if you see someone walking around at night with a hoodie or looking out of place; several stolen cars recovered from our area, 4 burglaries in our area— no forced entry; i. Burglaries have risen significantly in recent months, it is a national trend that they have been tracking and they suspect it is due to covid — people unemployed and looking for quick income d. Question from Dennis Eyre: has there been an unusual amount of people resigning or retiring from the force? Yes, about 20+ down from resignations, losing bodies fairly quickly. As they lose people out of patrol, they will move detectives back to patrol—number 1 priority is taking care of the citizens; Dan Dugan says they're monitoring it and making sure there is enough staff to keep everyone safe. 5. SLC Mayor's Report Jamie Stokes, Community Liaison 801-535-7110 I jamie.stokes©slcgov.com a. Covid: still in orange phase, but looking positive. They are reassessing once a week from health dept, they're encouraged by the negative trend (positive) since masks have been enforced. Economic development is working with business on how to operate safely: https://www.slc.gov/ed/covidl9/ . The Wellness Bus is offering free COIVD-19 tests to those with and without symptoms. Check https://healthcare.utah.edu/wellness/driving-out-diabetes/mobile-health-program.php for more information. Community comment urging the city to be careful about going to yellow too soon given that the university is about to open up, governor might be hard to move back to orange once we're in yellow b. Street typologies survey, encouraging us to look at it and give feedback, it's a vision for what the city could look like. Comments due Aug 31: https://www.slc.gov/transportation/2019/08/30/typologies/ c. Census is almost over—end of September, please fill it out if you haven't already—phone, mail, online. d. Equity front — black lives matter mural completed recently — 8 artists painted 2 letters each. Listen to the artists behind the City's Black Lives Matter Mural describe their inspiration: https://www.facebook.com/361929204013526/videos/339445270578049 There are proposals from the mayor's office on how to recover economically from Covid using equitable means: https://www.slc.gov/mayor/2020/08/19/mayor-mendenhall-proposes-budget-to-equitably-address- community-covid-needs/ 6. Salt Lake City Council Report Dan Dugan, District 6 801-535-7784 I dan.dugan©slcgov.com a. Street Typogology—take the survey, if there's not enough room for your comments then email Dan Dugan directly to get your comments into the survey, have until 8/31/20. b. Census voting —encouraged to register to vote c. Parley's Point and Benchmark street—some concern over the development, he's in contact with the mayor to make sure the development isn't hurting the neighborhood. d. School starts after Labor Day; we have a low rate of Covid 19 test positives about 10% on the east side, but be sure to keep our guard up and stay safe, get flu shots when the time comes. e. Indian Hills cell towers—there are concerned community members, Dan Dugan is in tune with it, though it is in the hands of the school board and the State, currently fighting other 5g cell towers in the city but it's a state and federal law that give the providers the right of way — might be up against a brick wall, but aren't going to give up for that reason. 7. Research Park Master Plan Jonathon Bates, Exec Dir RE Admin a. Jonathon gave a 15 minute presentation on the vision plan for Resarch Park, what the next 50 years could look like: https://realestate.utah.edu/research-park-vision-plan/ b. There was concern over projected height of buildings. Planning committee has taken this into account, they want to protect the views from the foothills. All projected specifics are on the powerpoint. c. Planning committee wants to keep an open dialogue, community welcome to leave comments on website 8. Other Business a. https://www.slc.gov/planning/2020/07/22/fence-height-zoning-amendment/ Anthony Wright presented specifics on the fencing variance: our neighborhood has a unique typography with sloping yards and lots compared to neighborhoods like sugarhouse and 9th and 9th that are built on flat square lots. The variance was good intentioned, but doesn't allow for unique typography. The proposed amendment eliminates allowing things to be taken into a case by case basis. i. Brooke Karrington made a motion to vote on the variange, Anthony Wright gave the 2nd. EBCC is not in favor of this new ordinance: Majority voted against the amendment. 0 community members voted in favor of the amendment. Due to the conditions that zoom presents, it was hard to identify if anyone abstained from voting. ii. The EBCC position has been decided, but community members are still encouraged to go online to make comments, or email Dan Dugan (dan.duagnslcgov.com ) your comments and he will read them and pass them along to the planning committee. b. Mark Overdevest: discussed 37 acre property between Devonshire with Lakeline going up for sale. Seller put it through to get 3 buildable lots passed, listed about 10 days ago, $8.75 million is listing price. Son is listing agent, zoned FR2 (foothill residential 2) and OS (Open Space), each lot must be a minimum of .5 acre; Seller would prefer to sell it to the city and not disturb the Bonneville shoreline trail; Owner has 3 of the lots zoned but don't know if there is permission to build c. If you're interested in filling a vacancy on EBCC Board, please email ebcc.chairqmail.com by the end of this month. The board will appoint a member to the board before the September 16th meeting. d. Surveys for our community listed below i. New SLC Flag, due Aug 21: https://www.slc.qov/flaq/ ii. Billboard Ordinance: https://www.slc.gov/planning/2020/07/20/billboard-ordinance-amendments/ iii. Fencing, Walls and Hedges: https://www.slc.gov/planning/2020/07/22/fence-height-zoninq- amendment/ iv. Restaurants in Public Land Zones: https://www.slc.gov/planning/2020/08/04/permitting- restaurants-in-the-public-lands-zoning-district/ EBCC Board Members Aimee Burrows ebcc.chair@gmail.com Anthony Wright anthonywright13@gmail.com David Wirthlin dbwirthlin@gmail.com Mark Overdevest mark.overdevest@gmail.com Brooke Karrington b.karrington04@gmail.com Dennis Eyre denniseyre@prodigy.net Katie Moore domandkatie@gmail.com Emily Lucht emily.lucht@gmail.com Sugar House] COMMUNITY COUNCIL October 13, 2020 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Judi Short,Vice Chair and Land Use Chair Sugar House Community Council RE: PLNPCN 2020-00511 Fence Height Zoning Text Amendment This is a special exception that needs to be allowed in specific circumstances.We discussed this issue several times in our LUZ meetings,when two projects were being proposed. It also was in our newsletter,and on our website. We think there should be some common sense applied. For example, if an apartment building is right up against a row of houses,and that building is going to be more than ten feet taller that the allowed height for the adjacent property(say 28'in a residential zone), then perhaps a fence that exceeds 6' in height makes sense in that situation. (See#3 on Page 16 of the"Special Exception Code Change Document"). If something could potentially create noise,such as a home day care with more than five children in a neighborhood with small lots and small homes,or an accessory building to be used for band practice,the neighbors should be notified,and maybe an extra sound muffling product should be applied to muffle the noise of the music. In Sugar House,we have two proposals before us,where two large and tall apartment buildings are going in next to a long-standing residential neighborhood,with single story houses.We anticipate there will be more of these down the road.And with the fact that the parking requirement is minimal,and most units have two vehicles even though we pretend they don't,and each unit is allowed one parking space,the neighborhoods will become less desirable for the long-term residents because of extra cars on the streets and no parking place near their house. Not to mention extra noise. The new apartment building west of Gilgal Garden seems to have nonstop loud garbage trucks going in and out with big bangs, like they drop the dumpsters from 3 feet off the ground. It is continuous and can be heard nearly every time I am at the garden. Imagine if I was in a house instead of the garden,the continual noise that would produce. The least we can do is provide some mitigation,in the form of higher walls to save some of their privacy,and block the additional noise that is generated by these large buildings. I believe that in most cases these can be put between the houses and the building in such a way that they would not extend to the sidewalk on either end.There should be a process for custom design,or else redesign the building in such a way that both groups can be accommodated. In most cases,the home dwellers have been in the neighborhood quite a while and should be respected. The developer should also be required to plant skinny upright trees that will help with privacy for the homeowner,and buffer the noise and pollutants from the parking garages. I am sure Sugar House is not the only neighborhood where this is happening.You need to be considerate of the entire city. Vinyl fences should not be allowed. They are flimsy,get VERY hot,release pollutants as their surface degrades from exposure to sunlight, and don't block the sound. You need to rewrite this ordinance to accommodate higher fences. Enclosure: COMMENTS from Sugar House Residents SHCC letter to PC fence height exceptions.docx www.sugarhousecouncil.org Page 1 of 1 COMMENTS-FENCE HEIGHT SPECIAL EXCEPTION ZONING AMENDMENT Ms. Gilmore: I cannot understand the reasoning behind SLC's idea to eliminate any mechanism for granting exceptions regarding fence height. This means that SLC can see the future and has determined that at no time, never, ever, in perpetuity,will there be a circumstance that necessitates a fence that cannot fit into your regulations. This is truly incomprehensible considering SLC's efforts to plop high density housing in single family neighborhoods. Even now, with IZZY South and Richmond Flats smack dab in the middle of single family neighborhoods, SLC cannot fathom the necessity of a higher fence to protect the surrounding neighbor's privacy. The neighbor's concerns are brushed away as inconsequential as SLC leaves NO recourse for unusual conditions. This makes no sense and must be reconsidered. LYNNE SCHWARZ thea 11 :32 AM (5 hours ago) to Kristina.Gilmore@slcgov.com, me Dear Ms. Gilmore: Have just read through the proposed changes, and am wondering what prompted the complete omission of the Special Exception Authorization section. Is it because of too many requests to build higher fences? Are some so frivolous that they are taking up time much better spent on other issues? If so, I would encourage you to reword the exception section rather than eliminate it. The plethora of apartment buildings going up in city neighborhoods, while great for increasing housing capacity, is creating issues for established residents whose back yards are adjacent to them. These problems are specifically addressed in the current fence ordinance, i.e. in Section (e) allowing height exceptions in "cases where it is determined that a negative impact occurs because of levels of noise pollution, light or other encroachments on the right to privacy, safety, security and aesthetics." Section (f) refers to "keeping within the character of the neighborhood and urban design of the city." I urge you to retain these considerations for the neighbors of these new complexes, and in fact, change the ordinance to require that the complexes themselves pay for higher fences. In the case of the Izzy South project, with a ground floor parking garage for about 60 cars, the fence definitely needs to be higher and made of a solid material to block pollution from the cars. Any developer also ought to be required to plant at least 10 foot tall trees for each rear-facing unit overlooking established neighborhood back yards. These requirements would help neighbors without creating undue extra expense for projects. The Izzy project design aims to limit harmful impact on our environment, so I would think this would be acceptable to its developer. Thank you for your consideration of these comments and best wishes, Thea Brannon 1768 E Wilson Ave. SLC Thea Brannon wordpress@www.sugarhousecouncil.org via $ia4Afiet hours ago) to me From: Thea Brannon < ><1768 E. Wilson Ave> Subject: Fence Height Special Exception Zoning Amendment Message Body: The proposed fence height modification ordinance needs to address the issue of the commercial apartment/mixed use buildings being built all over town. Even though they may only be 3 stories, as in the Izzy South project, if these buildings back up to established residential neighborhood back yards, they create threats to the privacy of the resident citizens. In cases such as this, exceeding the allowable fence height should be required. In addition, if there is a parking garage immediately adjacent, a solid fence should be required to help mitigate the resulting increase in air, noise, and light pollution. I wonder what prompted this proposal, and I believe it needs to be rethought. Ben Hd 11 :08 AM (6 hours ago) to me Hi Judi, Thanks for keeping me in the loop as I was unable to attend the zoom meeting due to childcare. I'll take a look at the fence proposal. As someone who supports the development, I'd say it seems very reasonable to request Buffer trees/hedges as well. I get that homeowner built fences can be pretty sketchy above 6', but If permitted and inspected on a commercial development... I'm pretty sure the fencing between homes and the S-line is well over 6'. Best From: Peggy Clark < ><2123 so 600 e> Subject: Fence Height Special Exception Zoning Amendment Message Body: If an apartment building was built next to my house, I would definitely fight for a high fence... or a very tall wall When multi housing units are constructed adjacent to homes, the homeowners gain a pile of new neighbors and lose their privacy. A taller fence helps to maintain a bit of privacy as well as reducing noise. The designers and architects need to consider the project impact on the existing residents and stop obsessing on cutting building costs. Carol Harris wordpress@www.sugarhousecouncil.org viahseridc, icErl PM (2 days ago) !O From: Carol Harris < <1175 E Elgin Ave> Subject: Fence Heig t pecia xception oning Amendment Message Body: I am very concerned about a short fence - only 6 feet in height for the new apartments planned at 2960 Richmond Ave. A four story building looming over our previously private backyards is unacceptable to all neighbors in the area. The commission has obviously determined that our input is not being considered, PLEASE approve a taller fence - 8-10 feet - to provide some level of privacy and security. My property is on the southwest corner of the development which on the current plans may have a swimming pool. A crowded, noisy pool with only a six foot fence is totally unacceptable to me. I purchased my property for the privacy and serenity which is horribly threatened. Please LISTEN to the neighbors. Thank you. Dean Mellott Fri, Jul 31 , 11 :49 PM (16 hours ago) io Dayna. me The zoning for single family residential areas in the Nibley area of Sugarhouse, Salt Lake City is best left in the current zoning status for safety and as a desirable aesthetic part of the city. Zoning changes along the S-Line has taken place in the recent past years, including along 700 East & 2100 South to accommodate hundreds upon hundreds affordable housing units of various sizes. The streets are already unsafe with the influx of cars speeding on every street surrounding the new massive apartment & townhouse units with drivers circumventing the arterial roads. There does not need to be additional rezoning of the single-family residential areas in the southern area of Salt Lake City close to the S-line for the hope or dreams of single parent families with one or more children believing they'll be able to afford living in the area. Affordable housing seems best in areas where the high density apartment complexes have been built and continue to be built. Dean Mellott 574 E Elm Ave SLC, UT 84106 801-879-3855 onna Bradshaw wordpress@www.sugarhousecouncil.o4viax,e'ncigad.net e'ndgad.net Pivi (� cl«ys =: u) to me From: Donna Bradshaw < <1065 S 300 E> Subject: Fence Height Special Exception oning mendment Message Body: Please do NOT change the provisions for fencing height as it currently appears in the code .1 can't see the value or necessity for removing any possibility of a review for special permission for altered fence heights. It is essential to be able to petition for a higher fence in situations where neighborhood privacy, safety and aesthetics demands! It especially crucial as Salt Lake City downtown and businesses grow and spread, and with the ever-growing number of apartment buildings that can tower over neighborhoods. The folks who live in houses deserve peace and privacy and must be able to have enjoyment of their property. We need to have at least an avenue to provide for building fences to ensure the safety of our children and the preservation of our property values!!! m: David Fernandez < <2685 S Hartford> Subject: Fence Height Special Exception Zoning Amendment Message Body: Something there is that doesn't love a wall, One of the stated reasons for this revision is that when an apartment building is put up next door to you, you would appreciate a taller fence to maintain your privacy in your backyard. Where is this addressed in this revision? Also, Section F General Requirements Paragraph 1. Needs to address Vinyl Fencing. Vinyl fencing, siding shutters, windows are sold as "maintenance free" requiring no treatment or chemicals to retard deterioration. However, oil based plastics deteriorate at an undefined rate base on exposure to sunlight (UV), pollution and heat. This manifests itself as fading in color, loss of ductility and eventually lack of structural integrity. As a side, the chemicals released if these items catch on fire should not be inhaled. From: thea < Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 11:32 AM To: Gilmore, Kristina <Kristina.Gilmore(c�slcoov.com> Cc: Judi Short Subject: (EXTERNAL) Proposed fence height modification ordinance Dear Ms. Gilmore: Have just read through the proposed changes, and am wondering what prompted the complete omis requests to build higher fences? Are some so frivolous that they are taking up time much better sper rather than eliminate it. The plethora of apartment buildings going up in city neighborhoods, while great for increasing housir adjacent to them. These problems are specifically addressed in the current fence ordinance, i.e. in S negative impact occurs because of levels of noise pollution, light or other encroachments on the righ the character of the neighborhood and urban design of the city." I urge you to retain these considerations for the neighbors of these new complexes, and in fact, char fences. In the case of the Izzy South project, with a ground floor parking garage for about 60 cars, tl pollution from the cars. Any developer also ought to be required to plant at least 10 foot tall trees for requirements would help neighbors without creating undue extra expense for projects. The Izzy project design aims to limit harmful impact on our environment, so I would think this would t Thank you for your consideration of these comments and best wishes, Thea Brannon 1768 E Wilson Ave. SLC Sent from Mail for Windows 10 inThank you for your response. Thank you for the update. Thank you. ReplyReply allForward From: wanda brown < ><543 E Commonwealth Ave> Subject: Fence Height Special Exception Zoning Amendment Message Body: I believe we should be able to make exceptions to fence height. Especially when you have a large apartment building going in next to residential homes. it will help reduce the noise pollution. From: Anthony Wright To: Gilmore, Kristina Subject: (EXTERNAL)Proposed Fence changes Date: Monday,July 27,2020 11:43:48 AM To whom it may concern, I was just made aware of the proposed change to fence zoning.I am in opposition to the change.I believe the way the language reads now allows for more flexibility for unique circumstance where a 6ft front fence may be acceptable. While I dislike the idea of properties having a solid fence right next to the sidewalk,an iron or semi transparent fence in the front of some properties is acceptable and is seen all over the world in many beautiful neighborhoods. The way the amendment reads is that no matter the circumstance or situation,4 ft is the max for a residential front yard.Having a special exemption allows the city to grant the exception for specific circumstances.An iron fence may be appropriate for a historic district where other structures have the same,or for a property set far back from the street where a taller transparent fence would not provide a boxed feel. I hope you consider the potential impact to those with unique circumstances that may benefit from a taller fence.Not every home or lot is the same and not allowing reasonable exceptions with neighbors approval hurts development. Sent from my iPhone From: Anthony Wright To: Gilmore,Kristina Subject: (EXTERNAL)Fwd: Proposed Fence changes Date: Monday,July 27,2020 11:59:54 AM Furthermore saying a person cannot have a hedge over 4 ft tall?What constitutes a hedge?Are you trying to say no trees can be in the front yard? Define the spacing for trees to be considered a hedge. This will be an enforcement logistical nightmare. If the city decides to limit a property owners right to privacy and security that will not sit well with the public. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Anthony Wright > Date: July 27, 2020 at 11:43:44 AM MDT To: kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com Subject: Proposed Fence changes Anthony Wright Letter Fencing I am all for the standardization of the city code. If we can save the city time and resources that are being spent on variances for things that are likely to be approved, I'm all for that. My concern is that amendments will be made to the code, the variances will be eliminated, and that the exceptions that are reasonable and have no adverse impact on the surrounding area, will be left out. No one can predict every situation that may arise that does not fit into the box of code. If every home was on a flat, square lot, with the same buffers from commercial properties, major roads, and no topographic challenges it would be easy to create a code that everyone can follow. For example, the avenues, foothill, and along the Wasatch fault line, sometimes have extreme topographic and slope challenges that cannot reasonably meet code standards. Another example is in historic districts or even neighborhoods with older homes. Often, homes that are not on the registry but want to bring their home more in line with the surrounding homes that were built before code implementation, need a variance to keep in line with the character of the neighborhood. In regard to the proposed changes to fencing regulation, I feel that the existing variance section was erased with no addition to the code to address potential reasonable exceptions. The current permissible variances allowed for additional height if they met very specific criteria. With this being eliminated, it effectively makes it impossible under any circumstance to build anything over 4 ft in the front or 6ft for side or rear. No one wants a majority of houses with solid fencing going to the sidewalk, which even under the current variances is not allowed. If you refer to the current variances section, you will see the list of reasonable exceptions such as being constructed with a wrought iron or transparent options, or it is determined that a negative impact occurs because of levels of noise, pollution, light or other encroachments on the rights to privacy, safety, security and aesthetics. There are times where a taller fence is justified for either privacy, safety, or an attempt to limit noise, light pollution, or sound of a busy road. Does anyone find it reasonable that we would not allow someone who lives on foothill drive to not construct a 6 foot fence with a hedge to help obstruct the noise and pollution? I believe people should be able to express themselves with their yard and landscaping options. The current verbiage says no hedge in front of the home shall exceed 4ft. The use of hedge is extremely vague. Many people plant a row of trees along their driveways, in front of their main windows, or even have a mature tree trimmed to be a hedge in the front yard. The literal interpretation would basically make any vegetation in the front yard in violation if over 4 ft tall. Limiting everyone to the same restrictive standards could hurt the esthetics of our city, limit creativity and expression, and deny some the right to privacy and security. I challenge the Anthony Wright Letter council to drive the city for just 15 minuets and look for fencing that would now be a violation. You will see the grand wrought iron gates of the lower avenues, 6 foot fencing in front of homes that sit on major roads, unique and beautiful landscaped hedges and trees over 4 ft, and corner lots with transparent side fencing. The way the amendment reads now is that a 4 foot chain link fence can wrap your front yard and driveway while a 6 Ft decorative, mostly transparent wrought iron fence and gate would be prohibited. * I ask that you consider including wrought iron, tubular steel, or other transparent fencing as an option for going up to 6ft in the front of a property. If that still does not seem reasonable, consider having an increase in height up to 6ft for every foot you step back from the front property line. I also ask that you consider allowing excess height for ornamental features for a gate. I would much rather see a beautiful, intricately designed arched gate over a flat 4ft chain link gate. It would be sad to never again see a new wrought iron gate in our city. Below are some examples I have found around the city that would be non-conforming under the amendments but are very reasonable, have no adverse impact on the area, and provide the privacy and security we citizens are entitled to. 44, y i L 1 *IA ,Y Y ice. c.l�f. • ( 1 12 Non permissible 6 ft fence on foothill drive • Ir - --. .. .. _ ' - Anthony Wright Letter Fencing over 4 ft to alleviate intrusion of noise, and pollution from foothill drive. .7iter mu �,;Aril 6 .0• •L ,.� ..t . _w- — . }' • vet `• yV�- . tl ` 7`�1r N 2 , fr. • Transparent fencing over 4 ft that is stepped back from sidewalks. Not allowed (note, homes are far from the road and additional height provides security for the property with the home situated in the middle of the lot). Anthony Wright Letter .i yv' s 7 t b a y� ' 1� - I _ y - :2t, 41 fF n- d� 1.i • ��y`� ���0 1♦� V 1r y •� • Google 1`Ima,•rapture'.Jun 2019 02020 Go0gle United Slates ,rm. / A r t s• 4 .,......., d r c .....,---" , R , _ L 0 7 1 Google .._._ -._. _ F .� - � Non permissible hedge on major roads Anthony Wright Letter Y- I a '.. 4 ` •!_ f-- , r a. - _ _ - • . - t Wit k. i- ; - - -4 . .- - �'= • ,,... ..)15 te Non permissible hedge in front yard over 4 ft. This hedge is cut from native scrub oak ;; . S. , . r , , ,,,, . .:2; , 6.,....,:. ",..4.44iiiiimmtifavin,iimii,... ._-.1*, 47:".f.4'' e,..„.....„..1, -gir.`-' --' - „ffrF - , ''.1pr„ pftrzezmak • .4:'--44 liiii f �Sr T r "'-YT • Non permissible ornamental gate exceeding 4 Ft in height Anthony Wright Letter • c � .: ttk. v� 1 r� • 14g!! , 1 1,1;1 t : ftf, i i;r 1 j''" -77e 1 ,,,..A ts,..-,1, i ti - . „_ii,_.,T-----11 _, II L. )., v a •t• +..il 26; . 'la ie. .. '' 1P-... .,_ ...... ., ,.. v4tUiruli •,, 4 *, to tY i .4 if(I ti at i't\0 ...%. ._ .. - , Wrought iron fence exceeding 4 ft in height Al“-7- . E 1 1 1_ , --,-4?4 i 14- " . ,, _ . rift:i__ ' if 1 ,. • • digit 3 ft chain link fencing with no landscaping or privacy hedge. Allowed... From: To: Gilmore,Kristina Subject: (EXTERNAL)Fencing ordinance modification Date: Wednesday,July 29,2020 3:32:31 PM Ms. Gilmore,thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the fencing. While I appreciate it is easier to be totally uniform throughout the city, it is not always reasonable for the homeowner. In my case, my property backs up to "wild lands" on the east—there are no roads, no habitation in the area—but there are cougar. In fact, I have a fence that is 6' tall on the back, and I maintain a "down to mineral dirt" firebreak for 10' wide along the entire east stretch of my property at the east fence line, with fencing continuing to the west along the entire back yard reaching down to the house. (I have no fence whatsoever extending from the house to the street.) Yesterday there was a distinct paw print in the dust in that area—INSIDE the 6' high fence—which paw print was of a size to exclude domestic cats and bobcats. Cougar can easily leap 10' from a standing position. I had intended to raise the fence to provide protection for me and my family. The proposed ordinance would prevent me from creating that protection. I strongly urge the consideration of special circumstances such as property like mine. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Joan Ogden 1423 S Devonshire Drive Salt Lake City UT 84108 From: Lynn Schwarz To: Gilmore, Kristina Subject: (EXTERNAL)Fence Height Date: Wednesday,July 29,2020 7:46:25 PM Ms. Gilmore: I cannot understand the reasoning behind SLC's idea to eliminate any mechanism for granting exceptions regarding fence height. This means that SLC can see the future and has determined that at no time, never, ever, in perpetuity, will there be a circumstance that necessitates a fence that cannot fit into your regulations. This is truly incomprehensible considering SLC's efforts to plop high density housing in single family neighborhoods. Even now, with IZZY South and Richmond Flats smack dab in the middle of single family neighborhoods, SLC cannot fathom the necessity of a higher fence to protect the surrounding neighbor's privacy. The neighbor's concerns are brushed away as inconsequential as SLC leaves NO recourse for unusual conditions. This makes no sense and must be reconsidered. Lynn Schwarz 2023 East Crystal Ave Salt Lake City, UT 84109 Sugar House Community Council Trustee From: thea To: Gilmore,Kristina Cc: Judi Short Subject: (EXTERNAL)Proposed fence height modification ordinance Date: Thursday,July 30,2020 11:32:03 AM Dear Ms. Gilmore: Have just read through the proposed changes, and am wondering what prompted the complete omission of the Special Exception Authorization section. Is it because of too many requests to build higher fences?Are some so frivolous that they are taking up time much better spent on other issues? If so, I would encourage you to reword the exception section rather than eliminate it. The plethora of apartment buildings going up in city neighborhoods, while great for increasing housing capacity, is creating issues for established residents whose back yards are adjacent to them. These problems are specifically addressed in the current fence ordinance, i.e. in Section (e) allowing height exceptions in "cases where it is determined that a negative impact occurs because of levels of noise pollution, light or other encroachments on the right to privacy, safety, security and aesthetics." Section (f) refers to "keeping within the character of the neighborhood and urban design of the city." I urge you to retain these considerations for the neighbors of these new complexes, and in fact, change the ordinance to require that the complexes themselves pay for higher fences. In the case of the Izzy South project, with a ground floor parking garage for about 60 cars, the fence definitely needs to be higher and made of a solid material to block pollution from the cars. Any developer also ought to be required to plant at least 10 foot tall trees for each rear-facing unit overlooking established neighborhood back yards. These requirements would help neighbors without creating undue extra expense for projects. The Izzy project design aims to limit harmful impact on our environment, so I would think this would be acceptable to its developer. Thank you for your consideration of these comments and best wishes, Thea Brannon 1768 E Wilson Ave. SLC Sent from Mail for Windows 10 Gilmore, Kristina From: Mary R. Cosgrove < > Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 7:16 AM To: Gilmore, Kristina Subject: (EXTERNAL) Fence height Our property butts up against the cemetery and I noticed a neighbor east of us has put up very high fences.They appear to me to be over 6 ft. I can see why she did this. It's interesting having a cemetery behind your house.A taller fence would be great so the visitors in the cemetery cannot look into our backyard and we wouldn't have to see the graves and funerals. I realize we are probably the only houses in SLC the actually have a cemetery cemetery behind their. SL county does however. It's a consideration. Thanks, Mary Cosgrove 2357 Sheridan Rd 84108 1 From: Judith Boulden To: Gilmore, Kristina;D.Gordon Wilson; Rhonda Devereaux Subject: (EXTERNAL)Fence heigh amendment Date: Wednesday,August 26,2020 10:17:05 AM Hello, Our neighborhood has a nuisance vacant lot where, over an extended period of time and at significant neighborhood involvement, we have been able to erect a fence higher than 4'. The lot is located at 134 Edgecombe Drive and overlooks the City. In the past there has been drug use, litter, gang violence, shooting, and traffic obstruction at the lot that required calling the police as well as traffic enforcement. The fence we were finally able to erect, at cost borne by neighbors and the absent property owner, has reduced this negative activity to a degree, though not entirely. Replacing this fence with one only 4' tall would totally defeat all that we have accomplished over several years. Anyone can get over a 4' wall. Please reconsider exceptions to this proposed ordinance to deal with security situation such as we have. Judith Boulden 79 Edgecombe Drive Salt Lake City Sent from my iPad Pro From: To: Gilmore,Kristina Subject: (EXTERNAL)RE: Fence Height Zoning Amendment Date: Thursday,August 27,2020 11:20:11 AM Krissy, I corrected a small typo in this amended version. Thank you! Jim Regarding Salt Lake City Fence Height Zoning Amendment Petition Number: PLNPCM2020-0511 Yesterday I was made aware of a proposed amendment to the City's zoning code which removes the Special Exception language from the City's Fence Height Zoning and adds additional restrictive language. I appreciate that the City has a variety of physical environments to navigate and conformity to uniform standards is an important tool to ensure equal treatment. However, complete removal of the Special Exception process eliminates another important tool for the City to use in circumstances that it had not anticipated. By way of example,this tool was used very effectively at 134 Edgecombe, a private lot zoned for single family residential use in our neighborhood. At that location there is a vacant lot in an otherwise fully developed residential neighborhood. Unfortunately, this lot had become a frequent high volume view point for many people and was exacerbated by its proximity to the City's urban core. Short periods of low volume viewing alone is of course not a contentious issue. Sadly though this location had become a perpetual extended stay party zone. Residents of the neighborhood have engaged in a daily trash pickup that commonly includes food packaging waste, beverage packaging waste, used condoms and hypodermic needles. Frequent visits from SLPD can confirm these circumstances. We engaged the neighborhood and solicited input from a broad and diverse set of neighbors, conducted neighborhood meetings to which all were invited by posting notices on everyone's door, conducted formal surveys all of which occurred over a several year period. One result of this effort was approximately 40 residents providing funding along with the property owner to construct a fence. In this case a 4-foot fence allowed by right would not have been sufficient to curtail the problem as it would have been easily bypassed allowing the problem to continue. As such, the property owner applied for and received a Special Exception allowing for a 6-foot fence which was installed according to the approved permit. Although this fence has not provided a complete solution, it has significantly reduced the volume of traffic. We do continue to pick up trash daily and have explored other options to reduce the appeal of extended stays. The City has many special publicly designated locations for the enjoyment of our City's residents. Private neighborhood locations simply don't have the necessary resources such as trash cans, bathrooms, maintenance, enforcement tools among many other issues that are available at areas designated for public use. By removing the Special Exception process you are removing an important tool for the City and its residents to ensure that residential zones are used accordingly in circumstances intended for the existing Special Exception process. Perhaps you could include language such as, "Special Exceptions will be granted in circumstances where there are negative environments or conditions that could be at least partially mitigated by the presence of higher fencing that provides either a physical and/or visual barrier. Examples of such circumstances include excessive public use, disregard for parking or other limitations, or the presence or accumulation of waste resulting from such visitation." Thank you for your consideration, James Schulte Capitol Hill resident From: Sent:Thursday,August 27, 2020 11:10 AM To: 'kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com' <kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com> Subject: Fence Height Zoning Amendment Regarding Salt Lake City Fence Height Zoning Amendment Petition Number: PLNPCM2020-0511 Yesterday I was made aware of a proposed amendment to the City's zoning code which removes the Special Exception language from the City's Fence Height Zoning and adds additional restrictive language. I appreciate that the City has a variety of physical environments to navigate and conformity to uniform standards is an important tool to ensure equal treatment. However, complete removal of the Special Exception process eliminates another important tool for the City to use in circumstances that it had not anticipated. By way of example,this tool was used very effectively at 134 Edgecombe, a private lot zoned for single family residential use in our neighborhood. At that location there is a vacant lot in an otherwise fully developed residential neighborhood. Unfortunately, this lot had become a frequent high volume view point for many people and was exacerbated by its proximity to the City's urban core. Short periods of low volume viewing alone is of course not a contentious issue. Sadly though this location had become a perpetual extended stay party zone. Residents of the neighborhood have engaged in a daily trash pickup that commonly includes food packaging waste, beverage packaging waste, used condoms and hypodermic needles. Frequent visits from SLPD can confirm these circumstances. We engaged the neighborhood and solicited input from a broad and diverse set of neighbors, conducted neighborhood meetings to which all were invited by posting notices on everyone's door, conducted formal surveys all of which occurred over a several year period. One result of this effort was approximately 40 residents providing funding along with the property owner to construct a fence. In this case a 4-foot fence allowed by right would not have been sufficient to curtail the problem as it would have been easily bypassed allowing the problem to continue. As such, the property owner applied for and received a Special Exception allowing for a 6-foot fence which was installed according to the approved permit. Although this fence has not provided a complete solution, it has significantly reduced the volume of traffic. We do continue to pick up trash daily and have explored other options to reduce the appeal From: Terry Becker To: Gilmore, Kristina Subject: (EXTERNAL)Fwd: 20+foot walls Date: Thursday,August 27,2020 12:07:03 PM Kristina, Thank you for giving me background on the proposed amendent. Planning rules and regulations are in place to protect our communities from inappropriate development, and should assure all citizens that planning polcies will be fair and predictable. Three years ago we had first-hand experience of bad planning process and general standards and considerations for special exceptions (21A.52.060)were ignored. "Special exception"went from 4 feet to two 20 foot walls, and additional 3 foot cement walls and high fencing on top of those. We hope the department and commission will think carefully about making changes to the zoning ordinance. From: Stokes,Jamie To: Lynn Schwarz Cc: Mayor;Gilmore,Kristina Subject: Re: Elimination of Special Exceptions for Over-Height Fences Date: Friday,August 28,2020 2:56:59 PM Hi Lynn, Thanks for sharing your feedback about the fence height zoning amendment with our office. I'm copying Krissy Gilmore on this message so she is aware of your comments -- she is the staff planner in charge of answering questions and compiling feedback about this particular issue. It is my understanding that no decision has been reached on the petition in question and there has yet to be a date set for a public hearing. I'm happy to answer additional questions you may have, although Krissy is undoubtedly much more knowledgable than I am. Thanks again for reaching out! Jamie Stokes she/her Community Liaison 385-707-7062 OFFICE of the MAYOR SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION www.slcmayor.com www.slcgov.com From: Lynn Schwarz > Sent: Sunday, August 2, 2020 4:09 PM To: Mayor<Mayor@slcgov.com>; Fowler, Amy<Amy.Fowler@slcgov.com>; Fullmer, Brian <Brian.Fullmer@slcgov.com> Subject: (EXTERNAL) Elimination of Special Exceptions for Over-Height Fences I cannot understand the reasoning behind SLC's idea that eliminating any mechanism for granting exceptions regarding fence heights is a good idea.This means that SLC can see the future and at no time ever, never, in perpetuity, will there be a circumstance that necessitates a fence that does not fit your regulations.This is truly incomprehensible considering SLC's efforts to plop high density housing into single family neighborhoods. Even now, with IZZY South and Richmond Flats smack dab in the middle of single family neighborhoods,they will only be allowed to have 6 foot fences separating them from adjoining single family houses. Neighbors are begging for higher fences to reasonably preserve their privacy, but those requests will be brushed away as inconsequential as SLC leaves NO recourse for unusual conditions.This makes no sense and must be reconsidered. Lynn Schwarz 2023 East Crystal Ave Salt Lake City, UT 84109 Sugar House Community Council Trustee From: Dan Moulding To: Gilmore,Kristina Subject: (EXTERNAL)Public Comment Re: Fence Height Zoning Amendment(Petition Number: PLNPCM2020-00511) Date: Tuesday,September 8,2020 10:45:23 PM Hi Krissy, It was recently brought to my attention that the Planning Commission is taking under consideration a proposal to amend city fence height zoning ordinances which would have the effect of removing the "special exception" provision of the existing ordinance, and that public comment on the proposed amendment has been requested. I would like to submit the following comment for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Among the reasons given in favor of the proposed amendment, I am to understand, it has been asserted that, "according to the American Planning Association, special exceptions for fence height should be discouraged". I would first like to dispel this absurd misconception. The APA discourages freely granting variances to fence height ordinances[1]. This is not the same thing as discouraging special exceptions within ordinances, which are utterly distinct from variances, as I'm sure the Planning Division and Planning Commission will heartily agree. The special exception provision in the existing Salt Lake City ordinance serves at least two important purposes: 1) It discourages the practice of freely granting variances at will, in accordance with APA recommendations,because it prescribes -- by ordinance -- specific situations in which the standard fence height limits may not be appropriate. 2) It provides the means by which specific types of situations may best be addressed by the City in a uniform manner, rather than attempting to impose a one-size-fits-all solution to every situation city-wide. If the special exception provision were to be removed, as proposed, it would predictably have the effect of requiring the City to approve more variances than are currently necessary, in order to address the varying needs of spaces throughout the city-- directly in contravention to the APA's clearly stated recommendations. Particularly worrisome, would be the elimination of the following section of the existing special exception provision: e. Exceeding the allowable height limits, in cases where it is determined that a negative impact occurs because of levels of noise,pollution, light or other encroachments on the rights to privacy, safety, security and aesthetics; Elimination of the special exception provision will mean the elimination of an important tool the City currently has to allow for higher fences where such height is necessary in order to ensure the safety and security of our neighborhoods. Even if somehow removing the provision would result in better uniformity-- it won't, it will simply mean more variances will be needed, resulting in less uniformity-- trading our neighborhoods' safety for uniformity would be both unwise and, frankly, irresponsible. Respectfully, Daniel Moulding 99 E Edgecombe Dr Salt Lake Ci UT 84103 [1] American Planning Association,https://www.planning.org/pas/reports/report113.htm, retrieved 9/8/2020 - "In the interests of uniformity, variation in maximum fence heights should not be allowed freely within a zoning district." From: Personal To: Gilmore,Kristina Subject: (EXTERNAL)Zoning Ordinance amendment Date: Tuesday,September 8,2020 1:40:53 PM Please do what you can to defeat this amendment or change it or grandfather existing permits. My concern is the fence we as neighbors in concert with the owner of 134 Edgecombe Drive paid for and had installed to reduce the problem of noise, trash and illicit and illegal activity taking place nightly. The fence, while not stopping such activity completely, it has greatly curtailed it. If the zoning ordinance amendment passes the problem returns full force. NOT A GOOD OUTCOME Feel free to contact me. Phone is Sent from my iPhone From: Judith Boulden To: Gilmore,Kristina Subject: (EXTERNAL)Proposed Fence Height Amendment Date: Wednesday,September 9,2020 10:50:03 AM Dear Ms. Gilmore, I write in opposition to the proposed change to the regulation of fences that proposes to eliminate the Special Exception process. The stated reason is to provide uniformity and promote clear expectations for fence height. Initially, why is uniformity considered a goal? The City has wonderful diverse neighborhoods from the charm of the Avenues to the urban structure of the Granary District. Why should such diverse neighborhoods be uniform and who would expect them to be? I believe the premise of this proposed change is flawed and counter to producing vibrant, unique neighborhoods. More importantly, one of the few exceptions is for public facilities where a greater height is necessary to protect public safety. There is a pressing example of when private facilities absolutely require taller fences to promote public safety - 134 Edgecombe Drive. I live on Edgecombe Drive and have endured the impact of this vacant lot that is a magnet for illegal drug use, gang conflict, extensive litter and violation of various noise and parking ordinances on the neighborhood. I routinely picked up "morning after" litter consisting of used needles, human waste, food and drink remains, bottles and cans, furniture and clothing- and even offensive weapons. After years of this, a coalition of neighbors over an extended period of time was able to obtain permission to erect a metal fence higher than 4ft. to keep this offensive and unsafe conduct out of our neighborhood- now it's confined to the City street at least. Why should the City eliminate this increased fence height recourse for private facilities and allow it only for public facilities. To change the ordinance and maintain the necessity of taller fences for public facilities for public safety purposes is to acknowledge such exceptions are essential - why should such exceptions not be available to private facilities for the same reasons? In circumstances such as 134 Edgecombe Drive, safety surely outweighs uniformity and some perceived expectation. Please help us to keep our neighborhood safe and reject this ill thought out amendment. Respectfully, Judith Boulden 79 Edgecombe Drive Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad From: David Scheer To: Gilmore,Kristina Cc: "Jim Schulte" Subject: (EXTERNAL)Fence zoning height amendment Date: Wednesday,September 9,2020 10:28:16 AM Hello Kristina- I'm writing to ask about a particular case of special importance to our neighborhood that may be affected by the proposed fence zoning height amendment. There is currently a 6' wrought iron fence at 134 Edgecombe Dr. on the front property line.This fence was erected two years ago through a concerted effort by a group of neighbors, with the cooperation of the property owners and properly permitted by the city. It was erected because the property attracted crowds on weekends and especially holidays like July 4 and July 24 because the property is vacant and has a view of the city.These crowds were an extreme hazard and nuisance to neighbors, starting brush fires that threatened homes, leaving huge amounts of trash, playing loud music and blocking the street. Since the fence was erected,these problems have been largely eliminated.The neighborhood believes that keeping this fence is essential to our safety and well- being. My question has to do with whether the new amendment will cause this fence to have to be taken down. Is the proposed amendment going to be retroactive?Will this fence's permit be revoked or not renewed under the amendment? Given that the vote on this amendment is imminent, I would greatly appreciate a response at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, David Scheer,Chair Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council www.chnc-slc.org council@chnc-slc.org From: Vanja Watkins To: Gilmore,Kristina Subject: (EXTERNAL)Fence Height Zoning Amendment Date: Wednesday,September 9,2020 1:28:21 PM Dear Ms.Gilmore, As a 55 year resident on Edgecombe Drive,I would like to comment about the Fence Height Zoning Amendment. My home is directly across the street from 134 E.Edgecombe Drive which is and always has been a vacant lot.Over the years,I have seen changes in the way this property is regarded. Until a few years ago people who stopped and parked to admire the view have been respectful and have caused no problems in the neighborhood. Sadly there has been a marked change in the behavior of viewers at this site within the last several years.At first neighbors were willing to pick up trash and litter left behind by people admiring the view,but gradually the problem has expanded far beyond litter. Our quiet neighborhood has been subjected to excess garbage,noise,parties,street games at odd hours,lewd behavior,increased traffic that often causes snarls on our narrow street,and of course illegal parking and trespassing onto private property in spite of signs posted by our city. People ignore signs! What a great relief we experienced when the attractive and necessary 6 ft.metal fence was installed to help prevent some,but not all,of these problems. Some neighbors would have preferred a solid fence,regular police patrols,a regular route by city parking officers with power to issue tickets,a gate to prohibit non-resident traffic after 10 p m., or other similar measures to prevent the perplexing problems on this street that also impacted the entire neighborhood.But we were pleased to begin to solve our problems with the installation of a fence for which many neighbors willingly and generously contributed—and with the property owner's agreement. Now to have this single,simple step for improvement possibly denied to our neighborhood is a huge disappointment. Please do not let this happen because of a solitary viewpoint not representative of the many who live here. Thank you for your serious consideration of a respectful,law-abiding and usually friendly neighborhood. Sincerely, Vanja Watkins 123 Edgecombe Drive Salt Lake City,Utah From: Lynne Cartwright To: Gilmore, Kristina Subject: (EXTERNAL)Fence and screen at 134 Edgecombe Drive Date: Wednesday,September 9,2020 3:46:29 PM "The City Council has initiated a petition to amend the zoning ordinance regulations to remove the Special Exception process that allows for over-height fences and to define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and approved by right." Instituting a fence height restriction primarily to target a security fence and its screen on 134 Edgecombe Drive doesn't make sense. 1. Ensign Downs has its own CCRs to address issues regarding privacy, house height, etc. For a quasi-governmental body to step in and restrict that fence is overreach. 2. The charm of the development is its eclectic nature. Mandating uniform fence height would destroy that. We've all moved beyond the "little boxes on the hillside" aesthetic. 3. The large majority of the homeowners have "voted" by contributing to the fence construction and periodic maintenance. The group went through the city's process to secure permission for the fence. They want this fence as a security measure. One person has requested this change against the wishes of virtually all the rest of the neighbors. The neighbors on Edgecombe Drive are fully in favor of the fence and its screening. 4. Before the fence, that open space was an "attractive nuisance" that collected not just trash but hazardous waste (dirty diapers, used needles, used condoms, for some examples), creating a neighborhood problem. It also attracted random non- compliant traffic through Ensign Downs, especially at night, making it unsafe for residents to walk their own neighborhood. The less barrier that fence provides, the more it attracts these problems. I have lived at 202 E. South Sandrun Road since May 1955. I hope to live here until I die. But disallowing the security fence at 134 Edgecombe decreases my security as well as introduces hazards into the area. --Deon Freed via my daughter's email since I don't use email. From: Maggie Probst To: Gilmore, Kristina Subject: (EXTERNAL)Fence Height Zoning Amendment Date: Friday,September 11,2020 7:46:30 AM Dear Ms. Gilmore, Asa resident of the Capitol Hill neighborhood, I am writing you express my concern over this amendment as it relates to the fence on 134 Edgecombe Drive. I have driven Edgecombe almost daily for 13 years and witnessed the traffic on the street increase dramatically over the course of time. Along with the traffic came all the nuisances of noise and trash, etc. that plagued our neighborhood. Since the fence has been erected on the property,the traffic has significantly decreased, and the result has been a safer, quieter residential neighborhood. This instance seems precisely why the fence height variance exists, and it works! I strongly urge that the special exception process for over height fences not be changed. Maggie Probst 907 Dartmoor Way Salt Lake City, UT 84103 From: Ingo and Kathy Titze To: Gilmore, Kristina Subject: (EXTERNAL)Fence on 134 Edgecombe Date: Saturday,September 12,2020 3:21:12 PM I would like to add my concern for the removal of the fence and screens that have been, in my opinion, a necessity for the safety of the street due to unprecedented accumulation of cars and trash at late hours and daytime hours. There is no limit to the worry from the residents and traffic congestion in this area. Putting up the fence and screens are the only things that deter onlookers since the police can not be there every minute. However, I believe that if some tickets were issued, the word would get around and also act as a deterrent. Thank you for your time and help in this matter. Kathy Titze 56 E. Dorchester Drive .SLC,UT 84103 From: Jim Schulte To: Gilmore,Kristina Subject: (EXTERNAL)Salt Lake City Fence Height Zoning Amendment Date: Friday,September 11,2020 11:39:20 AM Regarding Salt Lake City Fence Height Zoning Amendment Petition Number: PLNPCM2020-0511 Kristina, I wanted to provide some additional context for some of the comments you are receiving from residents of our neighborhood regarding the vacant lot at 134 Edgecombe. Some of them are under the impression that the zone change itself could cause the removal of the fence. I understand from your comments in response that the fence could remain as an existing non-conforming use/improvement. While I appreciate that perspective, the existence of our fence is certainly more "fragile" with the proposed zone change as it does not recognize and provide an avenue of approval for the unique circumstances of a location like 134 Edgecombe that can benefit from a special exception to the fence height ordinance. We are continuing to work as a neighborhood to improve the still very destructive behavior that comes with excessive all night visitation and one recommendation that has been highly vetted and approved by the neighborhood is a 4' screen. It's not clear whether that would be allowed under our current special exception. If this zone change occurs we would lose the ability to apply for an amendment to our prior approval. Please add language to the proposed zoning amendment that will provide a path for the City to evaluate further existing permit amendments and new special exceptions for lots that that can demonstrate adverse conditions that warrant such an exception such as 134 Edgecombe. Thank you. James Schulte Capitol Hill Resident From: Rhonda Devereaux To: Gilmore,Kristina Subject: (EXTERNAL)Zoning ordinance change on fence height Date: Monday,September 21,2020 1:16:45 PM Kristina, I am hopeful that you are able to take my comment into consideration regarding the proposed removal of 'Special Exceptions'for fence heights. I have a personal beef with the removal of the exceptions clause, being I live on Edgecombe Dr,just a couple of houses away from the empty nuisance lot at 134E Edgecombe Dr. I am sure you have already heard from others the saga of the criminal and nuisance activity on that lot and our community working together to try to minimize the disruption to our neighborhood.The fence has helped a ton.The trial of additional placement of a fabric to reduce the view while seated in a car in the no parking zone seemed promising.Seems crazy to reverse the progress we have made. But just as important as this issue is with us, I think the MESSAGE you are sending with the proposed removal of'special exceptions' is very alarming. We have a serious problem with this lot.And as special as I'd like to think we are, I bet there are other communities facing similar issues.As a community,we tried the usual avenues to address it.Yet, it only became worse.We have been told repeatedly that there aren't enough personnel (police officers,ticketing officers, etc)to respond quick enough to make a difference.So as a community,we formulated a plan to try to fix this problem WITHIN the confines of the law AND at our own expense.This has resulted in a reduction of crime, nuisance garbage,fires and calls to the police department, parking enforcement and the property owner. Win/win situation, don't you think? Now there is a push to reduce abandon the special permits due to aesthetic concerns (evidently one complaint) and the laborious process the permits require? This would be simply volleying the problem back to the police and parking enforcement,who we already know have too much on their plate, not to mention a slap in the face to our community for trying to rectify a very frustrating and dangerous problem. Until the City can adequately address and rectify the mess of this open lot, I believe that reversing/eliminating special permits is in no-one's interest.This could crush the future legal efforts of communities banding together to resolve an issue when their leaders can't. I thank you you for the consideration of my comments. Rhonda Devereaux 88E Edgecombe Dr SLC, UT 84103 Merrick Voicemail-- Does not support removing the special exception to allow over-height fences.They do not feel that 4' is enough to secure kids and a dog in the front yard. ATTACHMENT E: City Department Review Comments Planning Staff Note: In general, the proposed changes do not directly impact most other City departments. When routing the proposal, staff also sent the request to review to the Parks and Public Lands Division. The request could impact their future park and recreation planning effort but did any comments or concerns. Transportation: No concerns. Engineering: No concerns. Public Utilities: No comments provided. Building Services (Zoning): No concerns. Building Services (Fire): No concerns. PLNPCM2o2o-oo5u Fence Height Text Amendment 4. PLANNING COMMISSION C. Agenda/Minutes/Newspaper Notice January 13, 2021 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation January 13, 2021, at 5:30 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission's discretion) This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms: • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings • SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email;planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at: • http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-01132021 Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 9, 2020 REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Maven Lofts Desiqn Review & Planned Development at approximately 156 East 900 South - Joe Jacoby, representing Jacoby Architects, has submitted applications to the city for Design Review and a Planned Development to construct an addition that would create 57 new residential units located at approximately 156 E 900 South. The proposal is for a 4-story building that will be located roughly on the same footprint as the existing building. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to allow for an additional 15 FT of building height, for a total building height of approximately 45 FT. Through the Planned Development process, the applicant is requesting to decrease the front, rear, and corner side yard setbacks for the second, third, and fourth stories of the building. The exterior wall of the proposed upper stories is slightly stepped back from the exterior wall of the existing building, which is located right at the property line. The CC zoning district requires a front and corner side yard setback of 15' and a rear yard setback of 10'. In order to utilize the ground floor of the existing building, the applicant is also requesting to allow the rooftop garden areas to count toward landscaping requirements. The property is located within the CC (Commercial Corridor) zoning district in council district 5, represented by Darin Mano (Staff contact: Amy Thompson at (385) 226-9001 or amy.thompson©slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00721 & PLNPCM2020-00722 2. Windsor Court Planned Development at approximately 1966 S Windsor Street - Mike Spainhower, representing the property owner, is requesting approval for a 17-unit multi-family dwelling at 1966 S. Windsor Street. The project would be built on an existing vacant lot. The total site is 0.7 acres. The Planned Development is needed to address a modification to the front yard setback and landscape buffers. The subject property is located in the RMF-35 zoning district and within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler (Staff contact: Katia Pace at (385) 226-8499 or katia.pace©slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00727 3. Village at North Station Building D Design Review at approximately 1925 W North Temple — Michael Batt, representing the property owner, is seeking Design Review approval to modify a front setback requirement for a proposed building located at approximately 1925 W North Temple. The applicant is requesting to modify the maximum 5' front yard setback requirement due to the location of a high voltage power line along Orange Street. They are requesting increased front yard setback so that the front of the building is a required minimum safe distance from the power line. Modifications to the front yard setback can be approved through the Design Review process. The subject property is located within the TSA-MUEC-T (Transit Station Area District - Mixed Use Employment Center Station — Transition) zoning district. The property is in Council District 1, represented by James Rogers (Staff contact: Daniel Echeverria at (385) 226-3835 or daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com) Case Number PLNPCM2020-00730 4. 9th Mixed-Use Multifamily Design Review — Eric Moran, on behalf of the property owner and management company, RD Management, along with architects Peter Jacobsen and Jeff Byers of The Richardson Design Group, are seeking Design Review approval to redevelop the property located at the southwest corner of the intersection of 400 South and 900 East with residential and commercial space. The proposal includes 264 residential units and approximately 16,000 square feet of commercial space. The applicant is requesting Design Review by the Planning Commission to allow for a façade length greater than 200 feet in the TSA-UN-C zoning district and for modifications to the design standards in 21A.37. The property is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Sara Javoronok at (385) 226-4448 or sara.javoronok©slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00641 5. AT&T Wireless Communication Facility Conditional Use at approximately 1550 South 5600 West — A request by Brian Sieck of Smartlink for a new AT&T wireless communications facility with an 80' monopole and unmanned communication site located at approximately 1550 South 5600 West. The proposed site would be located in the northwest corner of the parcel. The subject property is located within the M-1 (Light Manufacturing) zoning district and is located within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston (Staff Contact: Sara Javoronok at (385) 226-4448 or sara.javoronok©slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00819 6. Master Plan Amendment & Rezone at approximately 810 East 800 South — Salt Lake City has received a request from Stanford Bell of Altus Development Group representing the property owner of 810 East 800 South, to amend the Central Community Master Plan and the zoning map. The proposal would rezone the property located at approximately 810 East 800 South from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business) and the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use map designation from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial. The applicant anticipates developing the site with a two-story building with commercial on the first floor and residential units on the second floor. The subject property is zoned R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) and is located within Council District 5 represented by Darin Mano (Staff contact: Sara Javoronok at (385) 226-4448 or sara.javoronok@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00740 & PLNPCM2020-00741 7. Master Plan Amendment and Rezone at approximately 554 & 560 South 300 East - Salt Lake City has received a request from Mariel Wirthlin, with The Associated Group and representing the property owner of 554 and 560 South 300 East, to amend the Central Community Master Plan and the zoning map. The proposal would rezone the properties located at approximately 554 and 560 South 300 East from RO (Residential Office)to RMU (Residential/Mixed Use) and amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map from Residential/Office Mixed Use to High Mixed Use. The proposed Master Plan amendment to High Mixed Use and rezone to RMU is intended to allow retail service uses on the property, in addition to office use. The subject property is zoned RO (Residential Office) and is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff contact: Nannette Larsen at (385) 386-2761 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00604 & PLNPCM2020-00712 8. Fence Height Zoning Ordinance Amendment—A request by the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance regulations to remove the special exception process that allows for over-height fences (Chapter 21A.52.030) and to define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and approved by right. The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and hedge height to four feet (4') in front yards and six feet(6') in the side or rear yards, except for in a few specific instances. Those instances include when a residential district abuts a nonresidential district, in extraction industries and manufacturing districts, public facilities and recreation facilities where a greater height is necessary to protect public safety, private game courts, and construction fencing. Additionally, the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission would have the authority to grant additional fence, wall, or hedge height as part of a land use application. The amendments proposed to Chapter 21A.40 will affect all zoning districts throughout Salt Lake City. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Krissy Gilmore at (801) 535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00511 For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division's website at slc.gov/planning/public- meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. Notice of Public Hearing On Wednesday, January 13, 2021 , the Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider making recommendations to the City Council regarding the following petitions: 1 . Master Plan Amendment & Rezone at approximately 810 East 800 South — Salt Lake City has received a request from Stanford Bell of Altus Devel- opment Group representing the property owner of 810 East 800 South, to amend the Central Community Master Plan and the zoning map. The pro- posal would rezone the property located at approximately 810 East 800 South from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to CB (Community Busi- ness) and the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use map designa- tion from Low Density Residential to Community Commercial. The applicant anticipates developing the site with a two-story building with commercial on the first floor and residential units on the second floor. The subject prop- erty is zoned R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) and is located within Council District 5 represented by Darin Mano (Staff contact: Sara Javoro- nok at (385) 226-4448 or sara.javoronok@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLN- PCM2O2O-00740 & PLN PCM2O2O-007412. 2. Fence Height Zoning Ordinance Amendment — A request by the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance regulations to remove the special exception process that allows for over-height fences (Chapter 21A.52.030) and to define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and ap- proved by right. The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and hedge height to four feet (4') in front yards and six feet (6') in the side or rear yards, except for in a few specific instances. Those instances include when a residential district abuts a nonresidential district, in extraction industries and manufacturing districts, public facilities and recreation facilities where a greater height is necessary to protect public safety, private game courts, and construction fencing. Additionally, the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission would have the authority to grant additional fence, wall, or hedge height as part of a land use application. The amendments proposed to Chapter 21A.40 will affect all zoning districts throughout Salt Lake City. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Krissy Gilm- ore at (801 ) 535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Case number PLN- PCM2O2O-00511 The public hearing will begin at 5:30 p.m. via Webex. To participate go to: http://tiny.cc/sIc-pc-01132021 This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Build- ing. Commission Members will connect remotely. If you are interested in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the fol- lowing platforms: YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings SLCty Channel 17 Live: www. slctv.com/livestream/SLCty-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov. com. DN0000000 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation Wednesday, January 13, 2021 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at 05:30 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. These minutes are a summary of the meeting. For complete commentary and presentation of the meeting, please visit https://www.youtube.com/c/SLCLiveMeetings. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Vice Chairperson, Amy Barry; Commissioners, Adrienne Bell, Carolynn Hoskins, Matt Lyon, Sara Urquhart, and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Commissioners Jon Lee, and Andres Paredes were excused. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Michaela Oktay, Planning Deputy Director; Nick Norris, Planning Director; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Amy Thompson, Senior Planner; Katia Pace, Principal Planner; Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner; Sara Javoronok, Senior Planner; Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner; Krissy Gilmore, Principal Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary. Chairperson Brenda Scheer, read the emergency proclamation for holding a remote meeting. APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 9, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 02:31 MOTION 02:46 Commissioner Young-Otterstrom moved to approve the December 9, 2020 meeting minutes. Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Lyon, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted "Aye". Commissioner Hoskins abstained from voting as she was not present for the said meeting. The motion passed unanimously. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 04:24 Chairperson Scheer informed the public of the long agenda and that there will be a break half-way through the agenda. Vice Chairperson Barry stated she had nothing to report. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 05:33 Michaela Oktay, Planning Director, stated she had nothing to report. 05:55 Maven Lofts Design Review & Planned Development at approximately 156 East 900 South - Joe Jacoby, representing Jacoby Architects, has submitted applications to the city for Design Review and a Planned Development to construct an addition that would create 57 new residential units located at approximately 156 E 900 South. The proposal is for a 4-story building that will be located roughly on the same footprint as the existing building. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to allow for an additional 15 FT of building height, for a total building height of approximately 45 FT. Through the Planned Development process, the applicant is requesting to decrease the front, rear, and corner side yard setbacks for the second, third, and fourth stories of the building. The exterior wall of the proposed upper stories is slightly stepped back from the exterior wall of the existing building, which is located right at the property line. The CC zoning district requires a front and corner side yard setback of 15' and a rear yard setback of 10'. In order to utilize the ground floor of the existing building, the applicant is also Salt Lake City Planning Commission January 13, 2021 Page 1 The Commission, Staff and Applicant further discussed the following: • Clarification on whether the RO zone will be eliminated MOTION 3:20:56 Commissioner Lyson stated Based on the information in the staff report I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed master plan amendment, as presented in petition PLNPCM2020-00712. Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins, Lyon, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted "Aye". The motion passed unanimously. MOTION 3:22:40 Commissioner Lyon stated, Additionally, I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed zoning map amendment, as presented in PLNPCM2020- 00604. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins, Lyon, Urquhart, and Young-Ottertrom voted "Aye". The motion passed unanimously. 3:23:46 Fence Height Zoning Ordinance Amendment — A request by the City Council to amend the zoning ordinance regulations to remove the special exception process that allows for over-height fences (Chapter 21A.52.030) and to define instances where a taller fence may be appropriate and approved by right. The proposed amendments would limit fence, wall, and hedge height to four feet (4') in front yards and six feet (6') in the side or rear yards, except for in a few specific instances. Those instances include when a residential district abuts a nonresidential district, in extraction industries and manufacturing districts, public facilities and recreation facilities where a greater height is necessary to protect public safety, private game courts, and construction fencing. Additionally, the Planning Commission and the Historic Landmark Commission would have the authority to grant additional fence, wall, or hedge height as part of a land use application. The amendments proposed to Chapter 21A.40 will affect all zoning districts throughout Salt Lake City. The changes would apply Citywide. (Staff contact: Krissy Gilmore at (801) 535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00511 Krissy Gilmore, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. The Commission and Staff discussed the following: • Clarification on unique conditions • Clarification on how fence height is measured when a property has an abrupt grade change • Clarification on whether a property owner can build a 10-foot fence around a backyard swimming pool or tennis court PUBLIC HEARING 3:38:39 Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing; Cindy Cromer — Stated when you're dealing with Historic properties which were built prior to the City's zoning ordinance, you ought to be able to repurpose fencing. Salt Lake City Planning Commission January 13, 2021 Page 8 Jim Schulte — Stated he requests special exceptions that addresses special circumstances where some additional fencing or screening can address the public nuisance, and criminal activity that isn't compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Zachary Dussault—Stated his support of the request. Judi Short, Sugar House Land Use Chairperson —Stated her support of the request. David Fernandez - Stated his support of the request. Also, he asked whether it has been determined whether vinyl or plastic is considered a durable material. Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing. The Commission and Staff further discussed the following: • Clarification on what constitutes a durable material • Clarification on whether there are any limitations of materials • Whether a multi-family mixed use building is considered a non-residential use • Vacant property that is attracting nuisance MOTION 4:05:07 Commissioner Bell stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed text amendment, PLNPCM2020-00511 Fence Height Zoning Text Amendment. With the additional recommendation: 1. That Planning Staff draft a provision to the ordinance allowing for a fence height allowing up to 6-feet in front yards of vacant lots without existing structures,which non-conforming fences must be removed when the vacant lot is developed and; 2. To add a maximum height of up to 8-feet to residential and non-residential over height allowances section Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Bell, Hoskins, Lyon, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted "Aye". The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 4:07:59 Salt Lake City Planning Commission January 13, 2021 Page 9 5. MAILING LIST Name Address City State Zip Trolley Square Ventures, LLC 630 E South Temple St Salt Lake C UT 84102 SK Hart ST, LLC 630 E South Temple St Salt Lake C UT 84102 Item B8 J •••• ' "'z MOTION SHEET ▪ gi CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY s, _ :t/1=IMF ,(TI: • a®FHI GIs'"31 • _ ■].�are„aP1 IIR 71,1, TO: City Council Members FROM: Sam Owen,Policy Analyst DATE: September 7,2021 RE: Resolution: Public Benefits Analysis-Authorizing the Waiver of Lease Fees to Facilitate the Operation of an Airport Military Service Members Lounge MOTION i I move the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 I move the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O.BOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 ERIN MENDENHALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Mayor CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL 1 ����.���_�63�r:oT Date Received: 07/19/2021 Lisa Shaffer,Chief Administrative Officer Date Sent to Council:07/19/2021 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: July 19,2021 Amy Fowler,Chair FROM: Bill Wyatt,Executive Director,Department of Airports Shane Andreasen,Director of Administration&Commerci rvices,Department of Airports Brian Butler,Chief Financial Officer,Department of Airports SUBJECT: Informal Analysis of Public Benefits Provided by United Service Organizations,Inc. ("USO") in Exchange for a Below-Market Facility Lease of Limited Mezzanine Level Office Space Located at the Salt Lake City International Airport to Create a USO Military Servicemember and Family Lounge. STAFF CONTACTS: Bill Wyatt,Executive Director,Department of Airports, bill.wvattaslcgov.com;or, Shane Andreasen,Director of Administration&Commercial Services,Department of Airports; shane.andreasen@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution aurthorizing the Airport to enter into a below-market lease with the USO. BUDGET IMPACT: No impact to existing budget.Confirmed- no impact. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: USO airport lounges exist in over 100 airports around the world,including at most international airports across the United States. Locations in airports are built-out and improved by donations and volunteers,operationally funded by local and national donations,and have a volunteer workforce. They provide active duty,Reserve,and Guard service members and their families an area for comfort no matter where their journeys are taking them,or why. Although staffed by volunteers from a day-to-day perspective,the USO will have at least one full time paid manager responsible for the overall operation. Typical USO lounges feature comfortable furniture,donated snacks, P.O.BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84114-5474 TEL 801-535-7704 ERIN MENDENHALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Mayor 4'7;=v y, .I...T.,1�,° beverages, entertainment, and free Wi-Fi to active duty,Reserve, and Guard service members and their families at no charge for 365 days per year. Currently, there are over 32,000 active Guard and Reserve service members residing in Utah. Due to space constraints and a previous lack of local interest, the Airport has historically not had a USO lounge. However,with the redevelopment of the Airport,limited space is now available for such a use. The space identified for the proposed USO lounge (the "Lounge") is located post-security on the mezzanine (Level 3) of the Airport Terminal. It is currently vacant and used for the occasional meeting by Airport staff and tenants. It is approximately 933 square feet,which is not sufficient nor in the appropriate level of the Airport to be used for a non-aeronautical (i.e. commercial) use. If authorized by City Council, the Airport will enter into a facility lease with the USO (the "Facility Lease"). The lease will have an initial five-year term with two, five-year renewal periods that may be exercised at the Airport's discretion. The USO will take occupancy of the space in as-is condition and will be required to obtain the funding necessary for all necessary physical space improvements, signage, and associated permits and approvals. When ready for operation and occupancy, USO will lead and direct the Lounge with one staffed employee, and volunteers from the local community much like the Airport does with its volunteer program. The Airport will retain the right to terminate the Facility Lease or relocate the Lounge with appropriate notice for the ongoing and orderly development of the Airport. Because the USO is a volunteer organization and staffs its lounges with volunteers, the USO would not be able to provide benefits to service members and their families without the City's waiver of lease fees. Entering into the Facility Lease for the Lounge with USO at the Airport will benefit the residents of Salt Lake City and surrounding communities by demonstrating Salt Lake City's support of all military service members and their families around the country who will fly through Salt Lake City for many years to come. It will further enhance the amenities available to travelers of the new Airport and will provide a venue that is customary in facilities such as the Airport. Though space at the new Airport is still very limited, the limited space available best accommodates a use such as the Lounge at the Airport,which permits the City to respond to interest from the local community and meet a long-term goal for the City. P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 TEL 801-535-7704 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council Members FROM: Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Bill Wyatt, Executive Director, Department of Airports Shane Andreasen, Director of Administration& Commercial Services Megan DePaulis, Senior City Attorney DATE: July 7, 2021 SUBJECT: Informal Analysis of Public Benefits Provided by United Service Organizations, Inc., in Exchange for a Below-Market Facility Lease of Mezzanine Level Office Space Located at the Salt Lake City International Airport INTRODUCTION The Administration recommends that City Council authorize it to enter into a facility lease agreement("Facility Lease") for 933 square feet of SLCDA owned mezzanine level office space CAUP-3-001 ("City Property") at the Salt Lake City International Airport("Airport")with United Service Organizations, Inc., a Virginia not for profit entity("USO") for a fee of$1 a year, to facilitate the development and operation of a USO Airport Lounge ("Lounge") for the benefit of active duty, Reserve, and Guard service members and their families. The term of the Facility Lease will be five years, with two, five-year extensions that may be exercised in the City's discretion. Though a formal study of the benefits to be received by the City in exchange for the benefit provided to USO is not required under Utah Code 810-8-2, this informal analysis has been prepared to help assist City Council's evaluation of the recommended action. LEGAL FRAMEWORK Under Utah law, after first holding a public hearing a municipality may"authorize municipal services or other nonmonetary assistance to be provided to a nonprofit entity, whether or not the municipality receives consideration in return." Utah Code §10-8-2(1)(a)(v). Because the USO is a nonprofit entity, the City may waive the fair-market rental rates it would ordinarily be required to receive for use of the City Property, so long as the municipal legislative body first holds a public hearing regarding the waiver and authorizes the Administration to enter into the Facility Lease for the below-market lease rates. Utah Code §10-8-2(3) outlines the purposes for which a municipal body may appropriate funds as "for any purpose that, in the judgment of the municipal legislative body, provides for the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being,peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality."There are statutory factors that must be considered in determining the propriety of such an appropriation or waiver if made to any type of entity or individual other than a nonprofit entity as set forth under Utah Code §10-8-2(3)(e). However, it is helpful to consider the same factors when providing a waiver to nonprofit entities as well. The factors are: (1) The specific benefits (including intangible benefits)to be received by the City in return for the arrangement; (2) The City's purpose in making the appropriation, including an analysis of how the safety, health,prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort or convenience of the residents of Salt Lake City will be enhanced; and (3) Whether the appropriation is "necessary and appropriate"to accomplish the reasonable goals and objectives of the City in the area of economic development,job creation, affordable housing, blight elimination, resource center development,job preservation, the preservation of historic structures and property, and any other public purpose. The application of these factors to the waiver of lease fees under the proposed Facility Lease is discussed below. BACKGROUND USO Airport Lounges exist in over 100 airports around the world, including at most international airports across the United States. However, due to space constraints and a previous lack of local interest, the Airport has historically not had a USO. Some airport locations are pre- security while others are after security depending on space availability and the nature of the airport. With the Airport's significant connecting passenger traffic, a post-security location for the Lounge would be more desirable and is therefore being proposed for the Airport. Locations in airports are built-out and improved by donations and volunteers, operationally funded by local and national donations, and have a volunteer workforce. They provide active duty, Reserve, and Guard service members and their families an area for comfort no matter where their journeys are taking them, or why. Although staffed by volunteers from a day-to-day perspective, the USO will have at least one full time paid manager responsible for the overall operation. Typical USO Lounges feature comfortable furniture, donated snacks, beverages, entertainment, and free Wi-Fi to active duty, Reserve, and Guard service members and their families at no charge for 365 days per year. With the opening of the new Airport, the Airport started to receive feedback about the lack of a USO airport lounge. With that community interest, the USO also received community feedback about the desire to develop and operating an airport lounge at the Airport. With the redevelopment of the Airport, limited space is now available for such a use. The space identified for the Lounge is located post-security on the mezzanine (Level 3) of the Airport Terminal. It is currently vacant and used for the occasional meeting by Airport staff and tenants. It is approximately 933 square feet, which is not sufficient nor in the appropriate level of the Airport to be used for a non-aeronautical (i.e., commercial)use. 2 TERMS OF THE LEASE AND PUBLIC BENEFITS PROVIDED Upon City Council approval, the Airport will enter into the Facility Lease with USO. The Facility Lease will have an initial five-year term with two, five-year renewal periods that may be exercised at the Airport's discretion. USO will take occupancy of the space in as-is condition and will be required to obtain the funding necessary for all necessary physical space improvements, signage, and associated permits and approvals. When ready for operation and occupancy, USO will lead and direct the Lounge with one staffed employee, and volunteers from the local community much like the Airport does with its volunteer program. The Airport will retain the right to terminate the Facility Lease or relocate the Lounge with appropriate notice for the ongoing and orderly development of the Airport. In addition to below-market rent the Airport will provide utilities, which are not separately metered. All other costs associated with the development and operation will be paid by USO. This includes, among other things,janitorial expenses, employee badging, central receiving and distribution center fees invoiced by the Airport, storage space fees, if necessary, and all other costs. Any taxes related to the Facility Lease also will be the responsibility of USO. Because the USO is led by paid staff with a volunteer workforce that doesn't receive revenues from any of the services it provides, the USO would not be able to operate at the Airport without below-market rents. Having the Lounge will benefit the residents of Salt Lake City, the state of Utah, and the surrounding communities in southwest Wyoming, southeast Idaho, eastern Nevada, and northwestern Colorado by providing a dedicated lounge area where active duty, Reserve, and Guard service members and their families will be able to meet and relax together as they transit through the Airport. Currently, there are over 32,000 active Guard and Reserve service members residing in Utah. Those individuals do not currently have a location in the Airport where they can find rest and respite before a deployment, on their journey home from one, or wherever else their travels may have taken them. Therefore, having the Lounge at the Airport will enhance the health, moral well-being, peace, and comfort of these residents of Salt Lake City and the state of Utah. Since airports are where these individuals spend quite a bit of time as they serve their missions, having a USO will add one more passenger amenity that is currently lacking at the Airport and one that is typically provided at an airport of Salt Lake City's size and importance. It will also provide a new and unique connection to the region and its residents, and former military members as they volunteer with the daily operation of the USO. The Lounge will provide for additional professional-level job creation, in addition to numerous volunteer opportunities. CONCLUSION Entering into the Facility Lease with USO at the Airport will benefit the residents of the City, the state, and surrounding communities by demonstrating the Salt Lake City's support of all military service members and their families around the country who will fly through Salt Lake City for many years to come. It will further enhance the amenities available to travelers of the new Airport and will provide a venue that is customary in facilities such as the Airport. Having both the space available to accommodate a Lounge at the Airport, and the interest from the local community has been a long-term goal for the City. It further establishes Salt Lake City as the 3 gateway to the world, especially for members of the military who may transit the Airport for some of their most life-changing moments. 4 RESOLUTION NO._OF 2021 A Resolution Authorizing the Waiver of Lease Fees to Facilitate the Operation of an Airport Military Service Members Lounge Operated by United Service Organizations, Inc., a Nonprofit Corporation, at the Salt Lake City International Airport WHEREAS, United Service Organizations, Inc., a nonprofit corporation("USO") advances the City's goals of safety, health, moral well-being,peace, comfort and convenience for the residents of Salt Lake City by providing a comfortable lounge area in airports for military service members and their families; and WHEREAS, the primary beneficiaries of the construction of the USO airport lounge ("USO Lounge")will be active military service members from Salt Lake City, Utah generally, and the surrounding region; and WHEREAS, the USO will operate the USO Lounge with volunteer efforts and a paid staff member; and WHEREAS, the below-market lease fee waiver to the USO will facilitate the development of the USO Lounge, which would otherwise be financially unfeasible; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to provide assistance to the USO in the form of lease fee waiver for a five to fifteen-year facility lease at the Salt Lake City International Airport(the "Lease Fee Waiver"); and WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 10-8-2(1)(a)(v) allows public entities to provide nonmonetary assistance and waive fees to and for nonprofit entities after a public hearing; and WHEREAS, though Utah Code Section 10-8-2 does not require a study for such waiver or assistance, in this case the Administration voluntarily performed an analysis of the nonmonetary assistance to the nonprofit corporation(the"Analysis"); and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing relating to the foregoing, in satisfaction of the requirements of Utah Code Section 10-8-2; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Analysis, and has fully considered the conclusions set forth therein, and all comments made during the public hearing; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby adopts the conclusions set forth in the Analysis, and finds and determines that, for all the reasons set forth in the Analysis, the Lease Fee Waiver is appropriate under these circumstances. Adopted by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of 2021. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Chairperson Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Approved as to Form: Attest: M,eyt z be-Pa Senior City Attorney City Recorder 2 ��/l LLtik� September 7, 2021 As Salt Lake City Council Chair, I hereby determine that conducting the Salt Lake City Council meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the anchor location. Due to an increase in COVID-19 cases and updated mask requirements, I find that conducting a meeting at the anchor location under the current local emergency constitutes a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the location. Sincerely, Amy Fowler Chair,Salt Lake City Council OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL WWW.SLCCOUNCIL.COM 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 TEL 801-535-760o FAX 801-535-7651 PO BOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-5476 EMAIL: COUNCIL.COMMENTS@SLCGOV.COM Item E2 --, 1 ••.,, MOTION SHEET v?. . .7 1004 CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY fis Le • TO: City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke Budget&Policy Analyst DATE: September 7,2021 RE: Resolution Authorizing Funding Our Future Sales Tax as Additional Security for Bond Payments MOTION IA—ADOPT I move that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing the pledge of supplemental sales and use tax revenues for debt payments on sales and excise tax revenue bonds and providing for related matters. Staff note:adopting the resolution does not commit the City to spend Funding Our Future revenues on debt payments for current or future bonds. The resolution would allow that option in the future. The Council would need to approve such debt payments in a budget opening. This would also improve the City's debt ratio for issuing future bonds.Rating agencies may provide more favorable analyses that could have benefits such as saving taxpayers money with lower interest rates. MOTION 2 -NOT ADOPT I move that the Council not adopt the proposed resolution and proceed to the next agenda item. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O.BOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 ERIN MENDENHALL MARY BETH THOMPSON Mayor Chief Financial Officer 3: x*°y .7% s CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL „ q �,.ga,mun Date Received: 08/31/2021 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: 08/31/2021 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:August 30, 2021 Amy Fowler, Chair aet7i ,ems FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Amendatory Resolution Allowing for the Pledge of Funding Our Future Sales Tax (the Supplemental Sales and Use Tax) as Additional Security for the City's Sales Tax and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds STAFF CONTACT: Marina Scott, City Treasurer 801-535-6565 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION:That the City Council adopt an Amendatory Resolution on September 7, 2022 authorizing the execution and delivery of the Supplemental Trust Indenture for the purposes of pledging Funding Our Future sales tax(the Supplemental Sales and Use Tax) authorized by Utah Code section 59-12-402.1 and City Ordinance No 18 of 2018, as additional security for the City's Sales Tax and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds. BUDGET IMPACT: None at this time. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Because of the additional pledge of revenues that would be available for debt service, additional future debt could be issued within certain legal limits, necessitating the need to budget for increasing annual debt service amounts.The proposed amendment would increase and ensure the City's adequate debt coverage. PUBLIC PROCESS: N/A EXHIBITS: 1. Agenda and Motion Language 2. Additional Pledge Resolution DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 245 SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114 TEL 801-535-6403 Salt Lake City Council AGENDA ITEM FOR SEPTEMBER 7,2021 UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Suggested Agenda Language relating to the City's pledge of supplemental sales and use tax revenues to the payment of the City's sales and excise tax revenue bonds: Resolution: Authorizing the pledge of supplemental sales and use tax revenues to the payment of the City's sales and excise tax revenue bonds Consider adopting a resolution authorizing the pledge of supplemental sales and use tax revenues to the payment of the City's sales and excise tax revenue bonds and providing for related matters. Staff Recommendation: Adopt the resolution. Suggested Motion Language is as follows: I move that the City Council adopt the resolution authorizing the pledge of supplemental sales and use tax revenues to the payment of the City's sales and excise tax revenue bonds and providing for related matters. Additional Pledge Agenda Language Draft 08/30/21 RESOLUTION No._ OF 2021 A Resolution authorizing the pledge certain supplemental sales and use tax revenues to the payment of the City's sales and excise tax revenue bonds; authorizing the taking of all other actions necessary to evidence such pledge; and related matters. *** *** *** WHEREAS, Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"), is a duly organized and existing city of the first class, operating under the general laws of the State of Utah (the "State"); WHEREAS, the City has previously issued and currently expects to issue additional sales and excise tax revenue bonds (the "Sales Tax Bonds") pursuant to (a) authority contained in the the Local Government Bonding Act, Chapter 14 of Title 11 (the "Government Bonding Act"), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Utah Code") and the Utah Refunding Bond Act, Chapter 27 of Title 11 (the "Refunding Bond Act"),Utah Code, and other applicable provisions of law(collectively with the Government Bonding Act and the Refunding Bond Act, the "Act") and (b) the Master Trust Indenture, dated as of September 1, 2004, as amended and supplemented to the date hereof(the "Master Indenture"); WHEREAS, pursuant to the Master Indenture the payment of principal and interest on the Sales Tax Bonds is currently secured by a pledge of(a) 100% of the Local Sales and Use Tax revenues received by the City pursuant to Title 59, Chapter 12, Part 2, Utah Code (the "Local Sales and Use Tax"); (b) 100% of the Municipal Energy Sales and Use Tax revenues received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3,Utah Code, and Salt Lake City Code Chapter 3.06; (c) 100% of the franchise fees for energy and utilities received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code, and Salt Lake City Code Chapter 3.06; (d) 100% of the Municipal Telecommunications License Tax revenues received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 4,Utah Code, and Salt Lake City Code Chapter 3.10; (e) 100%of the franchise fees associated with public utilities received by the City pursuant to Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, Utah Code, and Salt Lake City Code Section 17.16.070; and (f) 100% of franchise fees associated with cable television received by the City pursuant to Salt Lake City Code Chapter 5.20 (collectively, the "Revenues"); WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 59-12-402.1, the City is authorized to levy a tax at the rate of.5%on most, if not all, of the same transactions that are subject to the Local Sales and Use Tax (the "Supplemental Sales and Use Tax"); WHEREAS,pursuant to Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 18 of 2018, the City has established, approved and levied the Supplemental Sales and Use Tax; and WHEREAS, the City desires now to amend the Revenues pledged to secure the payment of its Sales Tax Bonds to include a pledge of 100% of the Supplemental Sales and Use Tax revenues received by the City; Now,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,as follows: Section 1. Pledge of Supplemental Sales and Use Tax. The City is hereby authorized and directed to pledge 100%of the Supplemental Sales and Use Tax revenues received by the City to the payment of all currently outstanding and all future Sales Tax Bonds issued by the City pursuant to the Master Indenture. Section 2. Approval and Execution of a Supplemental Indenture. In order to amend the Revenues pledged in the Master Indenture to include the pledge of 100% of the Supplemental Sales and Use Tax revenues received by the City, the Mayor is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver a supplemental indenture to accomplish such additional pledge(the "Supplemental Indenture") on behalf of the City, and the City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to affix to such Supplemental Indenture the seal of the City and to attest such seal and countersign such Supplemental Indenture. The Supplemental Indenture may be executed and delivered in connection with the issuance of a series of Sales Tax Bonds or by itself, as determined by the Mayor to be in the best interest of the City. Section 3. Other Actions. The officers and employees of the City shall take all action necessary or reasonably required to carry out, give effect to, and consummate the transactions contemplated hereby and shall take all action necessary in conformity with the Act and the Master Indenture to carry out the pledge of the Supplemental Sales and Use Tax revenues, including, without limitation, the execution and delivery of any documents required to be delivered in connection with such pledge. If(a) the Mayor or (b) the City Recorder shall be unavailable or unable to execute or attest and countersign, respectively, the Supplemental Indenture or the other documents that they are hereby authorized to execute, attest and countersign, the same may be executed,or attested and countersigned,respectively, (i)by the Chief of Staff or(ii)by any Deputy City Recorder. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the officers and employees of the City are authorized and directed to take such action as shall be necessary and appropriate to pledge the Supplemental Sales and Use Tax revenues. Section 4. Prior Acts Ratified, Approved and Confirmed. All acts of the officers and employees of the City in connection with the pledge of the Supplemental Sales and Use Tax revenues are hereby ratified, approved and confirmed. Section S. Resolution Irrepealable. Except as otherwise provided in the Master Indenture,following the execution and delivery of the Supplemental Indenture this resolution shall be and remain irrepealable until all the Sales Tax Bonds and the interest thereon shall have been fully paid, cancelled, and discharged. Section 6. Severability. If any section, paragraph, clause, or provision of this resolution shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section, paragraph, clause, or provision shall not affect any of the remaining provisions of this resolution. Section 7. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective immediately upon its approval and adoption. - 2 - Additional Pledge Resolution ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 7th day of September 2021. SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH Chair Salt Lake City Council ATTEST: City Recorder [SEAL] APPROVED: By Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: By Boyd Ferguson Senior City Attorney Signature: 7a4,2.dxt4_ V — Email: Garrett.Danielson@slcgov.com - 3 - Additional Pledge Resolution Item Fl .•• , ••. MOTION SHEET -AlmLUgAt *ik CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY _ �-(f 7 IMILI � II 1 -17: Via® II131 RA I `- 1 yam' m—,RR TO: City Council Members FROM: Allison Rowland Budget and Policy Analyst DATE: September 7,2021 RE: ORDINANCE: RACIAL EQUITY IN POLICING COMMISSION MOTION >L—ADOPT ORDINANCE I move that the Council adopt the ordinance changes needed to create and organize the Racial Equity in Policing Commission as one of the City's ongoing Boards and Commissions. MOTION 2 —NOT ADOPT I move that the Council not adopt the ordinance changes needed to create and organize the Racial Equity in Policing Commission as one of the City's ongoing Boards and Commissions, and to proceed to the next agenda item. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O.BOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 Erin J.Mendenhall Mayor CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL 111l Date Received: 08/20/2021 racAug�02115:20 MDT) Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: August 20, 2021 TO: ,' Salt Lake City Council. DATE: 08/20/202 i Amy Fowler,Chair FROM: Kaletta Lynch,Chief Equity Officer SUBJECT: -Racial Equity in Policing Commission Ordinance&Phase 1 Report STAFF CONTACTS: Kaletta Lynch,Chief Equity Officer, kaletta.lynchpslcgov.com, 801-535-6006 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Pass an ordinance amending Section 2.07.020,Section 10.02.040,Section 10.02.110 and enacting Chapter io.o6 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Commission on Racial Equity in Policing was formed to examine SLCPD's policies,culture, and budget and any City policies that influence SLCPD's culture or policies.The Commission is composed of individuals who represent a broad and diverse range of communities of color, expertise,and viewpoints in Salt Lake City.The Commission's core committee members were selected by the Mayor and City Council to lead in the structure of the Commission,invite others to participate and to create the space for productive and inclusive discourse with the broad group of Commissioners and the diversity of opinions therein. Over the last year,the Commission formed three subcommittees on police training,policies and practices,and school safety.These subcommittees made recommendations,included in the commission's phase 1 report. Recommendations were informed by community input and are included with this packet for City Council's review,feedback,and further action. The Chief Equity Officer is currently meeting with SLCPD on an ongoing basis to thoroughly review the phase 1 report,identify recommendations that have already been implemented,and develop a timeline for implementation of all others. The Racial Equity in Policing Commission's ordinance is also included in this packet with proposed changes. These changes are based on City Staffs observations of processes and support of the commission work for the last year. Changes are also based on feedback from commission members, police officers who participated with the commission,and independent facilitators. EXHIBITS: ATTACHMENTS • Proposed ordinance amending Section 2.07.020, Section 10.02.040, Section 10.02.1 10 and enacting Chapter 10.06 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission • Racial Equity in Policing Commission Phase 1 Report Attached SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2021 (An ordinance amending Section 2.07.020, Section 10.02.040, Section 10.02.110 and enacting Chapter 10.06 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission) An ordinance amending Section 2.07.020, Section 10.02.040, Section 10.02.110 and enacting Chapter 10.06 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission. WHEREAS, on September 8, 2020, the Salt Lake City Council (the "Council") and the Mayor of Salt Lake City (the "Mayor") approved a Joint Resolution, Resolution No. 26 of 2020 (the "2020 Joint Resolution"), establishing the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing; and WHEREAS, over the course of the last year the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing met regularly for the purposes outlined in the 2020 Joint Resolution; and WHEREAS, the 2020 Joint Resolution identified the objectives of the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing for the next twelve months; WHEREAS, the Council and the Mayor desire to establish a more permanent commission, the Racial Equity in Policing Commission, that will advise the Council and Mayor on matters related to the goal of eliminating racial discrimination in policing practices within Salt Lake City as further set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that adopting this ordinance promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 2.07.020. That Section 2.07.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (City Board and Commissions Named) shall be and hereby is amended to add Racial Equity in Policing Commission to the list of City boards and commissions as follows: 2.07.020: CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS NAMED: For the purpose of this chapter the term "city board" or "board" means the following city boards, commissions, councils, and committees: Airport board Board of appeals and examiners Business advisory board Citizens' compensation advisory committee City and county building conservancy and use committee Community development and capital improvement programs advisory board Fire code board of appeals Golf enterprise fund advisory board Historic landmark commission Housing advisory and appeals board Housing trust fund advisory board Human rights commission Library board Parks, natural lands, trails, and urban forestry advisory board Planning commission Public utilities advisory committee Racial equity in policing commission Salt Lake art design board Salt Lake City arts council board Salt Lake City sister cities board Transportation advisory board SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Sal! Lake City Code Section 10.02.040. That Section 10.02.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Creation and Organization) shall be and hereby is amended and reads as follows: 10.02.040: CREATION AND ORGANIZATION: A. There is created the human rights commission which shall be composed of nine (9) members. B. Seven (7) representatives shall be appointed with one representative from each of the seven (7) council districts; and two (2) representatives shall be appointed from the community who represent the diversity of the city. C. Notwithstanding Section 2.07.040.B.1, at least one (1), but no more than two (2), of the members of the human rights commission shall also serve on the racial equity in policing commission. Membership eligibility requirements for the racial equity in policing commission is independent of the eligibility requirements for the human rights commission. SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 10.02.110. That Section 10.02.110 shall be and is hereby amended as follows: 10.02.110: POWERS AND DUTIES: A. The commission shall make recommendations to the mayor and the council regarding the commission's: 1. Ongoing review of ordinances or policies; 2. Use of educational resources on issues of discrimination and equal treatment; 3. Review of complaints of discrimination involving city departments or city services for the purpose of identifying the possible systemic or institutional sources of such instances of discrimination; 4. Review of legislation, policies, or other action by the city designed to further the elimination of prejudice and discrimination; 5. Review of any pending legislation, policy changes, or other city action that may impact human rights and relations; 6. Research conducted or factual data obtained, within budgetary constraints, on the status and treatment of diverse populations and the best ways to improve human relations, to eliminate discrimination and to secure full and equal participation; 7. Investigation of opportunities to collaborate with other groups to foster nondiscrimination education; 8. Work in partnership to foster positive intergroup relations by instituting and conducting educational programs; 9. Actions as a resource at the request of community councils; and B. In addition to the powers and duties set forth in Subsection 10.02.110.A, the commission may review recommendations brought by the racial equity in policing commission and issue a position of opposition or support of those recommendation. C. The commission shall report to the council and the mayor no less than once each year on its activities, recommendations, and findings concerning matters on human rights and nondiscrimination policies. The report shall be in writing and made_accessible to the public. D. Beginning September 30, 2010, the commission shall prepare an annual report for the mayor and city council assessing the effectiveness of the city's actions in implementing chapters 10.04 and 10.05 of this title. SECTION 4. Enacting the Text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 10.06. That Chapter 10.06 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and is hereby enacted to read as follows: CHAPTER 10.06 RACIAL EQUITY IN POLICING COMMISSION SECTION: 10.06.010: General Provisions 10.06.020: Purpose 10.06.030: Definitions 10.06.040: Creation and Organization 10.06.050: Term 10.06.060: Vacancy 10.06.070: Eligibility for Membership 10.06.080: Compensation 10.06.090: Meetings 10.06.100: Powers and Duties 10.06.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS: The provisions of chapter 2.07 of this title shall apply to the racial equity in policing commission except as otherwise set forth in this chapter. 10.06.020: PURPOSE: A. The City of Salt Lake is comprised of diverse and varied groups, communities, and individuals. The practice of discrimination in a public safety setting against these groups, communities, or individuals on the grounds of ancestry, national origin, or race adversely affects the general welfare of the city and the vitality of its neighborhoods. B. Discriminatory practices may appear and be perpetuated in several forms including in the less obvious implicit biases, microaggressions, or within systemic processes or training. Discriminatory practices in public safety result in a lack of safety for specific residents and can segregate the community. C. The Salt Lake City racial equity in policing commission is created for the general purpose of advising the council and mayor on how to further the goal of eliminating racial discrimination in policing practices within Salt Lake City. Review of policies, culture and the budgetary practices of the Salt Lake City Police Department is vital to the goal of eliminating racial discrimination in policing. 10.06.030: DEFINITIONS: Unless otherwise specified, as used in this chapter: CITY: Salt Lake City, a municipal corporation of the state of Utah. COMMISSION: Salt Lake City racial equity in policing commission created in section 10.62.040 of this chapter. COUNCIL: Salt Lake City council. MAYOR: The duly elected or appointed and qualified mayor of Salt Lake City. MEMBER: A person appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the council who is duly qualified as an acting and voting member of the commission. NATIONAL ORIGIN: The place of birth of an individual or any lineal ancestors. PERSON: An individual. 10.62.040: CREATION AND ORGANIZATION: A. There is created the racial equity in policing commission which shall be composed of thirteen (13) members. B. The Mayor shall appoint, with advice and consent of the Council, fifteen (15) members who represent the cultural, ethnic and racial diversity of the City. Four (4) of the fifteen (15) members shall be between the ages of sixteen (16) and twenty-one(21) at the time of their appointment to serve as youth representation. Notwithstanding Section 2.07.040.B.1, at least one (1) but no more than two (2) of the fifteen (15) members shall also be a member of the human rights commission. 10.06.050: TERM: Notwithstanding Section 2.07.050, the term of members of the commission shall two (2) years, except that the initial term of six (6) members of the commission first appointed to the commission shall be for one (1) year to establish staggered terms. Each member's term shall expire on the applicable last Monday in December. 10.06.060: VACANCY: If a vacancy occurs for any reason before the member's term expires, the mayor, in exercising his or her discretion in making appointments, shall take into consideration the community diversity of the city and current representation on the commission. 10.06.070: ELIGIBILITY FOR MEMBERSHIP: Each member of the commission shall be at least sixteen (16) years of age. Members need not be residents of the City but shall maintain strong ties to Salt Lake City and have the potential to be affected by the work of the Salt Lake City Police Department. 10.06.080: COMPENSATION: A member may receive reasonable compensation for their service as a commission member pursuant to applicable Salt Lake City policies. 10.06.090: MEETINGS: The commission is expected to meet monthly but shall meet no less than quarterly. The annual meeting schedule shall be set at the first regular meeting in January of each year. 10.06.100: POWERS AND DUTIES: A. The commission shall: 1. Examine Salt Lake City Police Department's policies, culture, and budget and make recommendations to the Mayor and Council on ways to further the goals of the commission. 2. Engage and interact with the public to receive community input related to Salt Lake City Police Department's policies, culture, and budget. 3. Evaluate and study national best-practice policies for policing. 4. Make recommendations to the Mayor and Council on a racial equity plan for the Salt Lake City Police Department. 5. Explore means and make recommendations on how the Salt Lake City Police Department may increase diversity within its workforce. B. Before finalizing recommendations for the mayor and the council, the commission shall share the recommendation with the human rights commission, who may review the recommendation and issue a position of support or opposition to the commission's recommendation. C. In addition to the powers and duties specified in this Section, the Commission may: 1. Make recommendations to the mayor and the council on methods of engaging with community advocate groups and other community members on police practices or other public safety matters. 2. Review recommendations issued by the human rights commission and issue a statement of support or opposition to recommendations of the human rights committee which are relevant to the goals of the racial equity in policing commission. Positions of support or opposition issued pursuant to this subpart need not be reviewed by the human rights commission. 3. Review the current structure of the Civilian Review Board, evaluate national models, and may make recommendations to the Mayor and the Council on how to increase the effectiveness of the Civilian Review Board. D. Recommendations to the mayor and council shall be in writing and presented at a council meeting. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance take effect immediately after it has been published in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-713. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2021. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2021. Published: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date: 8/17/21 By: 74j"..,_ Hannah Vickery,Senior Citt'Afro trey Ordinance Creating Racial Equity in Policing Commission SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2021 (An ordinance amending Section 2.07.020, Section 10.02.040, Section 10.02.1 10 and enacting Chapter 10.06 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission) An ordinance amending Section 2.07.020, Section 10.02.040, Section 10.02.110 and enacting Chapter 10.06 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission. WHEREAS, on September 8, 2020, the Salt Lake City Council (the "Council") and the Mayor of Salt Lake City (the "Mayor") approved a Joint Resolution, Resolution No. 26 of 2020 (the "2020 Joint Resolution"), establishing the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing; and WHEREAS, over the course of the last year the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing met regularly for the purposes outlined in the 2020 Joint Resolution; and WHEREAS, the 2020 Joint Resolution identified the objectives of the Commission on • Racial Equity in Policing for the next twelve months; WHEREAS, the Council and the Mayor desire to establish a more permanent commission, the Racial Equity in Policing Commission, that will advise the Council and Mayor on matters related to the goal of eliminating racial discrimination in policing practices within Salt Lake City as further set forth herein; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that adopting this ordinance promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the citizens of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 2.07.020. That Section 2.07.020 of the Salt Lake City Code (City Board and Commissions Named) shall be and hereby is amended to add Racial Equity in Policing Commission to the list of City boards and commissions as follows: 2.07.020: CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS NAMED: For the purpose of this chapter the term "city board" or "board" means the following city boards, commissions, councils, and committees: Airport board Board of appeals and examiners Business advisory board Citizens' compensation advisory committee City and county building conservancy and use committee Community development and capital improvement programs advisory board Fire code board of appeals Golf enterprise fund advisory board Historic landmark commission Housing advisory and appeals board Housing trust fund advisory board Human rights commission Library board Parks, natural lands, trails, and urban forestry advisory board Planning commission Public utilities advisory committee Racial equity in policing commission Salt Lake art design board Salt Lake City arts council board Salt Lake City sister cities board Transportation advisory board SECTION 2. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 10.02.040. That Section 10.02.040 of the Salt Lake City Code (Creation and Organization) shall be and hereby is amended and reads as follows: 10.02.040: CREATION AND ORGANIZATION: A. There is created the human rights commission which shall be composed of nine (9) members. B. Seven (7) representatives shall be appointed with one representative from each of the seven (7) council districts; and two (2) representatives shall be appointed from the community who represent the diversity of the city. C. Notwithstanding Section 2.07.040.B.1, at least one (1), but no more than two (2), of the members of the human rights commission shall also serve on the racial equity in policing commission. Membership eligibility requirements for the racial equity in policing commission is independent of the eligibility requirements for the human rights commission. SECTION 3. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 10.02.110. That Section 10.02.110 shall be and is hereby amended and reads as follows: 10.02.110: POWERS AND DUTIES: A. The commission shall make recommendations to the mayor and the council regarding the commission's: 1. Ongoing review of ordinances or policies; 2. Use of educational resources on issues of discrimination and equal treatment; 3. Review of complaints of discrimination involving city departments or city services for the purpose of identifying the possible systemic or institutional sources of such instances of discrimination; 4. Review of legislation, policies, or other action by the city designed to further the elimination of prejudice and discrimination; 5. Review of any pending legislation, policy changes, or other city action that may impact human rights and relations; 6. Research conducted or factual data obtained, within budgetary constraints, on the status and treatment of diverse populations and the best ways to improve human relations, to eliminate discrimination and to secure full and equal participation; 7. Investigation of opportunities to collaborate with other groups to foster nondiscrimination education; 8. Work in partnership to foster positive intergroup relations by instituting and conducting educational programs; and 9. Actions as a resource at the request of community councils..-; and B. In addition to the powers and duties set forth in Subsection 10.02.110.A. the commission may review recommendations brought by the racial equity in policing commission and issue a position of opposition or support of those recommendation. C. B-: The commission shall report to the council and the mayor no less than once each year on its activities, recommendations, and findings concerning matters on human rights and nondiscrimination policies. The report shall be in writing and made accessible to the public. D. G Beginning September 30, 2010, the commission shall prepare an annual report for the mayor and city council assessing the effectiveness of the city's actions in implementing chapters 10.04 and 10.05 of this title. SECTION 4. Enacting the Text of Salt Lake City Code Chapter 10.06. That Chapter 10.06 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and is hereby enacted to read as follows: CHAPTER 10.06 RACIAL EQUITY IN POLICING COMMISSION SECTION: 10.06.010: General Provisions 10.06.020: Purpose 10.06.030: Definitions 10.06.040: Creation and Organization 10.06.050: Term 10.06.060: Vacancy 10.06.070: Eligibility for Membership 10.06.080: Compensation 10.06.090: Meetings 10.06.100: Powers and Duties 10.06.010: GENERAL PROVISIONS: The provisions of chapter 2.07 of this title shall apply to the racial equity in policing commission except as otherwise set forth in this chapter. 10.06.020: PURPOSE: A. The City of Salt Lake is comprised of diverse and varied groups, communities, and individuals. The practice of discrimination in a public safety setting against these groups, communities, or individuals on the grounds of ancestry, national origin, or race adversely affects the general welfare of the city and the vitality of its neighborhoods. B. Discriminatory practices may appear and be perpetuated in several forms including in the less obvious implicit biases, microaggressions, or within systemic processes or training. Discriminatory practices in public safety result in a lack of safety for specific residents and can segregate the community. C. The Salt Lake City racial equity in policing commission is created for the general purpose of advising the council and mayor on how to further the goal of eliminating racial discrimination in policing practices within Salt Lake City. Review of policies, culture and the budgetary practices of the Salt Lake City Police Department is vital to the goal of eliminating, racial discrimination in policing. 10.06.030: DEFINITIONS: Unless otherwise specified, as used in this chapter: CITY: Salt Lake City, a municipal corporation of the state of Utah. COMMISSION: Salt Lake City racial equity in policing commission created in section 10.62.040 of this chapter. COUNCIL: Salt Lake City council. MAYOR: The duly elected or appointed and qualified mayor of Salt Lake City. MEMBER: A person appointed by the mayor with the advice and consent of the council who is duly qualified as an acting and voting member of the commission. NATIONAL ORIGIN: The place of birth of an individual or any lineal ancestors. PERSON: An individual. 10.62.040: CREATION AND ORGANIZATION: A. There is created the racial equity in policing commission which shall be composed of fifteen (15) members. B. The Mayor shall appoint, with advice and consent of the Council, fifteen (15) members who represent the cultural, ethnic and racial diversity of the City. Four (4) of the fifteen (15) members shall be between the ages of sixteen (16) and twenty-one (21) at the time of their appointment to serve as youth representation. Notwithstanding Section 2.07.040.B.1, at least one (1) but no more than two (2) of the fifteen (15) members shall also be a member of the human rights commission. 10.06.050: TERM: Notwithstanding Section 2.07.050. the term of members of the commission shall two (2) years, except that the initial term of seven (7) members of the commission first appointed to the commission shall be for one (1) year to establish staggered terms. Each member's term shall expire on the applicable last Monday in December. 10.06.060: VACANCY: If a vacancy occurs for any reason before the member's term expires, the mayor. in exercising his or her discretion in making appointments, shall take into consideration the community diversity of the city and current representation on the commission. 10.06.070: ELIGIBILITY FOR MEMBERSHIP: Each member of the commission shall be at least sixteen (16) years of age. Members need not be residents of the City but shall maintain strong ties to Salt Lake City and have the potential to be affected by the work of the Salt Lake City Police Department. 10.06.080: COMPENSATION: A member may receive reasonable compensation for their service as a commission member pursuant to applicable Salt Lake City policies. 10.06.090: MEETINGS: The commission is expected to meet monthly but shall meet no less than quarterly. The annual meeting schedule shall be set at the first regular meeting in January of each year. 10.06.100: POWERS AND DUTIES: A. The commission shall: 1. Examine Salt Lake City Police Department's policies, culture, and budget and make recommendations to the Mayor and Council on ways to further the goals of the commission. 2. Engage and interact with the public to receive community input related to Salt Lake City Police Department's policies, culture. and budget. 3. Evaluate and study national best-practice policies for policing. 4. Make recommendations to the Mayor and Council on a racial equity plan for the Salt Lake City Police Department. 5. Explore means and make recommendations on how the Salt Lake City Police Department may increase diversity within its workforce. B. Before finalizing recommendations for the mayor and the council, the commission shall share the recommendation with the human rights commission, who may review the recommendation and issue a position of support or opposition to the commission's recommendation. C. In addition to the powers and duties specified in this Section, the Commission may: 1. Make recommendations to the mayor and the council on methods of engaging with community advocate groups and other community members on police practices or other public safety matters. 2. Review recommendations issued by the human rights commission and issue a statement of support or opposition to recommendations of the human rights committee which are relevant to the goals of the racial equity in policing commission. Positions of support or opposition issued pursuant to this subpart need not be reviewed by the human rights commission. 3. Review the current structure of the Civilian Review Board. evaluate national models, and may make recommendations to the Mayor and the Council on how to increase the effectiveness of the Civilian Review Board. D. Recommendations to the mayor and council shall be in writing and presented at a council meeting. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance take effect immediately after it has been published in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-713. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2021. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2021. Published: APPROVED AS TO EORJ1 Salt Lake City Attorney's Office :te; /17/21 Hannah Vickery,Senior City:ti,rnep Ordinance Creating Racial Equity in Policing Commission SALT LAKE CITY RACIAL EQUITY IN POLICING COMMISSION 1111.111101 J Mk ; . 2.••••\ ..4V r, rrii c , . rt _ ___J ,_, _ June ' 21 -- - '- 'M i_...,,...1..r, A.,......,"ifif Ii ill :. __216..1.,..- • 1 : 1 -..." t -i i.. ^ rsea • �. .i•• / . ti..A OP s .. � t40''' 0.1 - ': Prepared by: The Langdon Group with subconsultants The Gemini Group and Kearns &West SALT LAKE CITY • RACIAL EQUITY IN ••• POLICING COMMISSION Contents From the Core Commissioners 1 Members of the Commission 2 Core Commissioners 2 Commissioners 2 Commission Staff and Liaisons 2 Salt Lake City Policy Department 2 Library Staff, Tech Support 2 Purpose Statement of the Salt Lake City Racial Equity in Policing Commission 3 Organizational Methodology 3 Consultants 3 Early Work of the Facilitation Team 3 Subcommittees 4 Community Voice and Communication 7 Website 7 Community Listening Sessions and Overall Approach 7 Challenges 10 The Online Environment 10 Time 11 Open Meeting Requirements 11 Experience 11 Volume of Material to Review 11 Late Addition of Facilitators 11 Role of SLCPD 12 Overall Recommendations 12 FTO PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION 13 CIT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS 14 TRAINING ACADEMY AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING RECOMMENDATIONS 15 RECRUITING RECOMMENDATIONS 15 PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 SALT LAKE CITY • RACIAL EQUITY IN •• POLICING COMMISSION INTERVIEW PROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS 16 CANDIDATE SELECTION RECOMMENDATIONS 16 POLICY AND PRACTICES RECOMMENDATIONS 21 Continuing Opportunities 28 Appendices Appendix 1 Small group listening sessions (Part I) a. SLCPD Officers b. SLCPD Chiefs c. School Resource Officers d. Utahns with Traumatic Brain Injuries/Intellectual Disabilities Appendix 2 Public Listening Session I (January 28) a. Polls/text comments b. Comments/themes FAQ Appendix 3 Public Listening Session II (May 19) a. Polls/text comments b. Graphs c. Comments Appendix 4 Small Group Listening Sessions (Part II) a. Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander b. LGBTQ c. African-American/Black Community Groups d. Utah Black Chamber of Commerce e. Latinx and Hispanic Groups f. Native American and Indigenous Appendix 5 Social Pinpoint Comments/Data a. Survey data b. Forum Comments Appendix 6 Text Message Survey Comments/Data a. Polls b. Comments PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 ii SALT LAKE CITY • RACIAL EQUITY IN ••• POLICING COMMISSION From the Core Commissioners The Core Commissioners, on behalf of the Salt Lake City Racial Equity in Policing Commission Commissioners, wish to acknowledge and offer our gratitude to all of the Commissioners for their tireless work to make Salt Lake City a better place for their communities. Their engagement, strength, voice, and willingness to "speak truth to power" have allowed the Commission to take advantage of its unique opportunity to improve or change the culture of policing in Salt Lake City. This Commission's work is to address structural and institutional issues within SLCPD that can and do create detrimental outcomes for Communities of Color. Our work is not to allege or suggest that any one officer is desiring to harm our communities. Our focus is on addressing programs, policies, and practices that may be creating or maintaining harm to Communities of Color, or to offer recommendations that may improve police interactions and engagement with our communities. We wish to thank Mayor Erin Mendenhall, and members of the City Council for the important and necessary opportunity that recognizes the need to improve the outcomes for Communities of Color in their everyday engagement with police officers. The Commission deeply appreciates the engagement of Chief Mike Brown, his command staff, and the officers and staff of the Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) and their responsiveness to the many requests for information and personal engagement. Further, this work would not have been as efficient or effective without the excellent support of city staff, specifically Mayoral and City Council staff, who have been the behind-the-scenes support to ensure the administration of the Commission's work is as efficient and effective as possible. PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 1 SALT LAKE CITY RACIAL EQUITY IN ME POLICING COMMISSION Members of the Commission Core Commissioners Commission Staff and Liaisons Moises Prospero Kaletta Lynch Chief Equity Officer Rev. France Davis David Litvack Former Senior Policy Advisor Nicole Salazar-Hall Cindy Lou Trishman City Recorder Darlene McDonald Lauren Shafer Assistant City Recorder Verona Sagato Mauga Lindsey Nikola Director of Communication Kamaal Ahmad Jennifer Bruno Deputy Director, City Council Office Commissioners Lehua Weaver Associate Deputy Director, City Aaran Afalava Council Office Abdullah Mberwa Allison Rowland Budget and Policy Analyst, Aden Batar City Council Office Alaimaluloa Tokotaha Kira Luke Policy Analyst/Public Engagement, Anapesi Ka'ili City Council Office Carol Shifflett Weston Clark Director of Community Davina Smith Outreach Desange Kuenihira Jessi Eagan Executive Assistant to the Chief Dhati Oommen Equity Officer & Director of Community Ephraim Kum Outreach Lazayda Afameta Sven Karabegovic Mayor's Office Intern Luna Banuri Hailey Keller Mayor's Office Intern Mahider Tadesse Hassan Abdi City Council Intern Mariana Suarez MJ Powell Salt Lake City Policy Department Olosaa Solovi Jr. Laura Nygaard Executive Assistant to the Rogelio Romero Chief of Police Samantha Eldrige Officer Robert Norgaard Steve Anjewierden Officer Jose Munoz Steven Johnson Officer Ricardo Franco Tanya Hawkins Officer Mason Givens Tiffany Flores Officer Nathan Groves Officer Brendyn Scott Library Staff, Tech Support Aleko Campos Audio-Visual Specialist Patrick Hutchings Event Associate Elizabeth King Events Services Manager PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 2 SALT LAKE CITY • RACIAL EQUITY IN MEM POLICING COMMISSION Purpose Statement of the Salt Lake City Racial Equity in Policing Commission The Salt Lake City Racial Equity in Policing Commission (Commission) is made up of clergy, lay leaders, and community members with a wide array of professional and life-experience relevant to the topic area who have engaged in dozens of meetings, and research actions, to identify solutions to ensure community safety and a stronger relationship specifically between Communities of Color and the Salt Lake City Police Department. The Commission's work is to examine the current policies, programs, culture, and budget of the Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD). The Commission is dedicated to making recommendations for meaningful and sustainable change. Organizational Methodology The Commission was empaneled in August 2020. Core Commissioners were selected by the Mayor and City Council to assist and support the essence of the work and be a liaison to the Mayor's Office and City Council as needed. These Core Commissioners also were subsequently involved in the selection of the remaining Commissioners. The focus was on finding passionate, skilled, and engaged individuals that best represent Salt Lake City's Communities of Color. :onsultants The Langdon Group, (TLG) a Salt Lake City consulting firm, was awarded the contract in September 2020 to be the facilitators for the Commission. Siobhan Locke and Joshua King, Esq., represented TLG. Kearns West, a Dallas, TX based firm represented by Dr. Larry Schooler, and The Gemini Group, a Denver based firm represented by Dante J.James, Esq., were subconsultants to support the work. All references to TLG include the work of the subconsultants. Early Work of the Facilitation Team Initial interviews of all Commissioners were conducted by TLG at the beginning of its engagement in order to develop an understanding of what the Commission had already decided on as its focus and to better ensure that the facilitators entered the already established Commission in a way that served to support the work already underway instead of disrupting it. Further, these interviews sought to find the elements of the PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 3 SALT LAKE CITY • RACIAL EQUITY IN MM. POLICING COMMISSION Commission structure that were working well and those that were proving less successful at the outset of the work. One of the key findings of these discussions was that the full commission was operating using Roberts Rules of Order which, while a great structure in some cases, was not a great model for this group. The Commission moved to a consensus model for decision-making. This has proven to be an efficient and effective model for the group. The facilitators further suggested moving into a full commission and subcommittee structure to provide for deeper engagement with the decided-upon focus areas - listed below: Subcommittees The following four subcommittees were empaneled to better focus the work of the Commission. Commissioners were invited to join a subcommittee, making sure that no subcommittee made up a quorum of Commissioners. The subcommittees each developed recommendations within their areas of focus, and these were brought back to the full Commission for review and approval. Once approved, the recommendations were presented to the Mayor and City Council. This allowed city leadership to begin to address issues and recommendations in real time, as opposed to wait until all work had been completed by the Commission and submitted in a final Phase One Report. Policies and Practices Subcommittee Facilitated by Josh King • The recommendations of the Policies and Practices Subcommittee were developed over a period of several months. The Subcommittee's primary objective was to make informed decisions in developing recommendations that could address community issues at the root. The subcommittee sought to develop recommendations that are feasible, viable, and sustainable. To meet these objectives, the Subcommittee engaged in significant collaboration and dialogue with community partners, the Salt Lake City Police Department, and Salt Lake City staff. The subcommittee also conducted research of national best practices and collaborated with experts around the country. • The Subcommittee submitted five (5) recommendations to the full Commission. The Commission supported all five (5) recommendations, which were then presented to the City Council. PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 4 SALT LAKE CITY • RACIAL EQUITY IN MEM POLICING COMMISSION School Safety Subcommittee Facilitated by Siobhan Locke This group of dedicated Commission members worked diligently to understand all perspectives in the school safety conversation before proceeding to make any recommendations. The subcommittee conducted one-on-one interviews, attended meetings and had guest speakers come into their meetings from all of the following categories and is still working to have additional conversations beyond even these: Salt Lake City School Board Sat Lake City School District (SLCSD) Interim Superintendent Students who have interacted with School Resource Officers (youth subcommittee, more to come in phase 2) Data analysts at SLCPD and SLCSD • School Resource Officers (SROs) • Administrators • Oversite Committee for the SRO program • A number of groups that are bringing"wraparound services" in for students, especially to support students of color. In addition to these interviews, the subcommittee conducted literature reviews and referred to several documents in exploring this subject. Including: The Memorandum of Understanding between SLCPD, SLC and SLCSD • Voices of Utah Children Report Data provided by the SLCPD on citations given by SROs Training Subcommittee Facilitated by Dante].James The recommendations of the Training Subcommittee were based upon a vast amount of information and data presented to the Training Subcommittee by SLCPD, as well as information obtained and considered on its own. A foundational document for the subcommittee's work was the President's Report on 21st Century Policing, dated May 2015. Examples of data and information reviewed are: PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 5 SALT LAKE CITY • RACIAL EQUITY IN MEM POLICING COMMISSION • President's Report on 21 st Century Policing, May 2015, specifically Pillar 5: Training and Education • Curricula from the SLCPD Training Academy, Course of Instruction - 2020- 2021 • Curricula from the CIT Academy, Session #10 September 17-20 • Demographic data • Crisis Intervention Team • Field Training Officer Program • Overall SLCPD employees • Budget Development Report by Cost Center and Object Code • Subcommittee discussions with Captain S. Mourtgos, Head of SLCPD Training Division, and memo to the subcommittee dated December 11, 2020 • Subcommittee discussions with Sgt. Scott Stuck and Director Jessica Watters of the Crisis Intervention Team • Numerous discussions with, and feedback provided by, Chief Mike Brown, Asst. Chief Tim Doubt, and Lt. Yvette Zayas, and other members of SLCPD Youth Subcommittee Self-facilitated by youth members of the Commission. The Youth Commission was representative of both high school and college youth. The youth Commissioners met on a regular basis and held the same decision- making authority as any Commissioner. Police Engagement Led by Chief Michael Brown, SLCPD was initially represented by Command Staff and the Chiefs Executive Officer. There were initially no patrol officers engaged with the Commission. At the urging of the facilitators, patrol officers were added to the work of the subcommittees to ensure that the voices of the officers who would or could be most impacted by the Commission's work would be heard. PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 6 SALT LAKE CITY • RACIAL EQUITY IN MEM POLICING COMMISSION Community Voice and Communication Website Created by Larry Schooler and The Langdon Group Staff Community Listening Sessions and Overall Approach Designed and led by Dr. Larry Schooler • Listening Sessions - Citywide • Listening Sessions - Targeted Communities In any project that affects the public, those charged with making recommendations or decisions are expected to seek the input of those affected by those recommendations and decisions. In the case of the Racial Equity in Policing Commission, the significance of community input cannot be understated. Indeed, the Commission itself is primarily comprised of community leaders who were (and are) steeped in the communities they represent. That said, the Commission championed a multilateral, multi-step community engagement process that ensured their work would reflect the will of the community and many of its "sub- communities"—including communities of color, residents with traumatic brain injuries and disabilities, and the law enforcement community. The Commission hosted private and public listening sessions that enabled a wide array of stakeholders to provide input at the beginning, middle, and end of the initial phase of the Commission's work. Private listening sessions involved officers in the Salt Lake City Police Department and (separately)the Chief of Police and Deputy/Assistant chiefs; School Resource Officers; leaders in the Black, Latinx, and Middle Eastern communities; leaders in the LGBTQ+ community; and members of the community who have dealt with mental illness, traumatic brain injuries, and/or disabilities. The Commission also hosted two public listening sessions that were televised live on SLCTV; simulcast in English and Spanish initially and then in Arabic and Mandarin as well during the second broadcast; and available for comments via phone, text message, and online posting. More than 1,500 residents participated in these public sessions. The Commission also hosted resources for the public to use for engagement at their own convenience, namely a comment line (phone), a text message-based survey, and an online portal (slcrepcommission.com). PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 7 SALT LAKE CITY • RACIAL EQUITY IN ••• POLICING COMMISSION The complete records of all listening sessions and asynchronous resources (phone line, text message survey, and online portal) are available as an appendix to this report, but the following points summarize the findings: • The Commission and the Salt Lake City Police Department worked extensively to understand each other's perspectives better (see below report on private listening sessions). • Members of the Salt Lake City community are hoping to see changes to the relationship between SLCPD and schools, with a renegotiation of an existing Memorandum of Understanding between the School District and Police Department for School Resource Officers. • The community hopes for better training across the department to ensure officers understand how to respond to people from all communities, whether they be communities of color, immigrant and refugee populations, and those dealing with mental illness or other crises, particular around de- escalation. • The community wants to see the Department conduct its work consistently across Salt Lake City and with independent monitoring, for response time, body camera usage, treatment during stops, and other aspects of procedural justice in recruiting for new officers, the community wants to ensure potential recruits are evaluated for red-flag behaviors, such as support for or involvement in extremist groups, a history of violent behavior, and so on. • The community wants SLCPD to improve its citizens academy and other community educational programs, with an eye towards eliminating stereotypes. • Police Specific Listening Sessions Separately, the Commission conducted four private listening sessions with SLCPD in the late spring of 2021. After working for months on the details of how to revise SLCPD policies and other issues on the transactional side of policing, it became clear to all parties that some work was needed to address the relational side of the conversation. Different perspectives and experiences and even wording emphasized the need for a less formal conversation to address these differences. To that end, the Commission's facilitators convened a total of four conversations over two evenings with members of the Racial Equity in Policing Commission and personnel PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 8 SALT LAKE CITY • RACIAL EQUITY IN ••• POLICING COMMISSION from the Salt Lake City Police Department. Facilitators conducted the meetings without live broadcast or recording to maximize the potential for participants to share their perspectives with complete candor. Approximately ten members of the Police Department and a dozen Commissioners participated across the sessions. While the personal details shared within these conversations will be kept anonymous, a few key takeaways from the conversations are shared here from the perspective of the facilitators: ■ The conversations heavily focused on helping both Commissioners and officers understand one another better. Commissioners used their own lived experiences, as well as those of their family, friends, and communities, to explain why they have felt fear, anger, frustration, and confusion in some interactions with the SLCPD. Several Commissioners also commended officers for their service and, in some cases, their performance in specific incidents. • For their part, Police Department attendees shared their own experiences both with encountering other officers and with encountering civilians. Participating SLCPD personnel (particularly those from communities of color) shared their experiences being stopped by other officers, in part to connect with some of the stories shared by Commissioners. They also spoke of their pride in their work and in the calls they field that go well, which often go unnoticed by the public, along with a desire for more of the public to understand the complexities of each stop, interrogation, or arrest. • In both sessions, participants from SLCPD questioned why Commissioners feared SLCPD or worried about riding along with SLCPD officers. Commissioners offered numerous examples where they themselves, or their loved ones, had traumatic encounters with SLCPD and/or other police departments, experiences that greatly impact their feelings towards SLCPD today. While SLCPD participants sought to reassure Commissioners that the public could easily engage with officers in healthy, productive ways, Commissioners frequently suggested that SLCPD itself should do more proactive outreach to the community to help assuage fears. • By the end of the sessions, participants seemed to possess a deeper understanding of how each other approaches encounters between police and civilians, as well as the significance of reducing or eliminating the fear PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 9 SALT LAKE CITY • RACIAL EQUITY IN MEM POLICING COMMISSION many communities of color feel when an officer approaches them. Some participants also expressed interest in sharing reading and viewing recommendations to understand the lens through which they view policing. They also expressed interest in finding ways to continue with this type of conversation as the Commission's work continues, acknowledging that this is as important a part of the work as the policy changes will be. ■ Additionally, the participants all seemed aware that changes in the culture of policing matter as much or more as changes in the policies, procedures, training, and school safety protocols of police. Finally, the participants all seemed to acknowledge that they may continue to view concepts of public safety differently but will still commit themselves to making policing work for those in law enforcement and those in the Salt Lake City community. Challenges "he Online Environment As a Commission, working in an environment of COVID 19, being completely in an online environment, initially created challenges. Many of the Commissioners did not know each other. The opportunities to bond, develop trust, develop relationships individually and collectively, were difficult. It took months for the Commission to find its comfort level of interaction; being able to question each other, being able to find laughter in the difficult conversations, being able to comfortably engage with officers on a Zoom call, are examples of some of the challenges of the online environment. This also created challenges with community engagement. Holding Listening Sessions and hearing from community in an online, text, email environment was new and unusual for many. It is more difficult to "spread the word" about the process of how to engage than asking people to come to their community center or place of worship to offer their thoughts or experiences. Several of the police members of the Commission were only able to join during their actual work-time which required them to usually join by their phone, and they were often unable to turn on their cameras if they were driving. Connectivity issues were often the case with Commissioners due to broadband issues. PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 10 SALT LAKE CITY • RACIAL EQUITY IN MEM POLICING COMMISSION Time All of the Commissioners participated in this work by giving of their"non-work" or"non- school"time in the evenings, almost every week, for months. The level of commitment needed was significant. Additionally, the amount of meeting time per week limited the amount of material that could be considered and addressed. Had there been an opportunity for a "retreat"type of engagement once or twice, it could have made the understanding and engagement by the full Commission more beneficial. Open Meeting Requirements Given the requirements for the Commission to operate as a public body, this created some challenges for engagement. The Commission was unable to engage by email as a whole. There could not be more than a quorum on any subcommittee, so care had to be taken if Commissioners wanted to attend more than one subcommittee. The requirements for notice of any meeting where a quorum was present added to the challenges for staff and Commissioners and made any quick or spontaneous response to a current issue difficult. :xperienci The mix of experience levels among the Commissioners was an initial challenge. Many Commissioners had not had specific experience with the type of work this Commission was undertaking. Reviewing, evaluating, and making recommendations on police training, procedure, or policy, was a new experience. The passion and commitment of the Commissioners helped to ease this and the trust of those Commissioners that did have this experience also helped to alleviate this challenge. Volume of Material to Review The total amount of material that could be reviewed was voluminous. The SLCPD policy manual itself is over 800 pages. The types of training conducted, the demographics of the departments, the unwritten but everyday practices that impact police work and accountably, are all examples of the significant amount of material that could not all be reviewed during this phase one period. The Commission approached the work from the most pressing and impactful components of this material. Late Addition of Facilitators The Commission had been selected, empaneled, and begun work prior to the selection of the facilitators. This created the need for the facilitators to build a relationship of trust in how they work and their level of expertise. This took time and may have slowed down the work some as Commissioners were still working on their relationships with each other and then needed to find their trust in the facilitators. PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 11 SALT LAKE CITY RACIAL EQUITY IN MN POLICING COMMISSION Role of SLCPD It was initially difficult to find the most appropriate role of not only the Command Staff (Chief, Deputy and Assistant Chiefs) but also patrol officers once they became a regular part of the Commission. The engagements required trust. There seemed to be more or easier trust from both the Command Staff and Commissioners with each other. The Command Staff attended both the full Commission meetings as well as often attended the various subcommittee meetings. Patrol officers were invited to both the full Commission meetings as well as the subcommittee meetings, but only attended the subcommittee meetings when they could. The comfort level for the officers to speak was challenging for some. A special session was held in each subcommittee for the purpose of engaging patrol officers and Commissioners in an open, honest way that was not specifically about the Commission's work, but about the police's relationship in general with the communities represented by the Commissioners. It could not be done in a full meeting because of the desire to not be recorded or have it as an open meeting. The conversations improved each other's understanding, but were often difficult, with a clear sense that there was often a disconnect in perceptions between officers and Commissioners. Overall Recommendations Training Subcommittee The following recommendations are in four specific areas: 1. Field Training Officers (FTO) Program 2. The Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) 3. The Training Academy and In-Service Training Curriculum 4. Recruitment and Hiring 1. The FTO Program is a vital component of the SLCPD for the Commission to consider because, as stated in the Salt Lake City Police Department Field Training Officer Manual, (6/1/2016) Field training has a significant impact on the individual trainee in terms of imprinting department culture, attitudes, values, and ethics in carrying out the duties of policing that will remain with the officer throughout a career. PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 12 SALT LAKE CITY • RACIAL EQUITY IN •• POLICING COMMISSION Ensuring the broadest demographics possible within those officers who are FTO's sends an unconscious message to the new recruits that diversity is an important factor for SLCPD, that it is not essentially a White-only police department, and officers and Communities of Color are important in the fabric of SLCPD. 2. The CIT Program is important given the difficult work of engaging with those who may be in the midst of a mental health crisis, the intersectionality of race and mental health, and recent engagements with People of Color who were having mental health issues that led to unfortunate and often deadly outcomes. 3. The Training Academy Curriculum is important because it is this initial and foundational training that propels an officer thru their career. In-service curriculum ensures officers are up to date on current practices and is a means to emphasize the priorities of the City and the Department. How and what is trained is what guides an officer through the performance of their duties, and most specifically how they engage with those they are expected to serve. They are the main building-blocks for an officer's performance of their duties. How and what is trained is what guides an officer through the performance of their duties, and most specifically how they engage with those they are expected to serve. It is a main building-block for an officer's performance of their duties. 4. Recruitment and Hiring is what creates the make-up of the officer and staff of SLCPD. Diversity by itself does not change culture, but lack of diversity is a picture to the community, a perceived statement of who the department is, and a representation of culture ISSUE: Demographic concern related to the Field Training Officers (FTO) Out of the 67 current FTO's, there are only six (6) People of Color: • Two (2) are Hawai'ian/Pacific Islander • Four (4) are Latino or LatinX There are currently no targeted outreach efforts to ensure or improve the diversity of the program. It is designed for self-selection to apply for the program. FTO PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION • Create a process for targeted outreach to officers of color to increase the diversity of the program PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 13 SALT LAKE CITY • RACIAL EQUITY IN •• POLICING COMMISSION ISSUE: Training concerns related to the Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) • Training is not prioritized, nor data specifically captured, for Lateral Hires • Re-Certification is voluntary once certification from the Academy expires after two years • There is insufficient budget to enlarge the program Currently the program is limited to four(4) detectives to rotate work with eight (8) social workers for one shift (day shift) Currently: • 189 officers have chosen to re-certify • 272 have chosen not to re-certify CIT PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS • Require CIT re-certification for all officers • Require CIT certification for all lateral hires • Increase or re-allocate budget to complete this priority (with an emphasis on re- allocation) and consider zero based budgeting in the long-term budgeting process • Reprioritize budget to core responder model unit to provide for more detectives to cover more than one shift and have sufficient staffing to cover when detectives are unable to work their shift • Prioritize and fill these detective positions (over other police specialty unit positions) and civilian mental health professional positions, to ensure quality response, and to add additional expertise and relief to emergency mental health calls ISSUE: Training concerns related to equity, implicit bias, and community policy curriculum in the Academy and In-Service Training. • There are no Salt Lake City community-based facilitators of color in the Academy or In-Service Training • There is no component of the Academy that provides the history of Salt Lake City and its communities of color • The current number of hours dedicated to Diversity/Equity/Inclusion/Implicit Bias training in the Academy(four during Fair and Impartial Policing) is insufficient to embed an equity lens and consciousness throughout the organization. PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 14 SALT LAKE CITY • RACIAL EQUITY IN •• POLICING COMMISSION TRAINING ACADEMY AND IN-SERVICE TRAINING RECOMMENDATIONS • Require Salt Lake City community-based trainers of color to be part of the academy and in-service training team, selected in partnership with police civilian advisory board • Require equity curriculum that is best practice and that is co-created with a community-based trainer • Require that recruits learn the history of the diverse communities in salt lake city • Require increased budget allocation to provide additional professional diversity, equity, and inclusion training ISSUE: There is no full-time recruiter for SLCPD • Given the difficulty in recruiting generally, and recruiting for People of Color specifically, there needs to be a full-time recruiter. • There is currently insufficient ability to create targeted outreach efforts to ensure or improve the diversity of SLCPD and support cultural change. RECRUITING RECOMMENDATIONS • Full Time Recruiter: Create a position that provides for a full-time recruiter, tracking and keeping individuals within the application process up to date on timing. If fruitful, it should be able to support its existence by the new recruits that are hired. • Recruiting Budget: Ensure that there is a budget that allows in-state and out-of- state recruiting. • Communication Strategy development of inclusive strategy, including a new video with inclusive language with emphasis on recruiting Candidates of Color, social media platforms to attract the very best officers and candidates to SLCPD; Provide specific funding for a new recruitment video that is a more up to date approach to recruiting, highlighting the continual hiring process opportunities. PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 15 SALT LAKE CITY • RACIAL EQUITY IN •• POLICING COMMISSION ISSUE: The current oral interview process has no strategic approach to including community or civilian members on oral interview panels for SLCPD applicants • A diverse hiring panel, to include community members, creates opportunities for multiple perspectives and a better evaluation for well-rounded and diverse candidates. • If the goal is to ensure the best applicant is hired who brings overall professionalism and compassion to the position, multiple perspectives can only add to this possibility. • There is no legal, HR, or policy reason that non-sworn community members cannot sit on a hiring panel. Non-sworn evaluators would not be evaluating police strategic or tactical thinking which will be taught in the Academy, but evaluating the individual and what they bring to interpersonal engagements with community members. INTERVIEW PROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS • Require community members to be a part of the oral interview process, sitting on any oral interview panel, with the same decision-making authority as officers on the panels. • Define Specific Characteristics desired to become an SLCPD officer e.g.,: Compassion, Empathy, Integrity, Eagerness to Learn, Mental Agility, Cultural Humility, Awareness, Sensitivity, Communication Skills ISSUE: There are not a specific set of questions which allow for identification of the ideal characteristics of the ideal candidates. • There is a need to formalize the process to evaluate the candidates from a human-centric perspective. A structured approach would allow for the best evaluation of candidates and how they will interact with the various communities within Salt Lake City. • There is no mandatory requirement for panel members to understand how implicit bias may impact their decision-making. CANDIDATE SELECTION RECOMMENDATIONS • Create and use questions which help the candidate identify their place in the world and describe their level of cultural understanding outside of their own. Recognize that this is an on-going process of question creation for multiple panels. • Mandatory training on a regular schedule with Chiefs office representative and Human Resource representative to ensure substantive discussion for panel PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 16 SALT LAKE CITY • RACIAL EQUITY IN •• POLICING COMMISSION members prior to the oral interview of entry level and lateral applicants, with the goals of: 1. Addressing interview questions 2. Discussing the intent of character desired based on the questions 3. Creating awareness of implicit biases that may impact decision-making School Safety ISSUE Continued Racial Disparity in the Students who are interacting with School Resource Officers (SROs) Salt Lake City has experiences a large decrease in the overall number of citations given to students by SROs and reduction in racial disparity in these citations (due to recent juvenile justice reform efforts, the 2018 MOU between SLCPD and SLCSD, and School-Based Law Enforcement Training for both SROs and school administrators), there is still remaining disparity in the number of citations given to Hispanic students in some schools. For example, high school citations for 2013-2014 were 125 White Hispanics v 18 White Non- Hispanic students. For 2019-2020, 20 White Hispanics versus 2 White Non-Hispanic were cited. This reveals significant reductions in the amount of citations and disparity as well, but disparity is still present in 2019-2020. SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER RECOMMENDATIONS I- Early in the work of this subcommittee we were made aware of the impending expiration of the current Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") that governs the work of the School Resource Officers ("SROs") as it expires at the end of 2020-21 school year. However, it has since been communicated to the subcommittee that the expiration date will be extended until the REP recommendations are complete. This subcommittee wants to commend this adjustment and appreciates this recognition of the process underway. • Additionally, two commissioners were invited to participate in the "SRO Oversight Committee", which brings together Salt Lake City School District and Police Department personnel to review the SRO program twice a year. UPDATED RECOMMENDATION(JUNE 2021) Second extension of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on School Resource Officers (SROs) PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 17 SALT LAKE CITY • RACIAL EQUITY IN ••• POLICING COMMISSION • We recommend extending the expiration date MOU between SLCPD and SLCSD. Currently, the MOU expires July 2021 and we would like negotiations to commence immediately with an extension of the current MOU remaining in place for an additional 6 months or until renegotiated. • This will allow time for the new superintendent to become familiar with the program, its efficacy and needs. • The School Safety Subcommittee has amassed a number of recommendations for adjustments that could apply to a future MOU and will share those with both parties. • This will further allow sufficient time to ensure that changes to the MOU are meaningful and substantial and are not simply wording adjustments. • We expect this will include some language from bills introduced in the last session that didn't pass at the state level. /SSW Concerns about barriers to services for at-risk youth & the contributions to the School to Prison Pipeline The Promising Youth Project (PYP) - is a comprehensive crime, violence, and gang reduction program. The purpose of the Promising Youth Project is to provide youth with the opportunities and support needed to unlock their promising potential. The project achieves this by utilizing evidence-based practices and program to assess, case-manage, and connect youth to community resources. In order to be successful, the Promising Youth Project designed a program dedicated to serving the needs of Salt Lake City and its residents. The Promising Youth Project contains two program components in order to meet the needs of our community. The Promising Youth Project contains a (1) School-based Violence, Crime, & Gang Reduction Program and (2) the Promising Youth Summer Opportunity an adventure, life skills, leadership program. PYP is currently housed within the SLCPD The hiring protocols at the SLCPD hinder the ability to attract and onboard youth/community advocates (practices within the backgrounds investigation portion of hiring is off-putting to potential new-hires for several reasons including, but not limited to long hold periods due to background checks before employment(average 30-60 days), home-visit inspections done by an officer in the home of the candidate (which is off-putting to candidates, especially those who identify as people of color), PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 18 SALT LAKE CITY RACIAL EQUITY IN ME POLICING COMMISSION and a myriad of disqualifiers that prove to weed out highly qualified candidates at high rates. YT-RISK STUDENT RECOMMENDATIONF In order to strengthen the resources available to at-risk students we recommend the following shifts to existing programming: The REP School Safety subcommittee recommends that the PYP program be moved from the SLCPD and into the City's Youth and Family Services division. This move is intended to allow the program to: Improve PYP's ability to recruit qualified and passionate staff who can most effectively bond with the students. Reduce barriers for youth participation who require a safe space to meet with their advocates or receive mental health services. Youth coming into Police Department offices is a barrier. In a subsequent meeting with SLCPD, the subcommittee was made aware that moving the program to the City would threaten current funding sources (i.e. COPS grant) and they asked to have more time to allow this fledgling program to flourish under their oversight. We therefore recommend that this be revisited in one year to determine if a move might still be needed or if adjustments described here and below were sufficient to ensure that this important program can most effectively deliver services. We recommend that this program be given adequate space and resources (computers, cell phones, desks, curricula, risk assessments, etc.)to more effectively meet the needs of the youth they are currently serving and to expand their program to serve more youth. In a subsequent meeting with SLCPD, the subcommittee was made aware that funding for supplies as described above has been found. We were also informed that PYP staff will now share offices with SROs in the schools to improve ability to meet with students and to further improve coordination between the two programs. We recommend increased funding to this program to ensure continued service to the community and to allow increased collaboration with other City and private programs for the benefit of the program's targeted population. While current grant funding is in place for the coming year, it is still the recommendation of this committee that secure, long-term funding for this program be found be adding it as a line item in the SLCPD budget when current funding expires. PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 19 SALT LAKE CITY • RACIAL EQUITY IN ••• POLICING COMMISSION We further recommend that all (10) SROs be allowed to work with the PYP Summer program throughout the summer. Currently, only a few of the SROs are allowed to participate in the summer program and selection is based on seniority. This results in a breakdown of any rapport and relationships that SROs have developed with at-risk youth during the school year. This adjustment would allow continued coordination between the youth and the SROs to reduce the number of youth who drop out of the program for this reason, which places youth at increased risk of involvement in delinquent behavior and referral to the juvenile justice system. Therefore, the positive improvements that youth have gained throughout the school year may be lost during the summer. This adjustment would allow School Resource Officers to continue learning, training, and collaborating with Youth Support Advocates while engaging with youth in pro- social, healthy, and positive environments. In a subsequent meeting with SLCPD, the subcommittee was made aware that the funding for the SRO program is now going to be 12 months a year, allowing the SROs to stay involved in PYP through the summer months Peer Court -A restorative justice program working to combat the disproportionate involvement of marginalized youth in the juvenile justice system by providing all youth who commit minor offenses an alternative opportunity to be held accountable for their actions. • We recommend that the peer court program, the promising youth project, and the explorers program work closely together to maximize resources and outcomes. • We recommend ongoing and increased funding to these programs where needed to ensure they can work together to continue helping at-risk youth to avoid the juvenile justice system and building better outcomes for these students overall Mayor's Office needs to hire dedicated FTE to address equity in education. To track the MOU, develop programming needed to make SROs (or other programs as determined) more effective and/or phase them out of schools, maintain a good working relationship between the school district and the City. The subcommittee is aware of the new Chief Equity Officer and that there are others on staff with responsibilities in this realm. The feeling is that mixing this with other responsibilities does not allow the focus needed to make meaningful progress on these issues. PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 20 SALT LAKE CITY • RACIAL EQUITY IN •• POLICING COMMISSION The job description for such a position should be determined in collaboration with SLCSD and SLCPD to ensure the position is set up for success and is empowered to make meaningful change. OTHER ITEMS DEVELOPED BY THIS SUBCOMMITTEE TO ADVANCE AND IMPROVE SCHOOL SAFETY There were a number of other items developed by this subcommittee that should be outlined clearly in this report. 1. Suggestions for the SRO oversight committee on how the efficacy of the current program could be measured. These are attached here in draft form and should be transmitted to Dr. Sandra Buendia at the Salt Lake City School District on behalf of the School Safety Subcommittee when the subcommittee feels they are complete. This has been an ongoing effort over the life of the subcommittee. 2. List of Potential Recommendations. The subcommittee has been tracking the work they have been doing in a Google Document - many of the items in that spreadsheet should be used to inform a future MOU, should it be negotiated in the future. The subcommittee also reserves the right to advance any of them as official REP recommendations should it become appropriate as the work of this subcommittee continues in the future. Policies and Practices POLICY AND PRACTICES RECOMMENDATIONS The Subcommittee presented five recommendations to the City Council. The five recommendations covered the following: 1. Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras 2. Internal Implicit Bias Survey to SLCPD 3. Community-Based Training on the History of Policing with People of Color 4. Co-Response (Mental Health) 5. Call Diversion and Dispatch 1. Police Officer Body-Worn Cameras (revised and approved 6/2/2021) PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 21 SALT LAKE CITY • RACIAL EQUITY IN ••• POLICING COMMISSION Utah Code sets minimum standards for activation, storage, notifications, and other body worn camera procedures. Body-worn camera use in the Salt Lake City Police Department is outlined in Policy 422 (Portable Audio /Video Recorders), which is largely dictated by Utah Code 77-7a (Law Enforcement Use of Body-worn Cameras) and adopted in 2016. Additionally, the City Council adopted Ordinance 54 on December 1, 2020 for the Police Department's use of body-worn cameras that formalizes recent policies and executive orders guiding body-worn camera use, data, records, and reporting (2.10.200). The Racial Equity in Policing Commission believes the current policy and ordinance is part of a multifaceted approach the City is taking to examine internal systems and identify paths toward better accountability, transparency, and equity. SLCPD's related policies and Ordinance 54 match or exceed state law requirements with their use. Additionally, the Commission found that SLCPD is progressive in the use of their cameras by incorporating additional accountability and transparency beyond what state law requires. Examples include internal auditing and outside auditing, two levels of reports, and random audits of footage. This Commission supports the current body-worn camera policies and ordinance and recommends SLCPD continue to strive to be the "gold standard" of best practices nationwide. Additional recommendations to achieve "gold standard" include making the following modifications to policy and Ordinance 54: • Ordinance 54 requires a qualified individual outside of SLCPD designated by the Mayor to randomly review and audit body worn camera videos. The Commission recommends that this position be identified and provided the necessary support and funding to perform these responsibilities. Furthermore, the Mayor's designation of this qualified individual shall require approval and support from the City's Chief Equity Officer. • Pursuant to current policy, standards, and ordinance multiple body-worn camera reviews and audits are required, including those by the SLCPD audit and inspection unit, the qualified individual designated by the Mayor, and the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA®). In furtherance of efficiency, transparency, accountability, and sustainability the Commission recommends the City specify, develop, and establish criteria regarding how body-worn camera reviews and audits are to be conducted and define uniform and consistent performance metrics and language. This should be done collaboratively with the current audit and inspection unit within SLCPD (Sgt. Mason Givens) and the PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 22 SALT LAKE CITY RACIAL EQUITY IN ME POLICING COMMISSION designated qualified outside body-worn camera auditor. Strongly consider including: • Audit all use of force reviews to determine if the reviews were conducted appropriately and if the outcomes are within policy. This includes K-9 incidents involving use of force. • Increasing the random reviews of videos by the outside qualified individual from 5 to 20 per month and include random sampling of officer videos as well as completed supervisor reviews and allow for direct selection. • As required by Ordinance 54, a record and report will be provided to the Mayor and City Council on a quarterly basis. The Commission recommends that the SLCPD audit and inspection unit also provide a record and report on the department's internal audit to the Mayor and City Council on a quarterly basis. • The Commission recommends these quarterly reports be provided to the Commission at the same time. • SLCPD should inform the Commission of any incidents reported to Internal Affairs. • Pursuant to Ordinance 54, any findings of material non-compliance with state law, City Code and Police Department policy will be referred to the Chief of Police, the City Attorney, the Council Chair, the Mayor and the Mayor's Chief of Staff. These findings should also be reported to the Commission. • SLCPD is required to provide an annual report to CALEA and such report should also be shared with the Commission. • SLCPD is currently nationally accredited by The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (CALEA®). This requires compliance with 162 standards and only 4% of law enforcement agencies nationwide are accredited. SLCPD should strive for an advanced accreditation (462 standards) and explore the costs, resources and benefits of doing so. 2. Internal Implicit Bias Survey to SLCPD Leverage the planned cultural assessment mentioned in the Police Department's Crime Control Plan to incorporate an implicit bias survey. The survey shall be PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 23 SALT LAKE CITY RACIAL EQUITY IN ME POLICING COMMISSION developed, administered, analyzed, and disseminated by a third-party as agreed to by the Commission and funded by the City. The results shall be shared with the Chief Equity Officer, Commission, City Council, Mayor's Office, SLCPD and the public. The survey shall be modeled after the Pew Research Center 2016 national Survey of Law Enforcement Officers*. The results shall be shared with the Commission to inform next steps. *References: See the PEW survey here as example and template: https://assets.pewresea rch.org/wp- content/uploads/sites/3/2017/08/29155639/2016-Law-Enforcement- Topline Final-1.pdf *Related article: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/03/10- things-we-know-about-race-and-policing-in-the-u-s/ 3. Community-Based Training on the History of Policing with People of Color The Commission recommends the funding, development, and delivery of community-based training on the history of policing of people of color. The session(s) is not just about the history of SLC and its communities of color, but of the United States and its history with People of Color and how that history impacts, and is still a part of, the present. It should be co-facilitated with a qualified community member(of color) knowledgeable and involved in equity work, and an officer Sgt./Lt. or above (of any race or ethnicity). The training shall be incorporated into the SLCPD onboarding process and provided to new employees within the first 30 days of employment. This should also become a part of in-service training since only focusing on the Academy and new officers misses the majority of officers and would indicate that this is not a check-the-box, nor a one and done. Content would be different after all officers have gone through an initial session(s). The session(s) should be a mix of history/present day examples of legal and social impacts based on race and ethnicity, understanding institutional bias and racism presented with no blame but as a description of what is. It should include an understanding of personal bias and examples of the impacts of both personal and institutional bias. PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 24 SALT LAKE CITY RACIAL EQUITY IN ME POLICING COMMISSION There should be an opportunity and the space and climate created for officers to speak candidly. If there is not a sharing of perspectives, with the ability to be open to hearing alternative perspectives, there will be no real chance for"AH HA moments". Space must be created to be comfortable having uncomfortable conversations. The Commission and SLCPD estimate the following scope: • 700 officers to be trained. • 25 officers per training group. • 28 sessions (budget 30 sessions for makeup dates and/or new employees). • Two hours each session (totals 60 hours). It is recommended that this training be funded and developed as soon as reasonably possible, and all officers complete the training within a reasonable time. Additionally, it is recommended that Council provide any necessary additional funding for voluntary overtime pay to ensure regular staffing needs can still be met while officers take time to attend the training within this timeline. 4. Co-Response (Mental Health) The Community Connections Center and SLCPD CIT Co-Response model is needed and should be expanded. It should be the prioritized approach to mental health crisis response. Mental health access disproportionately impacts minority communities. According to recent data, 25% of calls to law enforcement from African Americans are mental health related -this highlights the importance of the initial moments and how to best respond. Therefore, we recommend expansion and prioritization of the current co-response model with the following: • Focus on communities of color. Reach out to those communities and provide more community policing in these areas and build trust. Understand their needs and educate them on SLCPD's response and assess if it is accessible to them. • Expand the co-response program to provide co-response during hours that are at a higher risk for use of force situations - late afternoon and evening. PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 25 SALT LAKE CITY • RACIAL EQUITY IN 7•• POLICING COMMISSION • Provide co-response during virtually all hours and days where mental health crisis calls most frequently occur: Short-term/Immediate: • Two officers should be redeployed to afternoon shift hours (1430-0030, or 2:30 PM to 12:30 AM). • One CIT/HOST officer on each shift should work a staggered schedule that covers Saturday and Sunday. • Two clinicians from the Community Connection Center should be redeployed to afternoon shift hours (1430-0030, or 2:30 PM to 12:30 AM). • One clinician on each shift should work a staggered schedule that covers Saturday and Sunday. • The CIT/HOST Sergeant should vary, and stagger hours as needed to provide additional coverage to both sets of assignments. • The department should consider offering pay incentives for both officers and clinicians working afternoon shift hours and weekends to be able to consistently fill these assignments. Mid-term/6-12 months: • As staffing permits, build up this program by increasing the number of officers from 4 to 10 to match the number of social workers. There are currently 10 social workers and 4 officers, which means only 4 teams are available at a time. This increase in officers would allow for 10 teams. • Assess and evaluate a Civilian EMS Response (like Denver's STAR)with an outside agency when time is appropriate. 5. Call Diversion and Dispatch Engage in a dispute system design process to develop the best/most appropriate model/system for incoming calls, diversion and dispatch coordination and response. This process should consider and/or include the following: • Collaboration with public safety to understand how 9-1-1 calls are being taken and directed. PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 26 SALT LAKE CITY • RACIAL EQUITY IN •• POLICING COMMISSION • Understanding how communities are being policed and how they want to be policed. Engage each of the City's community councils and its communities. • Add a mental health question to the 911 dispatch script"Hello, 911. Is this a fire, health, police, or mental health emergency?" • Establishing a civilian force response team to handle certain calls for service related to low level investigative crimes and low-level disputes. (Matrix Call Diversion Opportunities). PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 27 SALT LAKE CITY RACIAL EQUITY IN ME POLICING COMMISSION Continuing Opportunities It is the desire of Commission to continue its work after the completion of this Phase One component. The work of building trust and understanding, and creating meaningful change takes time. The Commission believes they have offered meaningful ways to improve outcomes for communities and people of color in their engagements with SLCPD. Further, the Commission believes that to profoundly change culture and understanding is an on- going process of engagement. The difficulties of the past year for both Communities of Color and police are apparent to all. It will take both to work to improve outcomes and the Commission believes in its work and the accomplishments to date. It will take the continued support of the elected leaders of this city to ensure expectations for police are clear, and accountability for poor, unprofessional, or unacceptable behavior is expected, consistent, and swift. The Commission hopes to continue to provide methodologies that support the creation of the best outcomes for all residents of Salt Lake City, and specifically its Communities of Color. Additionally, the Commission hopes that it can be involved in a meaningful way in the monitoring and oversight of its recommendations. PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 28 • SALT LAKE CITY .1. RACIAL EQUITY IN ■■■ POLICING COMMISSION Appendices Appendix 1 Small group listening sessions (Part I) a. SLCPD officers b. SLCPD chiefs c. School Resource Officers d. Utahns with Traumatic Brain Injuries/Intellectual Disabilities Appendix 2 Public Listening Session I (January 28) a. Polls/text comments b. Comments/Themes FAQ Appendix 3 Public Listening Session II (May 19) a. Polls/text comments b. Graphs c. Comments Appendix 4 Small Group Listening Sessions (Part II) a. Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander b. LGBTQ c. African-American/Black Community Groups d. Utah Black Chamber of Commerce e. Latinx and Hispanic Groups f. Native American and Indigenous Appendix 5 Social Pinpoint Comments/Data a. Survey data b. Forum Comments Appendix 6 Text Message Survey Comments/Data a. Polls b. Comments PHASE ONE REPORT •June 2021 Listening Session—SLCPD (Officers/Beat Patrol) Attendees: 5 participants,two people with the rank of officer, patrol sergeant, and others have some rank or supervisory responsibilities. Larry—Thank you for all those that can attend this morning.The profession of policing has been through a lot in the last 6 to 12 months.The primary session of this meeting is to hear from you. It is not to discuss community concerns—its to hear from your perspectives about your jobs. We are here to listen and to report back to the commission. This is meant to be a judgement free zone. All comments are equally welcomed. This meeting will not be recorded. No name attribution in the notes. Why are you here and what do you hope to get out? • There has been a lot of discussion about racial bias. I have not seen it in my job. I am frustrated that people see us as bias. We have done a lot to train to ensure a decrease in bias. We work for a great department and we want to show that to the public. • With this committee forming right on the heels of the unrest this summer, my feeling was that it was formed on assumptions about our department. The commission was formed as a reaction to mob violence and political pressure. Our patrol staff feels really defensive about our department. With that frustration, I need to have understanding [of what this commission thinks and what their intent is].That is what I am here for—what is being discussed and how can I gain from those perspectives. • I am here because I want to hear what everyone is discussing. I am not sure what to expect. I agree with the other comments. I just don't see what people are accusing us of. I haven't experienced racial motivation and I haven't heard anything. So I am interested to see where this all goes. • My interest is multi-faceted. I am intrigued to see where this goes in Salt Lake City. I work on the west-side, I am very interested because of that perspective.The west side is (is what? I don't remember, either) • I would like to help contribute to the process—scrutiny is not undue.We have a lot of power and I think it is important to have scrutiny. The way this process came about was through an assault on our characters. I was hit my protestors and they threatened horrible things to us and our families. We started this whole thing by being hit in the face.This is a hard place to come from. I would like to learn what the commission is doing to learn from police practitioners. Often times people go to police chiefs for a perspective, but it is important to have boots on the ground staff. You need the perspectives of the actual staff on the ground.The human costs of this work—I would like the commissioners to understand that I think about leaving the police force every day. When you hear the phrase "racial equity in policing"in the context of your community of Salt Lake City,what comes to mind? • Accusatory—the term I hear is that it suggests it doesn't exist. (<-That's unclear) I feel like it does exist in our department (can't speak for others). I would like to be open-minded. I am not saying it might not exist, but I haven't seen it yet. o What does it look like when there is racial equity? ■ Equal distribution of employment. Internally on how we employ—is there equity or balance in those we employ.There is equal opportunity for any one to come work for us. ■ No bias in policing. We don't employ those that are racially motivated. ■ Citizens feel safe and equally policed • Defensive—I don't see it in our profession. I would like to know where people think we are being biased. When I police the West vs the East side, I never think about the difference in race or belief system. I just address each situation the same way. I don't think I am doing anything wrong— I don't see other police that way.Where is that notion that our police are mistreating the public? o I would love to have examples of bias and racial discrimination. Based on percentages, it likely has happened. However, I haven't seen it widespread. I feel like it is a political hot button to accuse us of misconduct. o My hope is that this commission was created so they could see there is no bias in SLCPD. We would likc the commission to invcstigtc us. We are under the impression that the commission have chips on their shoulder and something against the police department. So we would like to know what they have against us.There are commission members who have publicly expressed anti-police sentiments. What are their biases? Is it even possible for them to be objective in this endeavor? • I think a lot of officers feel the same way, as already stated. I hope the finding from this study is that we are not biased. We do not look at how people look when how we respond. I, personally, choose to work on the west side of the city because I appreciate the people on that side of the city.They are God-fearing,family oriented, hard-working people. We don't act upon a anyone's appearance. We act according to their actions, regardless of color. • I grew up in Glendale and I still live on the West side. When I hear the racial equity and go back to that side of the city—it brings up a question of what? I felt blindsided by that—show me where we don't treat people equally? I am looking for a pattern in traffic stops—it never has anything to do with race. We don't know the race involved. o Vehicles pattern of behavior—prostitution is high in the area I work. You are looking for patterns. Vehicles traveling late at night or early morning. Looking for vehicles circling the block, appearing unaware of where they are driving. o People on the commission came after me,following a police shooting, and that was difficult. • I believe equity is extremely important to this department. Before this all came to the forefront, the department trained its cops on equity. At the beginning of this, I put forth examples of systemic racism that I have seen in the department. No one has reached out to me about these examples. I brought it up to management and to the mayor—no one has reached out. o Juvenile Shoplifting—the parent doesn't speak English and we [the private security officers] encourage the parent to take out a credit with the store.This doesn't feel equitable. ■ Retail theft is shoplifting. The $2,500 fine mentioned by Mike is the civil side. It's what the State of Utah allows by statute. It allows the security officcr company to levy "treble damages" against a person they detained. [I wonder if Sandra would be willing to address the legislature about this. None of us officers think it's fair, especially to the poor who steal something worth a few dollars, but then get levied a civil fine that can be over$100. I'm guessing on that$100, but I've actually seen it higher] o Most of the time, when I initiate a traffic stop, I do not know people's race. ■ Patterns of behavior—you can't gain perspective on our profession from notes or an hour-long session. • Patrol staff—most people are of the opinion that it doesn't matter what we say—SLC is going to do what its going to do.They don't want to attend because it feels futile. I had a discussion with a few people—they said there are mountains and valleys.We are just going to ride this time period out—keep our mouth shut. I don't see us coming back up or out of this negative perception. How would you characterize the culture and climate internally within the department on race and relationships with communities of color in SLC? • A source of pride—Before all this stuff, many people outside of law enforcement have said that I am a good person that is committed to the people. I work with other outstanding people. Going to work now is demoralizing—there is a deep human cost, as part of this job. o What is the relationship with communities of color—a very small group of the population have had the opportunity to taint the perception of our work. My interactions with the public have been positive. • We have factual evidence.Things have become worse after May 30th. The large group who showed up to our city were not from SLC.The way our Mayor and Admin treated us were not great. We have a 93%favoritism with the public and a very high level of approachability. o Because a few outliers have thrown things at us, now we have a bad name, despite our record. o We have examples on our SLCPD positive interactions—we don't have examples of negative interactions. • There is zero trust between officers and anyone above the rank of Captain.There is zero trust in the Mayor and City Council and District Attorney. We were crucified by them publicly. It is all about appearance for them —there is no concern about us. This commission was established by the very people who threw us under the bus to protect their own image and careers. • I think our relationships with communities of color are excellent. Our officers do so much for these communities.They have very good hearts. • My perception is that our relationships with our citizens of color WAS a source of pride.That has been stripped away. Instead of having our practices appropriately and productively scrutinized to improve address issues of systemic racism. Our profession has been subjected to libel and slander to the extent that I don't know how much more I can do this. • Most people on the West Side would like the cops to be in the area.There are gangs that rule some of these areas and the normal people in these areas are scared of supporting us publicly. Much attention has been paid to the department's use of force policy. What's your perspective on that policy? • I worked on the committee that revised the use of force policy.The mayor's press conference that said they were going to redo the policies was a slap in the face. I am not debating being scrutinized and having policy revised.The fact of the matter is our use of force policy is not the problem. When I first got to this department, I thought the policy was incredible. Now policy has no purpose, other than to switch liability on to the individual officer. Policy doesn't drive cultural change—inspiration does.The cultural impact is that officers are afraid to address issues and use force. • Officers are absolutely afraid to use force • Why are officers afraid to use force? o I don't want to use force because I don't want to be thrown under the bus publicly. It may cost us our jobs. [We may also be charged criminally by this hostile administration] o The Mayor and City Council have no problem throwing us under the bus publicly. • The use of force policies now include a clause that allows threatens termination.officers to be fired and terminated. Officers can be investigated without knowledge or representation. We are afraid to use force because our leaders will crucify us.The Audit Unit has become an extension of Internal Affairs. "Random" audits of body worn camera compliance are sent to sergeants, who are ordered to review up to 30 days of recordings for one or two of their officers. Even when no policy violation is found, the officer is required to sign a letter which basically says, "You have been investigated for violation of a policy. Even though you weren't aware of it and had no representation,you have been exonerated.You are required to sign this document that acknowledges you are under our microscope, and that future violations may result in your termination. (I have 3 officers who are leaving, based solely upon this procedure.)There are much bigger issues at play at our communities that are causing these issues. Why are we not addressing having fathers in the home?Why are we not teaching our children morality and personal responsibility? When you put a band aid on an arterial bleed, why are you critiquing the band aid for failing to stop the bleeding?The police are a band aid for all of our culture's problems.You need to look at the causes that lead to police encounters. (I have no doubt this perspective will be summarily dismissed. It just doesn't fit the narrative) • The policy for use of force is overbearing and the only thing that matters [to the mayor, CC, and the chief] now.The commission needs to understand that they are were established and endorsed by those that have no support for us. We feel betrayed and do not trust the Mayor or City Council or the Chief or the Assistant Chief or the D.A. And we certainly don't trust the media. The more dramatic the story, the more money the media earns. • The policy isn't the problem—the crazy swing in how it is being enforced. All of my patrol videos are going to be audited at any time. My camera has to be on but then I have to document it a bunch of different ways. Someone will watch my camera but then the city is hiring someone to randomly look at cameras. No one believes this will be random. It feels like a fishing expedition. When you take an officer with more video—it makes them not want to do the job. It feels like people are looking at us and trying to find fault. I was receiving phone calls from the city privately that were supporting me but then publicly they were bashing me. How can I trust my superiors after that?They will throw you under the bus for a news story. Put yourself in the shoes of the Mayor and Police chief,what would you do?There are high tow levels of distrust and you are getting calls from some in the community asking for changes—what would you do? • Asking the police department what changes could be made—you are our experts on this subject. • When they announced the executive order there was huge backlash from officers because they did not ask for our input, when they did finally get officer input the officers made the police something workable. why not do that more. We have been ignored, absolutely. that is why only 5 of us are here today at this meeting. • One of our core values—courage. I don't see a lot of that. You have to be courageous enough to speak the truth. I think we are falling down as an agency. When we are accused, I want to see examples. We had to take on the mistakes of Minneapolis. We don't want to be accused for what happened across the country. No one is courageous enough to stand up for us. • I think the chief needs communication—remove politics from his position. Being political has changed how this profession is run right now. If I was the chief, I would be focusing on the officers. I think we may need change—but I don't think changes need to be changed by the small vocal minority.They need to be thoughtful and methodical changes. When the executive order was made,the officers gave a lot of great input. We need to keep up those processes—it makes the officers feel like their voices actually matter. No one thinks this matters and no one cares. If I was the chief, I would communicate more regularly with the officers. No one is listening to the patrol officers. (I will add to this:The chief has a long history of making a show of listening, but our comments have always been ignored. He'll go through the motions of "listening," but we all know it doesn't mean anything to him) • Would you all be willing to ask others to participate? o If you came to a line up—officers would be willing to talk. They will be defensive in the beginning. o People will not engage and it's too late. We need to see action by our leaders. I don't want to ask others to engage. o On May 30th, standing on the front lines and I saw my friends get carted away with injuries. I got hit by a commercial firework. When it was safe and all was secure,the chief came out and knelt with the protestors. This was an ultimate betrayal to our department. ■ The two people in power-one has no courage and the other has no conscience. conscious ■ There is nothing the Chief can do to have our trust. o I would like to meet with the commission—I want to understand them. o We are the dumping ground for everything wrong in society—the police are portrayed as the problem. No one wants to take accountability. We are banging our heads on the wall. No one listens. It is hard when people ask us to come and talk again. e This is the last chance I am giving the department to make things right. effort I will make to be part of a discussion with our administration. Witnessing this for 30 years, I have little faith anything will come of this, other than anti-police results. 1. 11.21 Beat Cops Monday,January 11,2021 8:06 AM Larry conducted a kickoff statement-talking about the goals for today, gathering feedback for the commission Interested in learning from the public and stakeholders about interactions with PD, specifically communities of color and regarding communities of color Attendance-5 participants, only two people with the rank of officer,the others have some supervisory responsibilities What brought you here Officer 1 - Has never seen instances of racial bias and is frustrated at the perception that this bias exists. How can we better communicate the steps we've taken to address this and the realities that he sees? Officer 2 -Officers are feeling undue scrutiny, he feels that the best way to deal with this is to better understand the other perspective Officer 3 -works graveyards no previous experience before PD -wants to hear some of the conversation first hand so that he doesn't just hear it indirectly- had a company for 15 years before this. He doesn't see the things that he feels people are accusing the PD of and wants to see where all of this is going Officer 4-This issue is at the forefront of policing today everywhere - he works in Pioneer precinct where a majority of the minority community resides Officer 5 - Doesn't feel that scrutiny is undue -we have the power to take people's freedoms away-so scrutiny is in order. He wants to be a part of the process. Before the protests - he would've been wide open to the conversation about reform. Post protests -came personal attacks and physical assaults - making the conversation a bit more difficult to participate in. It's common to go to the leadership - he's pleased to see that the cops that are on the street are being included in this conversation as well.The human cost of this work- he wants the commission to understand why he considers leaving police work most days. Larry provided an explanation of the Commission and its work (the same explanation provided on the website) What do you think of when you think about racial equity in policing? • The word "Accusatory" comes to mind - because it implies that it doesn't exist. He's worked a lot of different assignments and feels he's seen a lot of different parts of the department. What does it look like when we have racial equity?Those we employ in the organization, is the opportunity there?Are we employing tactics or individuals that are bringing racial bias into their work. Do people feel they are being treated equally without regard to any factor? • Makes him feel defensive. Shows up to the call, handles the call and then moves on to the next call. Where is the evidence that we are doing anything wrong? He doesn't see it. Wants to see an example of how SLCPD has done something biased or discriminatory. Wants concrete examples- so its hard to understand. Maybe he's not attune to it? He hopes he would recognize it and put a stop to it. Feels its just a political hot button that is being used as an excuse to levy accusations at the PD. o Follow up comment on this from another officer-they hope that there is a finding that the SLCPD is better than other departments and that we find that there are no problems of racism in this department.They feel that if you look at everything • There are feelings that the members of this Commission is made of up people who have a "chip on their shoulder" and an axe to grind. They would like to hear the specific of examples they have of this racism.The same people on the Commission are people who lobbied against him personally, who don't know him or his values and followed him home. Feels that those things were done just based on the fact that he is white. • Officer that is from the West Side, hears from neighbors about this issue and is frustrated at the accusation. He looks for a pattern - looking at vehicles that fit a pattern of behavior- he usually can't see inside the vehicle most of the time. State Street is a great example -there are vehicles that drive certain streets, pull over in certain areas, or near the seedy motels.Two rights- Main St to Major St looking for drugs or a hooker • This officer has offered up some examples of systemic racism examples o How this department handles retail theft-someone who is ESL and maybe doesn't understand the PD system -a uniformed officer issues the ticket to the parent of a youth offender-then they have a $2500 ticket hanging over them issued by the loss control officer [from a private security company] too and they have to set up a line of credit to pay that off? Doesn't seem fair. • He has had those examples ready to share for a year and no one has taken him up on that officer, including the mayor herself • A ride along is insufficient to help them gain perspective, an hour long zoom meeting is insufficient • There is an assumption that it doesn't matter what the officers say-what's going to happen is going to happen. Some people want to just put their heads down and keep moving without saying anything. • How would you characterize the culture and climate internally within the department on race and relationships with the communities of color in SLC? • Prior to this, it would've been characterized as "a point of pride" - now its demoralizing-we felt we were doing well.There is a human cost to this job that is huge-traumatic incidents stay with each officer-and putting this on top of it has people wanting to quit. o Copied from the chat"Point of clarification, for the purpose of notes: My perception is that our relationships with our citizens of color WAS a source of pride.That has been stripped away. Instead of having our practices appropriately and productively scrutinized to improve address issues of systemic racism. Out profession has been subjected to libel and slander to the extent that I don't know how much more I can do this." • A small portion of the population has had the opportunity to paint the entire department with this brush -one on one they say "thank you for your service" or"I know its not you".There were a small group of known felons that perpetrated the violence during the riots-they have a pattern of that type of behavior.The large group of people who protested aren't from our City. We have a 93%favoritism and 96%approachability-from our five year plan.This is undoing a ton of work and effort to improve things with SLCPD and this "defunding" brand has overshadowed that. • The fear is that we have factual evidence of the bad behavior during the riots and the positive track record. • There is zero trust between beat cops and the chief, mayor and city council right now-as well as the district attorney.They are making decisions to protect their reputations and their careers, not based on the facts. • Communities of color and PD relationships are fine -officers are going above and beyond to show compassion and they aren't asking for recognition -these officers have good hearts • Militant organizations like the Brown Berets are assaulting officers and are personally attacking them. Where is this coming from? We don't see any issues in our day-to-day work. Much attention has been paid to the department's use of force policy. What's your perspective on that policy? • Officers were asked to be included in the process to revise this policy.The policy was not the problem - policy does not drive culture. Inspiration and leadership drive culture change. He liked the policies when he arrived. Policy has no purpose but to shift the liability on to the individual officer.The cultural impact of the changes in policy are functionally- people are afraid to do their jobs o He'd be hesitant because he doesn't want to be crucified in front of the community for doing his job. o The leadership of the city will not hesitate for one second to ruin us publicly before knowing any details o Violation of policy can result in termination - if there is no violation of policy, they have to give a letter that says they are exonerated. Please sign here.This means,you've been investigated without your knowledge or representation o Why are we looking so far downstream and scrutinizing on the enforcement end, when we know the causes of much criminal and undesirable behavior comes from childhood adversity, poverty and what we teach our children?SPECIFICALLY, no fathers in the home and the disintegration of the nuclear family. o The Commission needs to understand that they are endorsed and established by the people who DO NOT support us,they have betrayed us. o The swing of how the policy is being enforced. He does 400+stops per year, that's 400+ videos that he has to add comments to and do other things for.They are all being reviewed, etc.They are hiring an auditor- no one believes this will be random -they think it will be a fishing expedition. It makes the officers not want to do the job - more videos= more fodder for the auditors. o Distrust is bred when leadership comes to you and tells you you've done nothing wrong and then crucify you in the media -this won't lead to positive culture change If you were in charge, chief, mayor, city council and you were faced with this situation -what would you do? • Ask us....unless you have stood in a situation where someone who is not complying with your lawful order and have had to use force.You can't possibly make effective change. • They feel like they've been asked an ignored. • They spent hundreds of hours giving feedback on the change in policy and were effectively ignored. • Copied from the chat"When they announced the executive order there was huge backlash from officers because they did not ask for our input, When they did finally get officer input the officers made the police something workable. why not do that more? We have been ignored, absolutely. that is why only 5 of us are here today at this meeting" • In addition to courage-the chief needs to communicate. He needs to remove himself from politics. He needs to be focused on his officers and his department. Slow and methodical changes, with input from those doing the work.They have a lot to share and contribute. We need more voices from the PD but trust is broken - and when they have been asked to participate in things-they can't endorse any more withdraws from the energy bank with no promise that it will make any difference. Officers stood and were hit with bricks, metal and frozen water bottles. Once it was safe and secured -then the leadership came out and knelt with those protestors who just assaulted us. There is no hope for those leaders -we have no faith in them.They say one thing to us and then they say the direct opposite to the media.They allow societies issues to be hung on individual officers,that's too heavy a weight to bear.This is the last chance many are giving the department- they will leave.Those that can easily leave, already have. There are those who would participate, names attached, in a true conversation with the Commission. Salt Lake City Racial Equity and Policing Commission Listening Session - SLCPD Chiefs January 11, 2021 Attendees: We had one Deputy Chief, one Assistant Chief, one Chief of Police, one Investigations Commander, and one Police Lieutenant attend the meeting. Objectives: • Understand the concerns and aspirations of those who have had interactions with the Salt Lake City Police Department, particularly communities of color, and key stakeholders interested in the work of the Racial Equity in Policing Commission. • Provide and hold space for an honest dialogue and candid feedback for the Commission. • Solicit advice and innovation from the community in formulating solutions. • Ensure that Commission recommendations reflect community values and dynamics. Discussion Agreements: • Open-mindedness: Listen to all points of view • Acceptance: Suspend judgment as best you can • Curiosity: Seek to understand rather than persuade • Discovery: Question old assumptions, look for new insights • Sincerity: Speak for yourself about what has personal heart and meaning • Brevity: Go for honesty and depth but don't go on and on • Respect: Focus on issues rather than individuals. Who you are and what are you hoping to get out of tonight's experience? • I really appreciate the SLC REP (we refer to you all as REP). We appreciate what you are bringing to the community. It is a place where we can ask hard questions and have a safe place to do so. It is to help us be a better department. We want to be a good department. We are one of the oldest in the country. You get out what you put in - there is always more we can do to serve the community. We want to be the best in the country. The number one tool we have is the community - the more trust we have the better our department will be. I hope to have the community and our department come together so we can serve better. • My main role is to translate vision into action. We were shocked on May 30th - the shock was because we thought we were doing great. We had done surveys that told us we were doing a good job. We had meetings with the community and received feedback - no one showed up. We thought we were doing fine. It was shocking on May 30th. We think this is helpful and are excited to have this feedback. If people stop calling the police, then our statistics look better. With communities of color, they have stopped talking with us. I am excited to start talking to them and to implement the changes that come from the commission. • We came into this, last summer, under the impression that we were on top of our game. That is our perspective in the world we were functioning in. It is interesting to hear other perspectives - they can be hard to hear. But we live in an echo chamber- other perspectives can be surprising. Oftentimes the other opinions feel like an attack. I am interested in having an honest opinion and to hear that feedback. • Violent crimes get reported but we do face obstacles with cooperation with facets of the community. I want to find ways to build better trust and build cooperation. This will help crime across the city - especially poor communities. • I think the REP commission is a good thing. It will help us open our minds and be ahead of the game. When you hear the phrase "racial equity in policing" in the context of your community of Salt Lake City, what comes to mind? • Fair, compassionate, unbiased policing, for everyone - races, socioeconomic status, all communities. It comes down to compassion for the communities that we serve with unbiased representation. • Misunderstanding - we had a discussion with a police officer union meeting. It turned into a shouting match. When the officers hear structural racism, they hear "you are racist." They don't understand the difference between outright racism and implicit racism. This is a stumbling block moving forward discussing with our officers. It will be hard for them to see that the system is racist. A lot of them have never been taught that. We want to have racial equity in policing but it will be a stumbling block with our officers. • When we say "Racial Equity in Policing," one could infer that there is no racial equity in policing, and what we're trying to do is create something that doesn't exist. Calling someone from the millennial generation racist - this is very offensive. They immediately become defensive. We have been taught about implicit bias - it is not intentional racism. Once you get people to realize we aren't calling them a name (racist), then we can work with them. But we have the challenge of helping people seeing past those labels. This is about learning about our implicit bias. • SLCPD is a very progressive police department. It is composed of some of the most compassionate, professional officers with a very high level of integrity. We provide some of the best training. Racial Equity in Policing insinuates on its face that the officers are racist, uncaring, and unprofessional. This is directly opposite of how they perceive themselves. That's how it's been taken by many officers, or the general attitude that is being picked up. o What does progressive mean to you? ■ SLCPD is part of IACP and all of the best practices in policing organizations. There is good research behind this. We follow best practice and we put them into our policies. We hold our officers to this standard and they take to those trainings and expectations. We have some of the most professional and best-trained officers in the nation. ■ We have been able to rub shoulders on President Obama's commission on policing. Our classes had many leaders throughout the country - out of that organization, we have been able to talk and learn from leaders around the country. ■ Our Police Department brought in Fair and Impartial Policing and the Arbinger Institute. We were one of the first agencies to have CIT training. We were one of the first to have social workers. We formed a group of the community to help reform things. • You talk to many citizens that they would rather be stopped by SLCPD than any other police department. • We formed CAG and spoke to anti-police activists to hear what their main concerns were. What might it look like if your department achieved racial equity in policing? How might you want that measured? • If our demographics of our officers matched the demographics of our communities. This may be one way to measure. It is a revolving circle of trust. If our community trusts us, we can have more officers that represent these communities. o Some things that could help this: we need to meet the community where they're at. COVID has been hard and we haven't been able to go out on the streets, but if the community trusts us, we will get more people in our department. Part of Racial Equity in Policing is to work towards this. We want all communities to trust us and get to know our communities. A lot of people don't want to be cops and it doesn't appeal to a lot of people. There are many reasons for this, and one of them is distrust. • I think the greatest measurement is from the community we serve. There are so many things we can do, best training, best policies...etc. if we don't involve the community, then the trust is never built. After Ferguson, I went and called Pastor Davis and asked to meet with him. I walked in and said this is what we want to do - we want to build these in roads and build trust. He paused and lowered his glasses and said -we have been here for 42 years - where have you been? o You have to do it with the community and in the community. The community wants to help us - they want to participate in the policies. This is the SLC police department - this is the communities department. We have a lot of work to do to make them feel like our police force is for them. This is the most rewarding work we can do to build trust. • It is important for the communities to tell us what to do. We have never really asked the community what they want us to focus on. I think it would be good for them to be involved in what we are focusing on work on. o Are there certain communities you hear from that you don't have to go out and talk to?Are there communities that are much less likely to reach out and you don't have to make the first move with? ■ Yes, that definitely happens. You have to be completely engaged in outreach to the communities - some are very fearful of the police department. We have to do a lot to bring them in. • To add - I think keeping SROs at schools is really important. When I worked at West High School, I built relationships with those kids. SROs build relationships with the communities and this is really helpful to building trust. Reaching out to specific communities, such as the Latino Coalition, and asking what we can do better, could result in progress. • Doing surveys is also really helpful - it helped us to know how the community was feeling. • What might some of the indicators be that the department could use to indicate that they have achieved REP? What could show this? What is currently inequitable and needs to be addressed? o That is really hard to measure. I still think it comes from the community. I have been to church at the Calgary Baptist church a lot. You see people come up and say they really want to be a police officer- that is a huge win. As we do more of this deliberate outreach, more people will want to be a part of the police department. After May 30th, can you describe some things that you did differently to demonstrate that you needed to do something different? • I heard that the community wanted change in our policies. The chiefs wrote the executive orders -we used the Mayor's pulpit to put forth that change. We need to meet the expectations of all of our communities. I always ask the officers -we all went to CJ 101 that covered the errors of law enforcement and the different eras. We get to live through a reform period. It's exciting to live through this time and to create change. A lot of the cops feel like everyone is their enemy - I keep reminding them to lower their guard and to keep making small changes to meet the needs of the entire community. Change is coming, let's embrace it. • Two things cops hate the most: the way things are, and change. To the previous point, these conversations have been happening. We're all about serving our communities, but sometimes we get very black and white and forget that it's all about change. We had over 270 protests over the summer, and a lot of our time was spent dealing with those protests. The next 2 weeks are going to be a fiasco as well. I don't think the officers/communities are scared of change, but it's going to take time. The community only wants to be "us," and they don't want "us vs. them." Pushing people together results in people seeing each other as people. Much attention has been paid to the department's use of force policy. What's your perspective on that policy? • This department is a best practice department. The Use of Force policy isn't just one thing; it's a conglomerate including deescalation, [guidelines about] when you should [use force], when you shouldn't. Married to any UOF policy is training, and you have to drive that training home. Our UOF policy and the tweaks we've made to it recently are moving in the right direction. Our officers embrace and understand that we need to have these UOF policies. SLC is not having chokeholds, etc. It's not in our policy; it's forbidden. So after some explanation and involvement of officers, it was looked at differently and not as some scary thing in the corner. • As a part of Internal Affairs, I learned a lot about use of force. Historically, these have been based on case law. Our analysis of force was always analytical. What I learned when I explained those things to the community, is that they were more based on intuition. Community's perception on the use of force is very different from how we perceive how we are making those decisions. There are policies, like use of force, that are going to be difficult for the community to understand. Our new policies have moved us well beyond the standards of case law and more to a community stand. We have to be in the middle here. • The community standard is different than what the law demands. When we wrote the new policies, we wanted to raise our standards. We still have a ways to go but the policy we do have is really good. • Graham v. Connor- https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-6571: this is a baseline and we wanted to be better than the baseline. What training do you feel either needs improvement or needs to be introduced that officers don't currently get? • We're very excited to hear about REP and what training we bring back for SLCPD. You can go to training, and sit there for 8-10 hours and learn the policies, but until you actually practice them, nothing will happen. Scenario-based training (where officers are given an opportunity to try out what they've learned and emulate that into their communities)will be really good for our department and putting into practice the things we're learning. Training usually is everyone reading something and signing off that they read it. We want to give hands on training to reinforce the learning. • With scenario-based training, it will allow us to provide a variety of responses to situations. It will create muscle memory for situations and help them respond well. It will help them think through scenarios. • I think it is important we train a lot more than we do now - right now it is 36 hours for things we get sued for. Just the application of shooting the gun or shooting the taser instead of going through the scenarios and thinking about when force should be used and why. All of these things are just checking a box right now, and we should be spending more time on de-escalation and de-escalation without using force or deadly force. It's not so much the topics, but the issue of more training, because we're just doing the items so we are not sued. • Officers want more training - they suggested 200 hours of training. It came at their suggestion. • Walking out of the Police Academy, thinking you know everything, is due to some respected members saying that "this is everything." The reality is, the things that were taught 30-40 years ago as the basics, would be laughed at today. The reality is also that the people we have on the street right now believe in what the policies were before because they were taught by those they trusted. So if we modify policies, we need to modify how we teach them and there needs to be a consensus that "this is the right way to do things." We need buy-in from informal leaders of the organization to support these changes. The people the officers know and trust need to point to these modifications and say "yes, this is the way to move forward." • US Holocaust Museum - Policing in a Democratic Society -this was the best course I have ever taken. It teaches you to see people as humans. I would love to bring it here. Guidelines for notes 1 . Maintain anonymity - do not capture people's names 2. Capture themes of responses - in as much detail as possible 3. Save one copy in the google drive and one in our project folder: \\jub.com\Central\Clients\UT\SaltLakeCity\Projects\83-20-045_FacilitatorRacialE quity\Pubinv\ListeningSessions_FocusGroups\Listening Session Notes - the notes from previous sessions are saved here too if you would like further guidance on formatting 4. Contact Larry Schooler (Ichooler@kearnswest.com) ahead of meeting, if agenda hasn't been shared - so you can have a preview of what questions he plans to cover in each meeting (this will vary slightly - meeting to meeting Salt Lake City Racial Equity and Policing Commission Listening Session - SLCPD SROs January 19, 2021 Attendees: 8 student resource officers attended from a few of the high schools and elementary schools. What do you hope to get out of this experience? • Get a side you won't see from anyone else. We have a different perspective from working in the schools. • General understanding of what is happening in the schools in comparison to what is really going on in the schools. • Get on the same page. Why some people think one way and others think the other way. • I want it to be productive. I don't want it to be a waste of time. • I want this to be a productive meeting. I hope to learn different perspectives. • Hoping to get other perspectives on police in schools. I am hoping they will be able to see our perspectives. Half the squad is minority races and we want to get a feel for what they think of us. • See where the commission is headed and see what the opinions are What is the most misunderstanding about the work you do? • That we arrest anyone and we keep taking kids to jail • People overestimate what an arrest can have on people's life in the future. The difference in how visible those records are as an adult. I knew gang members at a high school and one kid stopped after he was 18, and all of that is invisible after 18. When arrests are made, the consequences are not as dire as we think. People think that once you get a couple arrests that it will be seen on a background check and that's not true. It's the false narrative from the school to prison pipeline. That's not actually the case when action is taken, it's not as severe as everyone thinks. • General perspective of cops - we are racist. We are the most diverse squad in the whole department and even for my caucasian or white colleagues, they treat everyone the same but when you break the law, you have to face the consequences. We have the discretion of giving verbal warnings or pressing charges. Most of us understand that kids' brains are developing and sometimes they make poor choices. • The studies that come out that have numbers saying - disproportionally colored people being arrested at higher rates of caucasians. We take the situations that come to us -we aren't seeking out specific races or picking out someone because of this or that. We don't get to choose what we respond to in the schools. I don't think it's a fair thing that offices are being looked at like that. • There is a lot of disparity and disparity can come out as racist. The end result is what is seen and we don't' have any control over this. What you are seeing in our numbers are results of a lot of other issues long before they get to us. The symptom with the police is the end of a long chain of other experiences - parent drug use, family issues...etc. When you hear the phrase "racial equity in policing" in the context of your community of Salt Lake City, what comes to mind? • Obviously, are our policies being applied equally on the basis of socioeconomic status and race. Am I conducting myself the same on the eastside as I am on the west side? • When I hear that, it is not a thought that comes to mind as to what my peers think. I think about what others on the outside - how do people perceive us doing our job? It is how we are perceived that affects our work. • Socioeconomics - the eastside versus the westside - people can get treated differently because of socio economics, it happens. I have been on the receiving end. All the guys I work with (SRO's), I can't put my finger on anything where they have treated anyone differently. It is more on what crimes they have committed and their behavior. This determines how they are going to be treated and dealt with. It boils down to the crime and the reason for the contact. We are a bit more reactive than proactive in trying to find things. It is not like patrol where we go looking for stuff. We don't go chasing kids down. • I have been called a race traitor - People think I am hispanic and they call me a traitor. I don't let it affect me. I chose this profession because I wanted to help people. • I have had a lot of experiences - I am hispanic, we have a bunch of schools on the westside. I have had a lot of administration and teachers call me on my day off and I refer them to my partner. They respond, no, we want you to come. We don't want your partner because he is a white male. Schools specifically want a minority officer and because of that I am favored because of the color of my skin. They voiced their opinion and they still chose this officer because of their race. I don't see other officers being racist, I feel more accepted there and the discrimination I experience is outside of the department. This primarily comes from admin and staff. They prefer the minority cops over the white cop. • What does the public think because of the badge we wear? • As a white male officer, I can have good interactions with minority people. I want to change the perception that I can't have good interactions because of my race. What do you see as your role within a school community? • A lot of us know that, in the current climate, that we serve as a protector. There have been a lot of school shootings. Having us in the schools is a big deterrent. You wear a lot of hats in the school - you become a teacher. I help a lot of students with their homework. You become a therapist for students dealing with things and they confide in us. We deal with staff, faculty, admin. We deal with the neighboring community as well. • We have several times with students dealing with home issues, suicides, runaways. We act as counselors and therapists but we are necessarily trained for that. Kids respect our opinions. I have been working patrol and I run into parents. I have been thanked for the advice I gave their kids. We are more than cops in a school. • I have worked to connect families to resources - social worker aspect. We have social workers at our disposal and I try to use them. • Media wants you to believe that this white cop comes in and x,y,z happens and I want to show up and be kind and change that perception. Do you want to be doing all the other roles (counselors, teachers,...etc)? • I think that is the job of an SRO. We are here to be mediators, cops, counselors. It helps build a relationship of trust. • What used to be ideal and gets overlooked is the best cops knew the area, he knew the families, he could mediate. In the last few decades, we have moved away from that. The SROs are the last bastion of that form of policing. All the kids know my names at the school and the parents know me. I think cops used to do more of that. We get the chance to do that type of work. • We are in a unique position as an SRO. We bridge the gap between the kids and the force. We see them day in and day out. A lot of them will come to us with problems that are not police related. It is a big facet of our jobs. A lot of these kids feel helpless. Some kids don't know how to ask for help. I have ingrained myself in the school. I coach at the school. Sometimes that has more of an impact than my role as a police officer. o Given the side of the law of what we can and cannot do - We can't do anything to hold them accountable outside of the law. We aren't going to be hands on to stop a student from being truant. We have our hands tied. We can't force a person to go back to school. The administrators are also overrun. o If a kid starts running, it escalates. We disengage and we can't do anything to use force. House Bill 239 took away our ability to enforce truancy. SLC does not enforce truancy or take students to court over it. Children can drop out of school and no one will do anything. o When kids drop out of school in Middle School, we have no way to enforce that they attend school. We know there is no recourse. It is hard to watch them fail. o Courts don't hold the parents accountable -we have no one to hold them accountable to their children not attending school. • Are you the accountability force in the school? o The way things are, the administrators get to their wits end and come to the law enforcement to fill the gaps in enforcement. It is pretty easy to educate them on what we can and cannot do. Do you feel you have the training and support to fulfill those additional roles? • We don't have a ton of training - basically none. We don't have resources to offer them. Everything I can offer are additional resources offered in the school. The SRO training is very little. • I worked at a different city as an SRO. The training in the other city was way better than in SLC. I was told this was the premier agency. But the other city offered out of state training for SROs and it was incredible. There were break out sessions to talk about school shootings and lots of other topics. Everything you could think of, they addressed. I have relied on previous experience coming to the SLC department. With the mental health issues, you just use your own personal experience. • You are given a little bit of mental health training at the academy. We are not trained to be therapists. We are given a small level of training until someone else can step in to help. • Our squad is pretty good. When we hire on, we vet the names and ask for people to fit the mold of an SRO. You have to have a certain level of patience. What should we be on the lookout for in our session with students? • Make sure they are sharing first hand accounts - they can get stories from a third party and don't actually know what happened. • When the kids come, ask them before their interaction with the SROs - did they have any interaction with an SRO prior to the incident? If they have had a prior interaction, was it a better experience because they already knew the SRO? o Try and find out their perception of law enforcement before an interaction with an SRO ■ How did that change after they met the SRO?A lot of times they have a different perception of an SRO. o The school wants us to be a shield when something bad happens (a shooting,...etc). We have a responsibility to protect the school -we would put ourselves in harm's way for them. We are willing to protect them even if they don't like us. o I have a few kids that have run from the administration to my office to take a break. It shows their comfort levels with us. o Ask the students where they learned their perception of police - a lot of times parents have set a hard perception of police for their children. School to Prison Pipeline -What are your perceptions of that? • On a local basis - there are some places that have zero tolerance. Even in SLC, ten years ago, this was the case. But this has changed significantly. The interactions with the cops in the schools is a symptom of the issues at home. o Example - a student with parents in prison - they tend to have more interactions with SRO's then others. It seems to others we are the ones putting them on this path but they have had years of abuse, neglect, and trauma and usually multiple run ins with the cops. We have to have a way to address the trauma and neglect. Even if we stopped arresting them in the schools, they will stay on that trajectory. • I don't think people understand after a student gets cited o Example: 14 and 16 year olds - they were in a young new gang. I charged these kids numerous times for assaulting teachers. The administrators were chasing down these kids and couldn't even do their jobs. I reached out to the prosecutors on their previous charges. Some of these students had very serious charges - beating, robbings,...etc. A lot of these charges were dismissed because they were younger than 18. They were not going before a judge. People think you are ruining a kids life by charging them. It is not ruining their lives because the juvenile history does get hidden at the age of 18. • There are students that have a slew of violent felonies and it is not being addressed because they are juvenile. Repeated offences need to be addressed and not just be a slap on the hand. Kids need to have consequences for their actions. Dismissal of cases solves nothing. • Kids not learning in their youth of the consequences will lead to a bad outcome once they are • By not holding them accountable - they don't' learn the consequences. They aren't protected anymore. They are held at a higher standard. The pipeline is created by not punishing students when they are juveniles. • School staff are the ones that build walls and spread the misperceptions. I think law-makers could learn a lot by spending a month in a school. Drive around the neighborhoods and see how the policing is happening. slcrepcommission.com Text "EQUITY" to (801) 575-7755 (801) 708-0935 Guidelines for notes 1 . Maintain anonymity - do not capture people's names 2. Capture themes of responses - in as much detail as possible 3. Save one copy in the google drive and one in our project folder: \\jub.com\Central\Clients\UT\SaltLakeCity\Projects\83-20-045_FacilitatorRacialE quity\Pubinv\ListeningSessions_FocusGroups\Listening Session Notes - the notes from previous sessions are saved here too if you would like further guidance on formatting 4. Contact Larry Schooler (Ichooler@kearnswest.com) ahead of meeting, if agenda hasn't been shared - so you can have a preview of what questions he plans to cover in each meeting (this will vary slightly - meeting to meeting Salt Lake City Racial Equity and Policing Commission Listening Session - People with Intellectual Disabilities/Traumatic Brain Injuries January 28, 2021 Attendees: Give general notes of the types of people that attended. For example - 5 participants, only two people with the rank of officer, the others have some supervisory responsibilities. Write down the questions that the facilitator asks in Bold • Capture the responses and follow-up here below in bullet points • If comments are sent in via the chat - call out that they were sent in via the chat and copied and pasted Introductions/Attendance There were 9 registrants for the meeting. There were 5 attendees and 3 staff members. What brought you here today? • I know very little about this organization. I come from a perspective of traumatic brain injury. I would like to understand what we are talking about here today. I have had multiple brain tumors and have my own brain shortcomings. I am in a unique position as a neurologist that is unable to actually practice. My interactions with the police are more from an observer perspective. I want to understand how policing is applied with those in my condition. • I am a program administrator for brain injuries programs. If we want to make a difference in people's lives, we need to understand their lives. This applies to racial equity and justice. • I have had a number of Traumatic Brain Injuries in my life. My cognitive abilities were not severely compromised. I have had many migraines and I have brain scarring. I experience vertigo and have vestibular migraines. I stopped driving for a number of years. I became a medical assistant to a neurologist. Because of my vertigo, I have thought about how to interact with a police officer. I couldn't pass a sobriety test when I am experiencing vertigo. I know that this can create real experiences for others. • I am autistic and on the spectrum. I work for a local tech company. My spouse is an immigrant from Brazil. She has experienced harassment from police. My mother-in-law has disabilities and we have to be constantly with her. She can't communicate very well and it could spiral out of control. A lot of autistic people will exhibit behaviors that are [akin to someone] on drugs. Autistic people have had tragic interactions with police officers because of sensory overload from sirens, noise, lights commands, etc. The police officers were not trained to respond to someone with Autism. They do not know how to discern between autistic people and people on drugs. We had a tragic incident in SLC last year. As a white male, I have never had one of those experiences. I haven't experienced something like that. I can't speak for those experiences. But I can speak as an advocate for those people. We would like to work with dispatchers to know how to respond and evaluate intellectual disabilities and how those play into the response. • From the chat - The Utah Brain Injury Council (UBIC) used to offer 101 training to first responders such as police officers to bring awareness about brain injury. Those trainings can still be offered. What sorts of actions have you experienced or observed from SLCPD? • One is personal interaction. This is something that has been echoed by other Latinx members of Salt Lake County. My wife was pulled over for something like expired tags, something very mundane, but the state trooper insisted that she resolve it immediately. She got out, got a screwdriver, and unscrewed her license plate at the side of the road. Words were exchanged and she threw the license plate at the feet of the officer, and she was charged with battery of an officer. Overzealous reporting/charging is not uncommon. The DOJ struck a deal with the South Salt Lake PD —10 years ago and her case was expunged as a part of that deal. The Bishops in Brazilian wards in Utah have had to warn their members with interactions with police officers. With those on the Autism spectrum, there have been interactions where the common theme is how quickly an anodyne interaction can be escalated stemming from a lack of verbal responses, or even something that is pulled out and misinterpreted as a threat and has led to arrests/guns being drawn. There was another incident in Woods Cross where a black 11 year old playing in his yard had a firearm drawn on him because something he did was perceived as threatening to an officer. The person with autism or disability doesn't think they are doing anything wrong and the officer misinterprets it. Sometimes people will also use their phones to communicate non-verbally, but this can also be viewed as a threat/some unknown. These would be the two things I've heard the most--how quickly things can escalate. -When I think about this, I think of a case 3-4 years ago when a gentleman was walking with headphones and was chased by police telling him to get down. The POs didn't realize he had headphones on and he ended up being shot and killed. What if someone was deaf? How do you initiate these issues with police officers? I was at the `riot'where people with disabilities were pushed down by police, even those with physical and invisible disabilities. How do we initiate/implement something potentially so subtle into a police force? They don't even respect skin color, and now we're trying to move on to invisible disabilities and other problems." • We had friends involved in the protests and they were shoved and hurt by police officers. They were attacked and ended up with a TBI. It took over a year to heal. Healthcare access was a problem for them with their autism." o What was the interaction like? ■ It was during a protest where the police kettled protestors. This friend was protecting another friend who had been pushed to the ground (visibly disabled). The friend was trying to help their friend, who was physically disabled, up and was hit by police in the head. Both of these people are petite and white. The friend who is recovering now had a history of TBIs and they are finding now that they are dealing with long-term effects and cognitive disabilities. They were advised by their attorney not to pursue charges against the police due to participating and being charged in the protest. ■ I remember being pushed against a wall so hard by a police officer's backside, who then turned to me and said `what, are you trying to steal my wallet?' • The other thing, from a program administrative perspective--we have quite a few patients with mental health issues and disabilities. Depending on where the brain injury occurred, it elicits certain behaviors. Behaviors include criminal acts that lead to arrests. Sometimes we are able to convince the court that the person is in a program to counter these behaviors with replacement behaviors. We have to work with the courts with these people. We have our own attorneys. We have some people in jail and then they get released - they have to talk to us once the release date is set. But often, they get released without telling us. Then there is a Catch-22 where we are not notified until the next criminal act occurs. We then get a call from an attorney asking how to break the habitual offender--we say you have to be a partner with us and not just look at the court docket. We need to make sure they are healthy and safe and get back in the program after release. There is a lot of miscommunication between the courts, the jail, and us and it needs to be resolved in order to break this cycle. The Police Department is supposed to reach out and tell us about release dates, but we only see the court docket, and sometimes it is hard to tell exactly when people are being released. o Does the police department do this type of outreach? ■ Yes, they know when people are released and they are supposed to communicate with us to show when people are going to be released. We have to find an open spot for people so they don't end up back on the street. ■ It is setting them up for failure. • I work for a University in Utah. I am a speaker with developmental challenges. I came on the call because I wanted to hear from the others on this call. I come from a perspective of how can we better educate police officers, correction facilities, community members, etc. What can we do to better help these people? I have a friend who has some reading, processing issues who was being seen by UNI for some of his mental health issues/medication issues. When he found himself in jail, it was hard to get any of those mechanisms going again, and even expressing that this individual may need some additional support. It was really frustrating and though it wasn't a one-way street; he didn't want to disclose that he had a disability out of fear of being put in solitary confinement. How do we educate people on these issues? What do you think additional training for SLCPD officers should look like? What training would be beneficial to the police? • The training should be very basic. We don't really know what an average PD education looks like or what the training curriculum looks like. We need to start 1:1--what is the brain? What is the body language of someone with a TBI/mentally disability? They need to think, regardless of race, might this be someone who has a brain injury/is psychotic? Other mechanisms need to kick in that tell the officers 'I need to be careful, I need to stay back.' If you see your 4-year-old having a meltdown, you don't escalate the situation further. This is the kind of interaction that needs to take place for police officers. -On reactions to protests--I have been involved in multiple protests/marches. I am not a criminologist, but the responses from PD officers were very different depending on the content of the protests. This isn't a wild conjecture--CNN did a study on the content of the protests influencing reactions of PD officers. For BLM protests, I looked very heteronormative in a shirt and tie and could look very neutral when facing a police officer. I acted as a go-between/`straight man' for the autistic protestors. I know how to pass as neurotypical and come across as neurotypical as a late-diagnosed person on the Autism spectrum. On more than a couple occasions I was able to talk a police officer down. The police officers would get agitated, shout commands more, look like they're going to arm themselves. I have learned how to de-escalate officers. o It sounds as if you've acquired the vocabulary that can get through even in a high stress situation that can get through to an officer who is misreading someone with a disability. ■ Yes--I keep my voice level, say that this person isn't a threat. I looked goofy wearing a shirt and tie with a backpack of medical supplies, but it worked. When we talk about training, taking a step back--we don't have a lot of transparency for what training is. It's surprising this isn't public record. The other thing is something my brother (who is a veteran) said: he said 'if I did half of the things these officers did, I'd be pounding rocks in Leavenworth (in a max prison where U.S. war criminals are sent).' If you look at the rules of engagement, before even the rules are stated, the rationale is stated. `Maintain peace and order,' ok, but through what means? Through a show of force? Or does this mean a community acting in a civil way? On a definitional level, what are the police trying to do? The Navy's rules of engagement/the very top of the rationale will say if you violate these rules, you threaten the mission. You jeopardize the mission and the civilians. This is something missing from a lot of police training materials. On training--what is striking is the Marines/ROE lay out that if you mess up, the civilians' reactions are deemed justifiable. You don't respond to that with more force. I see that sorely lacking in a lot of our police materials today. There seems to be a disconnect--even after Breonna Taylor was killed--that officers don't understand why locals would be mad. Follow the NYPD Twitter feed and you'll see the same thing. This is something that has to be resolved--what are you trying to do? I would love to see this from the top--transparency. • I alway wonder what is the best way to approach this -we need better communication. How do we communicate from the perspective from someone with a disability? How do we get the police department to understand that it comes down to communication? Is communication better taught in an educational setting or through stories? Maybe we need to communicate through stories. Maybe this is the way to get into these people in the system? Sometimes, educationally, there are programs out there--was there a training about Autism after the shooting of Mr. Cameron? I know they've done some training but it's been difficult to find out what that actually looks like. Maybe we need to approach it in a different way." • I love everything that's being said--there are a couple things I've been thinking of especially that we are all white people here. I'm from New England and I didn't know I had a skin color until I moved here. Strangers will ask me where I'm from and even in work situations. It really depends on where I am and who I'm with for how white I get treated. I get to experience flavors of racism in tiny ways and I get to spend time with people who have different issues with police that I don't. You can't train police out of being racist. But what happens when they get trained that everyone around them is a threat, their training is implicitly racist from the get-go, from the academy. Even if they're not, their instructors are racist and telling students 'this is what and who you have to watch out for,' and it is implicitly racist. o From the chat: my wife felt EXACTLY the same way when she immigrated from Brazil to America. She basically said it wasn't until she moved here that she became Brown. • The people who come into policing couldn't cut it as big dogs (militaristic) in other things, and this is the way they get their muscle in. These are the picked-on kids. I was taught to interact with police as a kid, inappropriately, that the way to make sheriffs go away is to yell at them because they were picked on kids in high school who did this as their revenge. I recall being 16 and coming home from a church dance at 2 a.m. and getting stopped at a checkpoint and having the officer ask me if I've had anything to drink tonight. I looked at the officer and asked him if it looked like I had anything to drink tonight, and then he just waved me off. This is what can get people shot. This is not how to deal with police, and that is a disgusting fact. You can't teach people how to deal with disabilities kindly if police are already out to get people. If police are already walking around looking for bad stuff instead of being a presence in the community to protect and serve, that's your first problem. The summer that young autistic man was shot, a woman whose son is an autistic teen posted about this, and how he is also larger, which makes him a target. I can't imagine being her and wondering every time he leaves the house what is going to happen. How do you teach people not to see `large black man' but instead `person with autism.'These stories need to come from people of color and from their families, and the families who have been affected. • I'm a neurologist, and neurology/psychiatry has a huge overlap. Are there any mental health liaisons that can be sent out to the police? o Part of the problem of Linden Cameron was that the mother requested a mental health care team, and she was sent a crew of armed police officers. SLCPD has offered a different explanation every time. Do they even deploy the mental health liaisons when they're supposed to? o I've heard this from friends who have had mental health issues/suicidal tendencies who have called for help, and they've said no mental health workers have shown up, only cops. o I think it would be helpful for the police department to hear stories about people's own circumstances, their disabilities, their psychiatric issues, and this should be taught. • There is a very basic issue with people going into policing, people supervising police, that they're more comfortable with someone who is as least different as possible. Maybe it's exposure. • There are also cities who have gotten lots and lots of exposure who aren't doing well, however, too. • Somehow the education needs to include anti-racism, unlearning racism. • I'm bipolar, and sometimes my moods affect my speech and levels of aggression. I'm fortunate that I've never gotten to the extreme end of mania. I'm fairly well-controlled but sometimes there are situations that my impulse control isn't great. This could definitely influence my experiences with cops. • I don't want police officers to become neurologists, but there are enough general red flags that can be taught that tells someone that you need to do something other than put them in handcuffs/shoot." January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey,Text Messages, Social Media Comments In general,what have your What might SLCPD do What can you share about your experiences What part of Salt Lake experiences been SLCPD officers should to better recruit with SLCPD and recommendations for City do you live or work like with police in have better training in officers from all changes in policy,training,school safety, in? _What is your race or ethnicity? Salt Lake City? _which area? backgrounds? and/or officer recruitment? C,What has the commission been working on since last smer?,Please include social media history in background checks for police. Please do this quarterly.You can tell a lot by what _African Stronger outreach people post online or their gro Cultural Black or African American competency/implicit bias Stronger outreach Black or African American , Cultural _Black or African American Bad .competency/implicit bias Policy-end qualified immunity,8 can't wait, etc..Training-barriers to transparency and convictions,school safety-resources and holistic approach to serving children and families.have them watch pushout and learn more about the school to prison pipeline, recruitment-let them know there are safe ways to report bad police officers and that they can Cultural change the structure of their department, make Black or African American Okay competency/implicit bias Other it real. Understanding that studies show that personal bias trainings actually can further entrench biases,what is the city's position on pursuing comprehensivel,l am a westside, Latina citizen...while most of the comments have been valuable... but, I do not feel as though Rosepark/NW Quadrant Hispanic, Latino,Chicano Okay Other Other issues of RACIAL equity have been considered Cultural Hispanic, Latino,Chicano Bad competency/implicit bias Other Haven't had any Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific interactions with Cultural don't live in Salt Lake City Islander police competency/implicit bias More welcoming culture Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Haven't had any Can we get the polls that were given at the Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific interactions with Cultural beginning to the end of this meeting for Islander police competency/implicit bias Stronger outreach latecomers Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Cultural Islander competency/implicit bias Stronger outreach Text Comments 1 of 17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey,Text Messages, Social Media Comments In general,what have your What might SLCPD do What can you share about your experiences What part of Salt Lake experiences been SLCPD officers should to better recruit with SLCPD and recommendations for City do you live or work like with police in have better training in officers from all changes in policy,training,school safety, in? _What is your race or ethnicity? Salt Lake City? _which area? backgrounds? and/or officer recruitment? Haven't had any Avenues/University/East interactions with Cultural Bench Other Race, Ethnicity police competency/implicit bias Other I think they have been great Southeast Asian Avenues/University/East Bench _White Okay _Crisis intervention More welcoming culture Engage with the Center for Policing Equity Downtown/Central City •White Great Downtown/Central City _White Okay Other Other Haven't had any interactions with Downtown/Central City White police Haven't had any interactions with I don't live in Salt Lake City •White police More welcoming culture Liberty Wells _White Great Crisis intervention More welcoming culture Liberty Wells White Okay Crisis intervention Stronger outreach NA Rosepark/NW Quadrant _White Great _Crisis intervention Stronger outreach Rosepark/NW Quadrant •White Haven't had any interactions with Sugarhouse White police Community interaction Sugarhouse White Great Crisis intervention B Sugarhouse White White Great Crisis intervention Better pay, benefits When officers have time to respond to calls, my experience has been great! But in the past 6 months,officers have seemed totally demoralized and understandably less motivated, like they're fighting a battle with White Great Crisis intervention Stronger outreach crime and public safety that they can't win. Require officers to de-escalate situations, Haven't had any where possible, by communicating with interactions with subjects, maintaining distance,and otherwise White police Crisis intervention More welcoming culture eliminating the need to u Text Comments 2 of 17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey,Text Messages, Social Media Comments In general,what have your What might SLCPD do What can you share about your experiences What part of Salt Lake experiences been SLCPD officers should to better recruit with SLCPD and recommendations for City do you live or work like with police in have better training in officers from all changes in policy,training,school safety, in? What is your race or ethnicity? Salt Lake City? which area? backgrounds? and/or officer recruitment? I called for assistance at 3:00am, because a man was trying to get into my house. Dispatch told me the SLCPD was not in the area,and they would be at my address in about 20-30 minutes,then disconnected. I was distressed and scare,and not happy with my personal safety being dismissed.When the police arrived 30 minutes later,they reluctantly walked around my house,found a slashed screen on my door, but did not make a report as the man was no longer on my property.Another interaction was at the State Fair,talking to members of the SLCPD wearing riot gear, and asked if they were expecting issues.Was informed by an officer that the"union"couldn't endorse a mayoral candidate because of a perceived alignment with the Brown Berets and Black Lives Matter movements. My question was why weren't they?,SLCPD has an opportunity to build community relations by integration into the neighborhoods.There is a difference between law enforcement and not inflicting personal bias and agenda into the job.,Psychological vetting for all police,to be Cultural sure how they are able to do their jobs,without White Okay competency/implicit bias Better pay, benefits harming the community is very important. Downtown/Central City Okay Crisis intervention Stronger outreach Downtown/Central City I don't live in Salt Lake City Community interaction Sugarhouse Cultural Sugarhouse Bad competency/implicit bias More welcoming culture I would like to ask a Question.,0 _Crisis intervention How can the.police on their job when they are being told they are racist yest they are dealing with criminals.that have guns and dont compy.. and how do 2 Cultural competency/implicit bias More welcoming culture Text Comments 3 of 17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey,Text Messages, Social Media Comments In general,what have your What might SLCPD do What can you share about your experiences What part of Salt Lake experiences been SLCPD officers should to better recruit with SLCPD and recommendations for City do you live or work like with police in have better training in officers from all changes in policy,training,school safety, in? _What is your race or ethnicity? Salt Lake City? _which area? backgrounds? and/or officer recruitment? I would like this to be presented to the Police chief. I used to live in a dangerous area of midvale. I lived in an apartment complex that had a drug dea.How are you going to take these calls more seriously? I am interested what these comments are going to be put toward?I remember being in a similar call with Chief Brown in 2016/2017 at the city library. Mos Text Comments 4 of 17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey,Text Messages, Social Media Comments In general,what have your What might SLCPD do What can you share about your experiences What part of Salt Lake experiences been SLCPD officers should to better recruit with SLCPD and recommendations for City do you live or work like with police in have better training in officers from all changes in policy,training,school safety, in? What is your race or ethnicity? Salt Lake City? which area? backgrounds? and/or officer recruitment? How often is professional development? Diversity training??There,How often is professional development?Diversity training?? There's a diverse room of commissioners but how many are Salt Lake residents???I feel lik Black lives matter,Defund the police is the same as re-invest with police in DV specialists, substance use specialists, harm reductionists, social workers,and social safet Great Crisis intervention Stronger outreach The resignation of officers after the mayor's police reform executive order this smer indicates a culture that avoids accountability for officer actions.This should be addressed by holding the department accountable through increased power for our independent civilian Okay Crisis intervention More welcoming culture review board .Bad .Okay Cultural Okay .competency/implicit bias More welcoming culture Crisis intervention More welcoming culture More welcoming culture Crisis intervention If police insist on carrying lethal weapons around many different types of people and in many situations they are not properly trained for than they should have a decent amount of actual training in de-escalation, mental health Stronger outreach mediation, implicit bias and cultural training. More welcoming culture It has been mostly okay, however I have had interactions with SLCPD that made me question whether their intent was driven by policy or implicit bias.Their efforts didn't make it better and thus I wondered what the intent was as the stated reason for their actions didn't really add up. I'd like to see police trainings/school look more like a 4 year degree, like other professional jobs. It would help weed out the i Text Comments 5 of 17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey,Text Messages, Social Media Comments In general,what have your What might SLCPD do What can you share about your experiences What part of Salt Lake experiences been SLCPD officers should to better recruit with SLCPD and recommendations for City do you live or work like with police in have better training in officers from all changes in policy,training,school safety, in? _What is your race or ethnicity? Salt Lake City? _which area? backgrounds? and/or officer recruitment? Why is the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)of the police not easily accessible?Or how do I gain access to it?,What kind of training do the police get for dealing with people who are on doctor prescribed drugs? Text Comments 6 of 17 January 28,2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey,Text Messages,Social Media Comments Date of In general,what Do you have a story to share It is most important that What other kinds What's one What might What other things should How do you What else would Name Comment have your about your experiences with SLCPD officers get better of training should critical change in SLCPD do to SLCPD do to recruit a think school you like the Racial experiences been police in SLC? training in which of the SLCPD officers policy or better recruit diverse police force? resource Equity in Policing like with police in following(cultural get that they may procedure that officers from officers should Commission to Salt Lake City? competency/implicit bias, not get now? SLCPD should all improve know? crisis intervention, implement that backgrounds school safety? community interaction, would help the (stronger firearms.other)? SLCPD do their oav,better 1/28/2021 Okay "This morning,police were called Community interaction,crisis "I don't think "Defund the police. Other "There are three problems "I have a "This commission Benjamin Petrie for a Black,homeless man intervention,cultural training is going to I think this is a here.First,primarily white men master's degree feels like a half- looking through the trash in my competency/implicit bias fix the problem. critical change that are attracted to the PD as a in education,I measure towards neighborhood.I had given the Defund the police would improve the position of power and a do not think what we spent all homeless man some clothes and and reallocate the city and the role of method of enforcing police belong in smer asking for. books a few days ago which he resources into the police.This is whiteness,misogyny,and schools." Someone probably had in his possession at the time, housing,addiction not a personal colonization.So you're going told you that it was a The officers accused the man of treatment,and attack on the to get a largely white and good compromise.I stealing the clothes and books, social services." officers,but they masculine police force. don't think there's and said"we're not going to are being stretched Second,police on the whole going to be any real arrest you,but we could,"I was too thin by are not just discriminating change,but I'm open walking my dog and happened to responding to too against but actively harming to a conversation." walk by,and worry about what many issues." BIPOC,trans and queer folks, would have happened if I were and poor and homeless not there." people.That means that anyone from those populations is risking a lot by joining that group.Third,police in the United States are charged with protecting property,not people.Whiteness is one of the most precious forms of property we have.As long as police exist as an institution, that will be true and will not change by trying to recruit a 'more diverse police force.' Survey Responses 7 of 17 January 28,2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey,Text Messages,Social Media Comments Date of In general,what Do you have a story to share It is most important that What other kinds What's one What might What other things should How do you What else would Name Comment have your about your experiences with SLCPD officers get better of training should critical change in SLCPD do to SLCPD do to recruit a think school you like the Racial experiences been police in SLC? training in which of the SLCPD officers policy or better recruit diverse police force? resource Equity in Policing like with police in following(cultural get that they may procedure that officers from officers should Commission to Salt Lake City? competency/implicit bias, not get now? SLCPD should all improve know? crisis intervention, implement that backgrounds school safety? community interaction, would help the (stronger firearms.other)? SLCPD do their oav,better 1/28/2021 Okay "In 2002 i was stopped for driving Firearms,community "Mindfulness, "Become part of Better pay, "Have the ability to see the "They should "Racism is real.But Moni Candia while brown.The cop couldn't interaction,crisis intervention, emotional the community. benefits person and not the color.The teach and help we are afraid of find anything wrong with my car cultural competency/implicit bias intelligence,crisis They need better color is there regardless,you develop calling for what it is. or driving and was nervous when management, pay and mandatory the white cop are just as afterschool Racism is wrong,but I called him out on it.This is real, confidence with counseling at least flawed as a person of color, programs where we let people get and I under they are doing their respect for self and once a month." you are not better or smarter. cops become the away with it.It best,however,that's no longer others,cultural We are equals with different mentors.Include should be a crime. good enough.Therefore,I don't experience, life experiences.Be han and your family.In White people need always feel safe when I see grounding,listening don't dehanize.If you don't minority cultures to know that it's ok to police." skills." know that's ok,own it,and be family is call someone out in kind." everything,so be it even if that person willing to looks like them. integrate,once Bring back classes you can master like sociology,ethics the skill of acceptance you and philosophy to will have a family schools." for life.The community will help keep the community safe. Share your values and don't be afraid to adopt a few new ones.We are all one body,in one world,let's take Survey Responses 8 of 17 January 28,2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey,Text Messages,Social Media Comments Date of In general,what Do you have a story to share It is most important that What other kinds What's one What might What other things should How do you What else would Name Comment have your about your experiences with SLCPD officers get better of training should critical change in SLCPD do to SLCPD do to recruit a think school you like the Racial experiences been police in SLC? training in which of the SLCPD officers policy or better recruit diverse police force? resource Equity in Policing like with police in following(cultural get that they may procedure that officers from officers should Commission to Salt Lake City? competency/implicit bias, not get now? SLCPD should all improve know? crisis intervention, implement that backgrounds school safety? community interaction, would help the (stronger firearms.other)? SLCPD do their oav,better 1/28/2021 Great "I have witnessed nerous school Other,Firearms "Job specific "Less restrictions "I don't believe we should be "I pulled my "Think about the long Jon Chu officials request the minority training for specialty on what they can racist in who we hire.I believe kids out of term consequences of officers over white officers.When positions and more do.The more our it should be the most qualified SLCSD schools what you are doing. I am in crisis I don't care what tactical and city puts people not the most colorful because the We should not seek your skin color is,I only want defensive tactics restrictions on our people.We will see corruption SROs can not officers for their skin someone who will help." training to help limit officers,the less and terrible people if we enforce many color but for their use of force and safe we are in this continue to lower the crimes and if we abilities to be a great confidence in city." standards." do not support officer.I am Hispanic individual skills." our SROs I do and the most racist not feel people have been confident my colored people.I have child is safe." seen more discrimination against whites than anyone else but no one wants to talk about it.I also think you need to link into what the SROs role is within the school,familiarize yourself with the MOU and how it's failed because tying their hands only makes the problems worse.Talk to the administrators at the high schools who have to deal with Survey Responses 9 of 17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments Commen Date/Time of Comment Reaction Relative to Facebook Live Comment s# Comment Replies First Name Last Name/Username How can you get young kids engaged in being proactive in their community without hating the police. Some kids are taught to hate police by family, peers 1/28/ 1:42:35 and others in the community?. 2 Shellie G McKissick SROs in schools decrease graduation and higher GPAs. 1/28/ 1:32:09 Remove SROs 3 Rae James Duckworth I think it's pretty problematic that police departments are often in charge of evidence that incriminates them. My lawyer requested dash cam footage of an incident only to be told that it 1/28/ 1:34:01 had been"lost." 1 Tanya Platt I'm appreciative of this commission who is here to address the issues of racism and equality in policing. I hope they are given proficient time and resources to make changes. Thank you for leading the way. This work is vital to our 1/28/ 1:31:21 existence! 4 Lita Sagato "Thank you! There are plenty of professionals out there deescalating similar situations without excessive force. I would also like to see ONGOING training for officers if they expect to continue carrying lethal weapons around our community 1/28/ 1:25:57 members." 2 Kalolaine Palei Facebook Comments 10 of17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments Commen Date/Time of Comment Reaction Relative to Facebook Live Comment s# Comment Replies First Name Last Name/Username This is a racially diverse commission (and it's great). How does it compare with the @user good point. If only diversity and leadership in the the police departments police departments?city were as diverse as the 1/28/ 1:14:34 leadership?mayor's office? 7 commission t l Bobby N Belinda Saltiban Why did the officer who knocked down the elderly man in SLC last year get to keep his job? 1/28/ 1:06:44 What was the reasoning on that? 4 Cheynne Nimes •I'd like to hear more about the role police unions have in addressing these obvious community concerns. I understand they represent police officers but where is the alignment of representations, policy, and accountability as well as training to mitigate the issues and concerns shared by the community.Seems a bit lopsided when it comes to the actions and the perceived 1/28/59:11 mission of community service. 4 Charles Henderson (User), I have reached out to people in the city about that issue and they have Han resources that focuses on expressed interest in 1/28/36:20 Diversity& Inclusion. working on that. Ralph Misa The labor of BIPOC community members shouldn't always be 1/28/0:00 free. Bobby N Belinda Saltiban Props for the for and listening 1/28/ 1:48:14 ears. Daela Taeoalii-Higgs Facebook Comments 11 of17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments Commen t Date/Time of Comment Reaction Relative to Facebook Live Comment s# Comment Replies First Name Last Name/Username The Commission needs a 1/28/ 1:47:46 stipend!!! Bobby N Belinda Saltiban Mendenhall and Brown,are you still keeping your commitment 1/28/ 1:46:55 with CAG tonight? 2 Kalolaine Palei I want to hear from you mike 1/28/ 1:45:44 brown Natasha Cadet Where will these questions be answered? I'd like to see the 1/28/ 1:45:07 responses ® 4 Lita Sagato '1/28/ 1:43:46 Yes Lisa! 1 Heilala Fu'itahi Potesio 1/28/ 1:41:44 •FTP 1 .Natasha Cadet REFORM SLCPD OR BE 1/28/ 1:40:32 ABOLISHED BY COMMUNITY 3 Rae James Ducksworth '1/28/ 1:40:11 COCC .Jme Cee 1/28/ 1:39:57 •cm A t o n n f ( j .Rae James Ducksworth Who's this Michael speaker? 1/28/ 1:39:26 Hmu Rae James Ducksworth They used tax payer money to take away the shelter and 1/28/ 1:39:17 necessities of people 1 Natasha Cadet What is the point of having them in this meeting if they are not going to respond to the people.. they are getting paid to sit and 1/28/ 1:38:18 look uninterested 2 Natasha Cadet That gear is NOT returned! It is 1/28/ 1:39:06 thrown away. 1 Kalolaine Palei .1/28/ 1:37:54 ,Great questions .Rae James Ducksworth '1/28/ 1:37:52 .It goes to the dpster .Rae Cee 1/28/ 1:37:02 Police are bullies asf. 2 Rae James Ducksworth Facebook Comments 12 of17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments Commen Date/Time of Comment Reaction Relative to Facebook Live Comment s# Comment Replies First Name Last Name/Username It is obvious that when racial representation is intentional,you can find qualified folks who are excellent. Hence, this commission. So, how is the city (and its departments)actively and intentionally diversifying their departments outside of this commission? Finding excellent professionals of color should not solely be isolated to a commission, like this.Walk the 1/28/ 1:36:29 talk... 1 Bobby N Belinda Saltiban Brown and Mendenhall,WHY . AREN'T THE OFFICERS IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES. why are you openly dodging an important security concern 1/28/ 1:35:14 question Rae James Ducksworth Answer her questions now. There is time.Where is 1/28/ 1:34:14 transparency Rae James Ducksworth 1/28/ 1:33:03 Code 3b Rae James Ducksworth I agree! I feel like there is much more understanding between officers and their community if those officers are from the 1/28/ 1:27:35 community they serve in. 2 Kalolaine Palei 1/28/ 1:24:02 Thank you Maggie 1 Ralph Misa The young 13 year old was shot near my home...we heard him 1 (sad 1/28/ 1:23:45 say he had a gun.. reaction) Shellie G McKissick '1/28/ 1:23:40 Maggie,Thank you! 1 ,Anna Zwalt Good call out regarding unarmed citizens and mentally 1/28/ 1:23:33 challenged citizens. 1 Ralph Misa I still have yet to see 1/28/ 1:22:53 Mendenhalls follow up. 1 Ralph Misa Facebook Comments 13 of17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments Commen t Date/Time of Comment Reaction Relative to Facebook Live Comment s# Comment Replies First Name Last Name/Username Lethal force should not be an option unless ALL other options 1/28/ 1:22:35 have been used 3 Colton Uchiha Warden The mayor is on the call. Good call out regarding the 13 year old autistic boy who was shot 1/28/ 1:22:37 several times last year. 3 Ralph Misa '1/28/ 1:17:53 AMEN Colton Uchiha Warden '1/28/ 1:17:54 Great question Consul. •Ma Black 1/28/ 1:16:30 .Internal affairs review?? 1 .Peter Brownstein With the LDS church now implementing racial sensitivity courses for its members. Do we have anything like that in the pipeline for law enforcement? I feel like it should be required in 1/28/ 1:11:25 police office training. 1 Ralph Misa How many hours of training 1/28/ 1:09:41 does an officer get? 3 Peter Brownstein 1/28/ 1:06:53 Milo!! Great great questions!! 2 Anna Zwalt I had the same question regarding homeless individuals 1/28/ 1:06:29 thank you. Colton Uchiha Warden Are the texts going to be 1/28/ 1:04:49 addressed? 1 Colton Uchiha Warden I am appreciative of all the work being done here in SLC to address these challenges. I'm fairly certain that other cities share these.Are there any best practices that are being used elsewhere in the nation with positive results??Have any efforts been made to find 1/28/ 1:00:41 these?? 2 Peter Brownstein '1/28/59:59 Thank you a&k, 5 Ralph Misa Facebook Comments 14 of17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments Commen Date/Time of Comment Reaction Relative to Facebook Live Comment s# Comment Replies First Name Last Name/Username How about we keep people on who have had issues with the police and we can discuss how the situations will be handled 1/28/56:10 and prevented from there on out. 1 Colton Uchiha Warden This was reported by the Attorney Generals office and stated"we're just not there"so 1/28/53:53 then what???? 1 Ralph Misa Please follow up with Lou as she had 3 incidents to report. It's unfortunate that she is autistic and is somewhat being 1/28/53:39 mistreated or in a way targeted. Betsy Naeata Nau No data no solutions in my 1/28/2021 /52:49 opinion. Ralph Misa Utah historically failed to politically fund ongoing police enforcement data.What is the commission doing about the collection of law enforcement 1/28/52:40 data? 1 Ralph Misa The Utah's Attorney General was surprised by the shootings by SLC police officers and one of the highest in Utah. 1/28/48:29 Mayor???? Ralph Misa How can this caller provide information to identify the date 1/28/48:16 and place of these interactions Peter Brownstein 1/28/48:12 Do you feel your being targeted? Betsy Naeata Nau Does Mayor Mendenhall have a follow up into the shootings from 1/28/46:16 last year? 2 Ralph Misa One situation last year was a 13 1/28/45:11 year old Autistic boy in Glendale: Ralph Misa Facebook Comments 15 of17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments Commen t Date/Time of Comment Reaction Relative to Facebook Live Comment s# Comment Replies First Name Last Name/Username The fact we have to thank the police for no harm done when we call them is an issue.That's 1/28/39:20 their job. 2 Colton Uchiha Warden How does SLCPD address the shooting of many in the past 1/28/44:18 year that were unarmed? 1 Ralph Misa witnessed an experience with a crisis line intervention in my east side neighborhood and even though nobody was harmed, the individual was taken for mental 1/28/35:49 health care Peter Brownstein 1/28/22:04 Actions are also important. Shellie G McKissick Please put the online link to 1/28/39:04 PollEv in this comment stream. pollev.com/equityslc June Hussein Taylor And they need to be re 1/28/ 15:26 evaluated every year 6 Or twice a year Shellie G McKissick '1/28/39:13 �.What is the phone nber? .Ralph Misa 1/28/39:46 Next caller lol Ralph Misa Officers before they hired need 1/28/ 14:20 a complete psych evaluation Agreed Shellie G McKissick Bless your heart d your a good 1/28/39:19 mom Betsy Naeata Nau Si'oto'ofa Komisiona Ka'ili mo 1/28/35:49 Komisiona Sagato. 1 Too Folau 1/28/35:13 Great question. Cj O C 2 Ralph Misa Tau lotu kihe faingata'aia si'i 1/28/34:01 kaunanga Koeni Betsy Naeata Nau 1 (laughing 1/28/33:09 Me'a eeeeee reaction) Lisiate T. Wolfgramm Bless your heart Michael,and sorry for the loss of your 1 (care 1/28/27:49 friend© _reaction) Betsy Naeata Nau C *nee t to you single 1/28/25:50 dad 2 Betsy Naeata Nau Big Shout out to Commissioner 1/28/22:48 Ka'ili 1 Betsy Naeata Nau Facebook Comments 16 of17 January 28, 2021 Listening Session Responses to Survey, Text Messages, Social Media Comments Commen t Date/Time of Comment Reaction Relative to Facebook Live Comment s# Comment Replies First Name Last Name/Username 1/28/22:21 MJ! So great to see you here! 7 Anna Zwalt Shout out Commissioner Sagato 1/28/22:04 and Ka'ili 1 Nautalus Kaho Langi '1/28/ 19:31 Talofa Commissioner Sagato 1 Betsy Naeata Nau 1/28/ 18:04 C / i�(SL interpreter 3 Betsy Naeata Nau Curious to hear from Chief Brown what he feels are some of the greatest challenges in the area of racial equity that he is 1/28/ 17:33 already working on ?? 2 Peter Brownstein 1/28/ 16:46 We love d u Chief Brown 1 Betsy Naeata Nau 1/28/ 16:28 (tagged two users) .Ralph Misa Ikai ke lau mai mau fetu'u 1/28/9:20 (users). Ko fe homou feitu'u? is GjC�rJ Too Folau Am I correct that all answers will be correlated against 1/28/ 11:11 neighborhood and race? Peter Brownstein Facebook Comments 17 of17 Theme Proposed FAQ Text Treatment of citizens with How does SLCPD train its officers to handle disabilities, special needs, mental situations where a person cannot illness communicate easily? Better de-escalation, especially with students/young adults What training do officers receive on de- (including changes to SRO escalation and how might SLCPD improve program) that training and performance? What training do officers receive on how to General non-lethal and/or non- avoid lethal/physical interactions with the physical interaction with citizens public? Racial profiling, disparate How does SLCPD work to ensure that treatment during stops (harsher officers do not engage in "racial profiling," treatment given to communities of where people of a particular race are color) stopped for reasons they don't understand? How does SLCPD evaluate potential recruits Better screening of potential for red flag behaviors, such as support for or officers (looking for extremism, involvement in extremist groups, history of penchant for violence, etc.) violent behavior, etc.? Better resources and options for What kinds of resources is SLCPD seeking SLCPD to address to improve its performance for Salt Lake homelessness, gang activity City? How does SLCPD train personnel in understanding different cultural norms and Cultural sensitivity when dealing how to interact with people from different with communities of color backgrounds? What kinds of best practices does SLCPD use in dealing with members of the public in Sensitive handling of individuals some form of distress, such as mental in distress (praise for SLCPD) illness? Praise and concerns about How are decisions made about Citizens citizens academy, depictions of Academy curriculum with an eye towards communities of color racial equity/eliminating stereotypes? Disparate responses to calls for How is SLCPD addressing concerns raised police assistance (specifically on in the western part of the city, particularly West side) concerns raised by communities of color? Call for better working What measures has SLCPD taken to build relationships with the refugee and/or strengthen relationships with refugee community populations? The Salt L City Racial Eqin Policing om m fission Public • is en II I ng Session will b moment , ..._ .•,,,,ia„L__ ,. ,,.,. , ,. •___ it 1" ‘•. aK. '•f •`y r _. . • . .f►„ . . . - ` :; u. nr�tir • NU. . �. •i , Nak, • Irun ,a •r lye. _ ■ ■ •N 7 p.•� r� NIII 1r1 r 11/111 • - . ; ; ; i.,1 1 lillir • ` �T II SALT LAKE CITY RACIAL EQUITY IN ■ � POLICING COMMISSION Public Listening Session Facebook Live , YouTube Live & on SLC TV 6 : 00 P. M . HOW TO PARTICIPATE Call ( 888 ) 410-3427 to participate in English Call ( 844) 881 - 1317 to participate in Spanish ■ Text " EQUITYSLC " to 22333 r ■ i J � ■ Cr] Respond at PollEv.comlequityslc r✓o Text EQUITYSLC to 22333 once to join, then A, B, C, D, E... What part of Salt Lake City do you live or work in? Sugarhouse 25% Downtown/Central City B 25% Glendale/Poplar Grove C Rosepark/NW Quadrant D 15% Liberty Wells E 10% Avenues/University/East Bench F 10% I don 't live in Salt Lake City G 15% IQ Respond at PoltEv.com f equitysLc 0 Text EQUITYSLC to 22333 once to join,then A, B, C, D, E... What is your race or ethnicity? American Indian or Alaska Native A Black or African American B 14% African C' 3% Hispanic, Latino, Chicano D 7% Middle Eastern E Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific IslanderI,F , 4 % Southeast Asian GI 3% White H °, Other Race, Ethnicity I 3% n Respond at PollEv.com/equityslc t-o Text EQUITYSLC to 22333 once to join, then A, B, C, or D In general, what have your experiences been like with police in Salt Lake City? Great A 25% Okay B 36% Bad 3 14% Haven 't had any interactions with police D 25% n Respond at PollEv.com/equityslc Lo Text EQUITYSLC to 22333 once to join, then A, B, C, D, or E SLCPD officers should have better training in which area? Cultural competency/implicit bias M 40% Crisis intervention B 47% Community interaction 3 7% Firearms D Other E 7% n Respond at PollEv.com/equityslc La Text EQUITYSLC to 22333 once to join, then A, B, C, or D What might SLCPD do to better recruit officers from all backgrounds? Stronger outreach A 34% Better pay, benefits 'B 7% More welcoming Fig culture a 41% Other D 17% How can the.police on their job when they are being told they are racist yest they are dealing with criminals.that have guns and dont compy. . and how do I would like this to be presented to the Police chief. I used to live in a dangerous area of midvale. I lived in an apartment complex that had a drug dea, How are you going to take these calls more seriously? I am interested what these comments are going to be put toward? I remember being in a similar call with Chief Brown in 2016/2017 at the city library. Mos How often is professional development? Diversity training?? There, How often is professional development? Diversity training?? There's a diverse room of commissioners but how many are Salt Lake residents??? I feel lik Black lives matter, Defund the police is the same as re-invest with police in DV specialists, substance use specialists, harm reductionists, social workers, and social safet When officers have time to respond to calls, my experience has been great ! But in the past 6 months, officers have seemed totally demoralized and understandably less motivated, like they're fighting a battle with crime and public safety that they can't win . What has the commission been working on since last summer?, Please include social media history in background checks for police. Please do this quarterly. You can tell a lot by what people post online or their gro I think they have been great Understanding that studies show that personal bias trainings actually can further entrench biases, what is the city's position on pursuing comprehensivel, l am a westside, Latina citizen . . . while most of the comments have been valuable. . . but, I do not feel as though issues of RACIAL equity have been considered Engage with the Center for Policing Equity Can we get the polls that were given at the beginning to the end of this meeting for latecomers Require officers to de-escalate situations, where possible, by communicating with subjects, maintaining distance, and otherwise eliminating the need to u I called for assistance at 3:00am, because a man was trying to get into my house. Dispatch told me the SLCPD was not in the area, and they would be at my address in about 20-30 minutes, then disconnected. I was distressed and scare, and not happy with my personal safety being dismissed. When the police arrived 30 minutes later, they reluctantly walked around my house, found a slashed screen on my door, but did not make a report as the man was no longer on my property. Another interaction was at the State Fair, talking to members of the SLCPD wearing riot gear, and asked if they were expecting issues. Was informed by an officer that the "union" couldn't endorse a mayoral candidate because of a perceived alignment with the Brown Berets and Black Lives Matter movements. My question was why weren't they?,SLCPD has an opportunity to build community relations by integration into the neighborhoods. There is a difference between law enforcement and not inflicting personal bias and agenda into the job.,Psychological vetting for all police, to be sure how they are able to do their jobs, without harming the community is very important. The resignation of officers after the mayor's police reform executive order this summer indicates a culture that avoids accountability for officer actions. This should be addressed by holding the department accountable through increased power for our independent civilian review board Policy- end qualified immunity, 8 can't wait, etc.. Training- barriers to transparency and convictions, school safety- resources and holistic approach to serving children and families, have them watch pushout and learn more about the school to prison pipeline, recruitment- let them know there are safe ways to report bad police officers and that they can change the structure of their department, make it real. If police insist on carrying lethal weapons around many different types of people and in many situations they are not properly trained for than they should have a decent amount of actual training in de-escalation, mental health mediation, implicit bias and cultural training. It has been mostly okay, however I have had interactions with SLCPD that made me question whether their intent was driven by policy or implicit bias. Their efforts didn't make it better and thus I wondered what the intent was as the stated reason for their actions didn't really add up. I'd like to see police trainings / school look more like a 4 year degree, like other professional jobs. It would help weed out the i Why is the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of the police not easily accessible? Or how do I gain access to it?,What kind of training do the police get for dealing with people who are on doctor prescribed drugs? SALT LASE C TY RACIAL EQUITY IN POLICING COMMISSION THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING AND SHARING YOUR VOICE A recording of the Public Listening Session can be found on Facebook or YouTube ■ r ■ L SALT LA <L CITY RACIAL EQUITY IN ■ � � POLICING COMMISSION To share additional input for the Commission , please visit : SLCREPCOMMISSION . COM o ■ Follow r ■ ■ — @SLCREPCommission II ■ ■ on Facebook Th e alt La e � ty Racial Equ i i n Policing . . om m fission 10 ubl . is is en i ng Session has concluded l ' . - r ti. I III • 6 w S:': ' . '..: ,.. ligoilki. }, to I . . ou , m . ■ . gran I • ,a. a {s4• '*% iii• 1n1 1 ■r J . �T Preliminary Findings: REP Commission May 19 Listening Session ZipCodes of participants 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 I 84010 84047 84101 84102 84104 84105 84107 84108 84111 84115 84116 84131 Race/Ethnicity Black or African American = Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander M White Other Race/Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino/Chicano American Indian or Alaska Native African M 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% What do you most want the Racial Equity in Policing Commission to help change? Other School Safety Policies and Practices Training 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Other Responses: Resources for mental health and addiction recovery Increase in funding. More mental health workers and fewer police Policing culture Cultural changes within the department What are your thoughts on the recommendations from the Training subcommittee? 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% ■ Very good Good Neutral/Unsure Not great Very concerning What else should the Training subcommittee know? Trainers need to be from the neighborhood people that know the inns and the outs in the nuances of the community I particularly appreciate the recommendation that trainers themselves need to be diverse and representative of the community I would like to know more about how the training will promote Racial Equity Training must be paired with accountability for consistent and sustainable behavior change I believe that we need more officers than what we are coming up with for helping defuse mental health situations we also need more social workers Please train these folks by including citizens opinion Thank you so much for your time and commitment to our community Focus on ongoing efforts in the mix with point in time trainings as change takes time I'd like them trained to do their job without firearms What are your thoughts on the recommendations from the Policies and Procedures subcommittee? 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Very good Good Neutral/Unsure Not great Very concerning What else should the Policies and Practices subcommittee know? What about 911 dispatchers?Are they being trained to gather information to relay to police What are you doing to stop officers from profiling black and blown people while driving? My husband is black and is pulled over disproportionately forth what about a CTR type training? I believe that's what the caller was referring to Were there any findings that changed your personal views? I'd like the REP commission to also look at the calls made to 911 by the public and if there are ways that calls for service which may be themselves based in racism can be weeded out by dispatch. Will the bias assessment be required and lead decision-making in the application process for prospective officers AND performance reviews of existing officers? Great work to the committee. Thank you. Is there thought to taking infractions out of police purview? Like traffic stops and things like that? What are your thoughts on the recommendations from the School Safety subcommittee? 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ■ ■ Very good Good Neutral/Unsure Not great Very concerning What else should the School Safety subcommittee know? In a predominate white state and even school environment, having SRO is what makes many young people of color uncomfortable. This had not only been seen in high school, but students of color are also against that in higher education.There are better ways to address people rather than just placing SRO Involve students in decisions about who their SRO will be and how they are asked to interact with students,to determine what will impact positive change The issue is less the officers at the schools but that the school administration is using them improperly and calling on them to do things they shouldn't. Police shouldn't be in schools. Why not the mental health workers instead? Telephone Comments (transcribed): 1) Okay,thank you, before my question, given the salt lake valley has always been a gathering place for the indigenous peoples we acknowledge that this land which name for the youth tribe is the traditional ancestral homelands, of the shoshone tribe and is the crossroads for. All of the turtle island native nomads and indigenous settlers we stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters who are displaced Africans, Asians and recognize that Asian Pacific islander heritage month is this month, and we also stand in solidarity and and with the Palestinians and condemned the actions of the Israelis. My question is a bit of a twofold now that i've heard some of the policies in because I just want to get some clarity on that listening session we were just in. What my concern is is,these are trainings for the future, and is there a place that this curriculum is made public as to how the training will be informed by the curriculum. What data, what sort of is where yeah can we see the curriculum, so that the public may review it. Rather than just because I think that's something that's important that the Community, be able to. bring some feedback into that sort of policy and making i'm curious is officers are currently excuse me i'm My tmj is affecting how I speak today. Is officers know qpr training and the reason I asked this is because the majority of Much of the response and what we're seeing in our communities is that responses to neuro divergent. People often ends in the centrality and I'm curious if they're aware that qpr exists and to utilize those qpr tactics before responding when it with anything other than less than lethal for someone like that. kind of what i'm tying into that question is the recent clips of the Swedish officers that were tourists in New York City and amongst the four of them,they were able to break up a violent fight that. With their techniques of de escalation managed to. subdue those men,without any harm, like any fatal harm to them, and it seems like it was quite easy technique to execute and that there was some significant training for them to all be so coordinated, even on their personal time. 2) yeah Thank you, you had mentioned that a certain percentage of calls to police work for mental health issues, I wonder what the criteria are that you use to make that determination and if those are criteria you use when the call comes in, or only after it's been responded to thank you 3) Okay urn so i'm a 40 year old one, almost 42 year old students have. an incredibly diverse school district in Dallas Texas, which was predominantly black and Brown. And we had a was Carter high school and I can tell you from my personal experience. That was a little over two decades ago. As sorrows only represented forces antagonism and a sense of internalized racism that perpetuates quite a lot of the bias that we see.That that are associated with as sorrows within the black and brown school systems and how a lot of those racist ideologies seep in and affect the quality of care and the quality of safety that our children have and the protections of a checklist policing. With that just simply can't be met without a cultural understanding of how we correct our youth and how elders within the Multi economies. Of of communities that exist here how we call in our youth and how we correct our youth. And how this way is not the way for children, children should not be policed children should not go to school in and fear this authoritarian influence around them and instill so they can get a quality education. And I disagree with having a sorrows as being a child of a family of several generations of students who've passed through the SRO system only to experience how much of my family had been affected by it. Because they were sucked in by that vortex of the school to prison pipeline, of having friends people I love who go to prison. For you know youthful folly that ends up being criminalized because there's an SRO officer there's an SRO rather than an elder right or. Not urn and it bothers me that you don't have K PR and that that sorrow officers who are in our schools in a state that has such highest. numbers of youth self harm and you've completion that you don't have officers that are qpr trained. it's it's it's disturbing to note that this is the first time you're hearing of it when it's existed for quite a while. And I'm wondering why there seems to be quite a lot of reinvention of processes when there's already good stuff that works out there right and why that just not simply being incorporated in that current training. modalities it's just, we need to keep our kids safe and COP have no business in our school. Maybe surrounding perimeters and and that sort of thing, but we need to have a. You know, principles and you know ways of being able to de escalate, even in like I said in the most dangerous situations, so the evidence that we can do that to do want to. Comment from Spanish line: (Diego Munoz)(Salt Lake City)()There's not security at RosePark school, we'd like to see a police officer there watching the kids. Facebook comments: to be provided by staff Theme Proposed FAQ Text Treatment of citizens with How does SLCPD train its officers to handle disabilities, special needs, mental situations where a person cannot illness communicate easily? Better de-escalation, especially with students/young adults What training do officers receive on de- (including changes to SRO escalation and how might SLCPD improve program) that training and performance? What training do officers receive on how to General non-lethal and/or non- avoid lethal/physical interactions with the physical interaction with citizens public? Racial profiling, disparate How does SLCPD work to ensure that treatment during stops (harsher officers do not engage in "racial profiling," treatment given to communities of where people of a particular race are color) stopped for reasons they don't understand? How does SLCPD evaluate potential recruits Better screening of potential for red flag behaviors, such as support for or officers (looking for extremism, involvement in extremist groups, history of penchant for violence, etc.) violent behavior, etc.? Better resources and options for What kinds of resources is SLCPD seeking SLCPD to address to improve its performance for Salt Lake homelessness, gang activity City? How does SLCPD train personnel in understanding different cultural norms and Cultural sensitivity when dealing how to interact with people from different with communities of color backgrounds? What kinds of best practices does SLCPD use in dealing with members of the public in Sensitive handling of individuals some form of distress, such as mental in distress (praise for SLCPD) illness? Praise and concerns about How are decisions made about Citizens citizens academy, depictions of Academy curriculum with an eye towards communities of color racial equity/eliminating stereotypes? Disparate responses to calls for How is SLCPD addressing concerns raised police assistance (specifically on in the western part of the city, particularly West side) concerns raised by communities of color? Call for better working What measures has SLCPD taken to build relationships with the refugee and/or strengthen relationships with refugee community populations? Guidelines for notes 1. Meeting is held with anonymity- Do not capture names. 2. Capture themes of responses - in as much detail as possible 3. Save one copy in the Teams Folder for Subcommittee Salt Lake City Racial Equity and Policing Commission Listening Session - Native Hawaiian Pacific Islander June 24, 2021 Attendees: Two Commissioners Seven Community Members (Civic Engagement, Executive Director for National Tongan Society, (JP), Case Manager SL Equal Rights Community, Movement & Black Lives Matter, Tongan American, Utah Pacific Islander Civic Engagement Community One City Staff Write down the questions that the facilitator asks in Bold • School Safety— Interest; Training — Interest; Policies & Practices • Feedback about the SRO o Which schools are allocated an SRO? o Are charter schools included? o Where will the data be gathered from — intentionally focusing it from the communities of color o Male students of color, also include separately female students of color and what disproportionate referrals look like to admin/juvy/authorities o Guidelines helpful for when teachers should involve SROs (truancy can lead someone into the system — not previously exposed to until group homes) o MOU Provided in Chat (https://www.slcdocs.com/recorder/REPAgenda/Agenda Materials/2019%20SR O%20Agreement.pdf) o What is the role of the SRO officer in addressing bullying? o Emphasize the essence of policing — and the students rights with the SRO o Hire those that have Bachelor's degree or something related to the education teachers also must pursue to engage with students o The records completed by the SRO when included as part of the individuals history, carries on with the individual o SRO should be available for safety — more money put into counselors and cultural background experienced individuals ■ Impact of the records is very influential in the development of the success of the youth involved o Suggestion to de-escalation include working with families for more involved intervention • Training o Will community-based trainers by compensated? ■ (Larry: Yes — contracted by the City/Department) o Not one single trainer for all of the topics o What are the rules with officers who have civilian complaints or other (Zane James) offenses — particularly to be in schools ■ No clear clarification on how SROs are selected to be in the schools; requested a need to be clear about the involvement in the selection process (instead of Police determination solely) o Interview process with community members/students in the selection process, will records be available to assist with the decision? o Mana Academy has a good cultural training (required by teachers) and would be worthwhile to consider as a resource o Is there separate training provided to SROs (and can it be evaluated) o Value of officers training when involving adolescents , especially when so many young students especially BIPOC students who may have mental health issues. working with younger kids with mental health issues is much different than adults. • Policies & Practice o Will there be a student review team for SRO (similar to the Civilian Review Board) Salt Lake City Racial Equity and Policing Commission Listening Session — LGBTQ June 18, 2021 Attendees: 1 commissioner 1 community stakeholder 1 facilitator 2 city staff Notes on the session: (The facilitator went through the recommendations of the Policies & Practices and Training Subcommittee— the School Safety recommendations were briefly touched on) There was a breakdown of the commission and explanation of what the commission was and what it worked on. It was highlighted that the commission has reached more than just communities of color and that it's work has touched the lives of a lot of different groups within the City. The group began working their way through the three subcommittees and going over their recommendations. They began with Policies & Practices and went through the recommendations and touched on reviews and audits and how those need to be reviewed, and on how communities should have a say in if there are specific things within the community that officers need to be trained on. The bulk of time was spent on how officers respond to those in a mental health crisis. Integration of clinicians or civilians in the response to those in a mental health crisis was the highlight of this portion. It was mentioned that youth suicide rates within LGBTQ youth is very high and that the focus on mental health response was impressive and will help those who are struggling. Another major theme was that there can be a lot of fear in calling 911 and having authorities come out but that the integration of mental health professionals could help eliminate that hesitation and do so drastically. Some of the challenges for LGBTQ youth could be the fear of how officers respond to those who are transitioning or are transgender, as well as costs of services like an ambulance. One of the other main themes was the officer's use of gender pronouns when interacting with LGBTQ individuals while doing what is needed to be respectful and mindful of an individual's preferred gender pronouns and preferred name. The group then moved into the Training Subcommittee's recommendations. It was once again discussed that the community should be involved in the applicant process to ensure that their needs are being met. Additionally, it was touched on the field training officers should be a more diverse body and reflect their community. One of the main themes in the recommendations that was touched on was training for responding to a mental health crisis — requiring a re-certification for all and if you come into the Salt Lake City Police Department from another City that those officers are also required to be certified and meet the same qualifications and certifications as the officers in SLCPD. It was added that co-response should be required to mental health crisis calls, as they are more knowledgeable in how to effectively respond. The community stakeholder also believes requiring diversity and history training for new recruits on the different communities in Salt Lake City would be beneficial to aiding how officers respond. Some of the feedback in response to the Training recommendations was that the tones need to be continued and carried over to those within the LGBTQ community. It was added that there are resources and trainings available for law enforcement that could be provided to help train and aid officers. Enhanced recruitment within the LGBTQ community and diversifying the police force and could aid in response. It would also help the SLCPD accurately represent the diversity of the City it serves. It was briefly added at the end by the community stakeholder that the police should start their recruitment with Q Salt Lake (a local news outlet for the LGBTQ community) and potentially do interviews or articles to begin recruiting within the community. Racial Equity in Policing Small Group Listening Session —African American/Black Community Groups Meeting Notes Tuesday,June 15th 9:30am • Group wanted to see an outside entity that oversees the implementation of how the REP is formed. • Would like to see checks and balances monitored with a live doc/report. o How is the information being released? o What is the data after implementation is complete? • Comments Regarding School Subcommittee: o Would like to see more student/parent involvement. o More administration reviews. o Curate healthy relationships between SROs and students. ■ SRO to be viewed more like a faculty member as opposed to an officer. ■ May help reduce funneling of school-to-prison pipeline. ■ Informal conversations with students can help with de-escalation tactics. o How are SROs distributed throughout?Who makes that determination? ■ Community would like to see transparency in these decisions. o What problems are we trying to solve by means of SROs? How have they been resolved in the past? o Clarify the role of SROs on campus'. • Training Subcommittee o Officers need more mental health training. ■ Possibly send a different entity to respond to mental health calls. o DNI Officer trainings on culture, experiences, & history. • Policy& Practice o Group liked the script"Hello, 911. Is this a fire, health, police, or mental health emergency?" ■ Maybe add more questions into the script to engage correct response to emergency. o If a 911 caller is African American/Black,there is an element of fear/hesitation because of the unknown of who will respond to the call. ■ "Sometimes the product doesn't match the model." ■ "The standard is not the standard."The level of standard should always be rising. Salt Lake City Racial Equity and Policing Commission Listening Session—Utah Black Chamber of Commerce March 18, 2021 Attendees: two participants from the Utah Black Chamber Objectives: - reviewed - Understand the concerns and aspirations of those who have had interactions with the Salt Lake City Police Department, particularly communities of color, and key stakeholders interested in the work of the Racial Equity in Policing Commission. - Provide and hold space for an honest dialogue and candid feedback for the Commission. - Solicit advice and innovation from community in formulating solutions. - Ensure that Commission recommendations reflect community values and dynamics. Discussion Agreements: - reviewed - Open-mindedness: Listen to all points of view - Acceptance: Suspend judgment as best you can - Curiosity: Seek to understand rather than persuade - Discovery: Question old assumptions, look for new insights - Sincerity: Speak for yourself about what has personal heart and meaning - Brevity: Go for honesty and depth but don't go on and on - Respect: Focus on issues rather than individuals. Generalized Agenda 1) Facilitator's Introduction (3 min)- reviewed a. Why we're here b. Facilitator's role c. Objectives of session d. Commitment of anonymity 2) Intro of Commissioner(s), statement of their goals/interests in the session (5 min) Commissioner heard concerns from officers that the Commission's work is attempting to change the scale.The Commission wasn't established to limit the Police Department's (PD) function, but rather understand their process. Commission hopes to cure concerns of where money will be removed, and focus on where funding is needed. The Commissioners are an advisory body to suggest to the city what should happen.The Commission is about making the PD work best for all of SLC. 3) Brief intros of participants—what brought them to session, what do they hope to get out of experience (5 min) 4) Review of Commission's mandate (2 min)—reviewed Overview of facilitators, commission. Review of webpage—City commission page; REP page 5) When you hear the phrase "racial equity in policing" in the context of your community of Salt Lake City,what comes to mind? a. Multiple things, the first being that it's odd. It's very odd that we put police that aren't from a particular area or neighborhood to police that area or neighborhood. When we're looking at a difference in culture between the neighborhoods near me (Glendale)vs South Jordan, it's a very clear difference between who lives in both of those neighborhoods. Someone who doesn't understand how that particular group may interact with one another. If they don't understand,they may police incorrectly. There's a cultural divide and lack of understanding between different subgroups and how they behave.There's a lack of investigation and we go on the offensive.That's what they're trained to do in some ways. If you add more people of color to that police department, or training, or the right people from those neighborhoods policing those neighborhoods,they'd police more appropriately. Are officers more likely to respond with suspicion/make an arrest? • Yes. A couple of years ago, in Saratoga Springs Darien Hunt, dressed for Comic Con, had a fake wand that looked very real. Someone called the cops and said we're terrified, what is that person doing with that sword. He was not attended to properly. • Another incident, a 13-year old white boy with Autism (Linden Cameron). This is a child. If we could approach this by, knowing this child is autistic, coming from that angle, my approach needs to be different. If there was some training to identify those kind of things—if the police were working in that particular neighborhood,you might be a little more in the know. You'd have seen that child. We don't understand the cultural and social implications that make up a particular neighborhood and without that understanding, we can't provide the right type of treatment. When interactions are not based on fully-able-bodied cisgender white male [experiences], everything else is different. • My husband is white, but if he's in the car and I'm driving with him in the car, no problems. Never get stopped, never get ticketed. Use [white] privilege for good—it works. Once upon a time,an interracial couple would be stopped simply for being interracial. • I don't think any of that has changed, especially with the depiction from Hollywood's perspective. Laying out how the black experience should be or the black definition ...If I cast all black actors in a black film, am I targeting a black audience, or am I trying to tell the story of a black individual to everyone. Hollywood is terrible with their depiction. When you break down racial equity, privilege is in that carrier.There is no equity for Black people as far as treatment. I'm from an era when it was illegal to date or marry a white woman. • When I look at equity in policing, it's so far off scale that it's crazy. Black people are created so different in a traffic stop, in a detainment, interrogation/"questioning"—it's unreal. • The other day, I read at a museum exhibit, "do you think just because Obama was elected president,that things have shifted?" I don't. Politics play a huge role in racial inequity in the depiction of blacks.The power structure between the rich and the poor—pure example right now with the pandemic. The rich are fighting over power why the rest of us basically die. When we look at racial equity, it's like Utah: 2% black—that's how I gauge racial equity in America. Have you lived places other than Utah/SLC? • Cleveland. Hard place to come up. Detroit, Florida. From Colorado. • Bronx What if any comparisons/contrasts would you draw between SLC and elsewhere? • SLC is behind the clock on a lot of things. First came here the first time in 2020, it was slow. No division between church and state; church runs the state. Maybe 1.5% Black population. You could see the division between the races. Blacks aren't taken as serious and their needs and conditions aren't examined as closely as other nationalities who "contribute more" economically to Salt Lake, like the Hispanic presence in UT which gives [Latinx community members] a bigger opportunity to define/dictate experiences. • From the Bronx. Growing up,we knew who our cops were and they lived in our neighborhoods. If they didn't,you kinda know. It happens here as well— cops will be called to a particular home, say it's a Latino home and there's a party,that can escalate really quickly. Growing up it was like, "just turn that off. We don't want to come back here,just letting you know." It wasn't as aggressive as things I've seen here. I've seen it treated very differently with Hispanic parties in Glendale compared to rowdy college parties at the university. Differences based on not just stereotypes but lack of understanding on how that culture references itself or shows up. • We're telling people show up as your real self and we want to celebrate that, but if people do that, we'll criminalize it. The best way to show up is to assimilate. What am I supposed to do, if I'm upset?Someone who didn't grow up with people like me think my loud voice, emphatic gestures, are aggressive. It's used as justification to push assimilation. • If my husband were to tell me to calm down when I'm [being emphatic] I'd be more upset! At that's the normal reaction. It doesn't calm people down, it does the opposite. If we learn to recognize that and then learn other methods to deescalate, we wouldn't be asking people to assimilate and we wouldn't be getting into this type of trouble Officers who look like the community/are from a particular area—what do you think is critical for the department/city to do to recruit people to the department who could be protecting the neighborhoods they live in, like Glendale?What would attract a more diverse crowd? • we already know how to do it—we do it in the rural communities because it is so difficult to travel to those communities so it's often just easier to hire someone there. Part of that is an educational approach, like any other job. You have a Rose Park taqueria, more often than not it's people who live in that area. It's people who know what is needed,very familiar with the pizza/taco/whatever is needed in the neighborhood. Same thing—if you're hiring someone for a particular role,you have to say exactly what it is and put a requirement, like "looking for someone who lives within this mileage/radius." We tell people at our business, we don't hire outside a 20-mile radius. Specifically because we want to provide jobs within the westside of SLC and Tooele Co. If we can do it as a company, PD can do that too. • Companies are doing community engagement and diversity training. Community engagement goes a long way because if you need to recruit outside, you introduce people who come into our environment to the community, but you have to make a concerted effort, • We have a team dedicated to onboarding those people into the community and get to know what UT is like. Go on trips, go to events, meet with community organizations. Trainings like "understanding UT culture" • PD needs to get more involved in areas they want to put officers in or recruit from—partner with minority organizations who offer them access to demographics they're targeting. • PD has never approached UBC. Chamber has set up at least six job fairs—PD has never played a role, reached out, or tried to access those resources to hire minorities or connect with candidate pool. • The Chief holds everyone accountable and does a great job, and so does the Assistant Chief. But if we're going to say we need diversity, then we need to go get it. • The reality is: the Police know.They know! I've worked with them before. I've worked with a past Mayor's campaign. During a homelessness and drug user initiative, a PD representative come up and spewed all kinds of different stereotypes about the Latinx community, Hondurans selling drugs to vulnerable Utahns—in other words,these minorities are making the white folks sick. That's bad rhetoric.Those present, including me, State representatives and community advocates, called it out. We need to work together to eliminate these stereotypes that negatively impact how we interact.The Chief agreed, but never did it. You know you have a responsibility,you know these things exist. You've been told as long as I've been in this work, and you're not implementing it. • Dad said, if I ask you once, I'm asking you.Twice, reminding you.Three times, I'm begging you. SLCPD talks a good game, but nothing ever gets done until there's friction. When there's friction, everything is a priority and under a microscope. Everything was fine until the protests got violent. • Utahns Against Police Brutality started in 2013 out in the streets, doing this work right at the PD building, then federal building. You can't say you don't know what to do when there are so many articles. My family used to be so worried about my life because my work protesting in the streets, worried I would get shot.They already know how to change. I've been saying this for a long time and I'm not the only one. We're begging you and you just don't want to listen. Training—what do you want police officers to learn they're either not learning or not learning effectively • Mental health is a big issue. • Unconscious bias training doesn't do enough. It just says, "there are biases." • Officers need to be leaders in our community, respected in our community— need to be able to look at it that way. • Why is any type of diversity work important in policing—that's just a baseline to get us to an understanding of why diversity is even important. Then we can do these trainings and crucial listening things.They're important but not as much as certification on mental health issues, doing a deep dive into pitfalls and privileges we hold and how to understand communities we serve. Everyone should have something that speaks to that community. You shouldn't go into a community without knowing who they are and privileges and biases they hold.Just a baseline—we do it in the corporation world all the time. • Beyond de-escalation, how do we effectively communicate with someone, especially in an intense situation? Like example of husband saying, 'calm down'—it's demeaning.At home,we reframe with our families to deescalate and communicate better.They need to do that out in the community. • We need empathetic/inclusive leadership training.That gets to the heart of people. Everyone likes to hear that they're a leader—it makes you feel good, like you're not just performing a job.This is something near and dear to their heart. How do you improve as a leader in your community? • We need to educate people in how to be better allies—how are you [police officer] an ally to that community? Deepen your understanding of the community, its diversity and values. Now you understand where you stand in this community. How do you help them understand you don't just want to send them to jail or murder them, but be there for them in their times of need? Have there been moments where you've said to yourself, if that's what they're being told to do,they shouldn't do it—policies that need to be changed? • Closest I've gotten is intimidation. 5 years ago,joined a group out of University of Utah doing homeless outreach by the Road Home.They would bring all types of items and lunch food because Catholic Community Services is closed on Sundays. I would see police intimidate the group bringing food and try to get them kicked out under pretext they needed a specific license. Asked former mayor about this, learned that policy was eliminated at the beginning of the year. The next weekend, PD tried to stop the group. I spoke up about talking to Mayor about policy change, PD pushed back, attitude changed after verifying relationship with Mayor. Shouldn't intimidate people or use the badge privilege to lie/deceive/dismiss. During Public Listening session,there were comments about speed with which the Police respond to unhoused people inside businesses.Are there other particular issues in what you'd expect relating to PD protecting you/your business? • We don't generally have individuals coming in. Honestly, one of our pillars includes treating everyone as an equal. Part of that is, hey, if you feel uncomfortable, ask a person to leave, if not, ask PD. Goal is to not escalate to assault on the premises—take it outside would be the expectation. Want Police to be responsive, protect and serve. • Saw story of a woman, not in Utah, at her business. A white male came in for services from this Black-owned business. He attempted to pull out a gun to harm these individuals because he wasn't receiving the services he felt entitled to receive after being told to leave multiple times. I thought it was really sad that in the 911 call, the woman business owner was saying "this is happening, we can't get this person out of here. I want to reiterate my husband is black, but he's the owner. He's not the person assaulting" I think that speaks to the fear that we now have—it's really sad we have to do that. It's very possible the businesses in our community, even in a dangerous situation, might not be as prone to calling for help. We had a couple businesses just last month receive multiple calls harassing the businesses, someone saying they'll show up, making threats—businesses called the Chamber not knowing who to call, not sure the police would protect the business owners because of how they look. Without proper training, communities are left to deal with this on their own because they can't trust the police to come protect and serve. • Utah's a whole different animal. Different from other places I've been/encountered.Just gotta keep to the grindstone, keep working to make change here. Keep telling the story, amend certain parts here as we keep telling it. Facilitator: would be happy to meet again if you thought there was another opportunity, maybe in tandem with an already-scheduled meeting/event. Chamber would love to signal boost SLCREP—requested follow up with messaging they could use to email/social media promote opportunities to weigh in via the website. Salt Lake City Racial Equity and Policing Commission Listening Session — Native American and Indigenous groups June 23 2021 Attendees: Member of the Navajo nation Law practitioner; worked with Navajo nation; professor of American Indian Studies What attendees hope to get from this - Share what has been learned from work in their communities - Get caught up on what's happening so far - Learn what commission is doing, about recommendations - Prove perspective on those recommendations. Feedback on SRO recommendations - Question — is recommendation that SROs are handling issues that could be handled by school administration a liability consideration? To facilitator's understanding, this is more about the officer-student dynamic o Do SROs receive counseling training? If they aren't trained in that, even beneficially providing that service can be a liability o Are current SROs required to take anti-bias training to reduce stereotypes against students of color. - Participant shared experience as a parent when child first went to middle school. Child reported first time seeing an SRO caught her off guard. Mother suggested asking SRO's name and introducing herself, advised child that it's good to know who you can turn to if students are in harm's way. Repeated advice when child went to high school; same advice to younger child. Recommended developing a good relationship with the SRO, which can also improve relationship between SROs and other students of color. - A big concern is if SROs are not receiving training — if asked to do something you aren't trained, you might do more harm than good. - Suggest reaching out to Kayley Richards with the Utah Board of Juvenile Justice, who worked on HB 239 re juvenile justice reforms. Included providing training throughout the state. o Dr. Procero? (Potentially Commissioner Prospero?) At U of U, who is lead in implementing this training statewide. Not sure where SLC school district is on this. Separate training for school administrators on when it's appropriate to bring SRO in; vice versa on when SROs need school guidance o Utah Board of Juvenile Justice - Kayley Richards - ktrichards@utah.gov - Chuck (Dr. Foster) would be helpful in this conversation as well. o Dr. Harold (Chuck) Foster Education Specialist (State Board of Education,Title VI, American Indian Salt Lake City Racial Equity and Policing Commission Listening Session — LatinX& Hispanic June 22, 2021 Attendees: At the beginning of the meeting there were 5 community members. One experienced audio difficulty and dropped out and another could only stay a few minutes. By the end, only three members remained and provided feedback/comment. There was also one foreign government representative. School Safety • How is efficacy in school safety measured? o Who and how do we evaluate that data? It has to be tied to the actual work. Who collects/reports it? SD and PD need to work together on these solutions. • Frustration of PD response at scene, community fears their reaction — need efficacy, would aide in feedback infrastructure. • Want to see more feedback from parents and families. Peer Court Education) Phone: (801) 538-7838 I E-mail Training recommendations -Positive feedback — recommendations are spot on - One participant shared a story of an EMT in Magna who trains responders for disaster situations, who has been asking for groups of people of color who would like to participate in this training. EMTs who are not people of color tend to go to other white people first. Important to get people used to people of color. Important to offer training like that with people of color. - Commissioner shared how her participation and vulnerability sharing specific examples from her experience helped foster understanding of shared/generational trauma for the Training subcommittee. Policy and Practice Recommendations - Commissioner shared experience as boarding school survivor, and how parent taught children to hide if encountering law enforcement officer (LEO). Physiological effects persist to date. - Requested more information on civilian response, a la Denver Star. Staff to follow up. o Staff compilation of mental health response programs, presented to the City Council September 2020 https://www.slcdocs.com/council/agendas/2020agendas/September/15WS/A 3_Informational_UpdatesonRacialEquityandPolicing.pdf - City might consider— if this civilian response goes out, are they acting on behalf of the City and something goes wrong, if they do something outside normal acceptable training, who is liable? What recourse would victim's families have, if there's no formal liability identification? o Staff note: City Dispatch has a new agreement with the University of Utah's mental health crisis line - Developing some type of community policing program — understanding of that practice is that it focuses on relationships within communities, helps build trust and helps officers understand norms within those communities. o Share details on what has officially been put into place and what's been explored. What might have been missed entirely? - Sense is that this is going in the right direction. Trainers from different backgrounds may be able to provide firsthand experiences with law enforcement. - Collaboration with State: Multicultural Affairs; Board of Juvenile Justice o Nubia Pena, Director, Division of Multicultural Affairs - npena@utah.gov - Tribes have their own law enforcement — could be helpful to see what they're doing to improve relationships in tribal areas, towns near reservations. Could already be solutions in place that would be helpful. - Mo Smith with Urban Indian Center in SLC - Recommend including Rozanna Benally-Sagg with Governor's Multicultural Affairs Office, particularly for the Urban Native perspective in SLC proper Preliminary Findings: REP Commission May 19 Listening Session ZipCodes of participants 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 I 84010 84047 84101 84102 84104 84105 84107 84108 84111 84115 84116 84131 Race/Ethnicity Black or African American = Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander M White Other Race/Ethnicity Hispanic/Latino/Chicano American Indian or Alaska Native African M 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% What do you most want the Racial Equity in Policing Commission to help change? Other School Safety Policies and Practices Training 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Other Responses: Resources for mental health and addiction recovery Increase in funding. More mental health workers and fewer police Policing culture Cultural changes within the department What are your thoughts on the recommendations from the Training subcommittee? 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% ■ Very good Good Neutral/Unsure Not great Very concerning What else should the Training subcommittee know? Trainers need to be from the neighborhood people that know the inns and the outs in the nuances of the community I particularly appreciate the recommendation that trainers themselves need to be diverse and representative of the community I would like to know more about how the training will promote Racial Equity Training must be paired with accountability for consistent and sustainable behavior change I believe that we need more officers than what we are coming up with for helping defuse mental health situations we also need more social workers Please train these folks by including citizens opinion Thank you so much for your time and commitment to our community Focus on ongoing efforts in the mix with point in time trainings as change takes time I'd like them trained to do their job without firearms What are your thoughts on the recommendations from the Policies and Procedures subcommittee? 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Very good Good Neutral/Unsure Not great Very concerning What else should the Policies and Practices subcommittee know? What about 911 dispatchers?Are they being trained to gather information to relay to police What are you doing to stop officers from profiling black and blown people while driving? My husband is black and is pulled over disproportionately forth what about a CTR type training? I believe that's what the caller was referring to Were there any findings that changed your personal views? I'd like the REP commission to also look at the calls made to 911 by the public and if there are ways that calls for service which may be themselves based in racism can be weeded out by dispatch. Will the bias assessment be required and lead decision-making in the application process for prospective officers AND performance reviews of existing officers? Great work to the committee. Thank you. Is there thought to taking infractions out of police purview? Like traffic stops and things like that? What are your thoughts on the recommendations from the School Safety subcommittee? 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% ■ ■ Very good Good Neutral/Unsure Not great Very concerning What else should the School Safety subcommittee know? In a predominate white state and even school environment, having SRO is what makes many young people of color uncomfortable. This had not only been seen in high school, but students of color are also against that in higher education.There are better ways to address people rather than just placing SRO Involve students in decisions about who their SRO will be and how they are asked to interact with students,to determine what will impact positive change The issue is less the officers at the schools but that the school administration is using them improperly and calling on them to do things they shouldn't. Police shouldn't be in schools. Why not the mental health workers instead? Telephone Comments (transcribed): 1) Okay,thank you, before my question, given the salt lake valley has always been a gathering place for the indigenous peoples we acknowledge that this land which name for the youth tribe is the traditional ancestral homelands, of the shoshone tribe and is the crossroads for. All of the turtle island native nomads and indigenous settlers we stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters who are displaced Africans, Asians and recognize that Asian Pacific islander heritage month is this month, and we also stand in solidarity and and with the Palestinians and condemned the actions of the Israelis. My question is a bit of a twofold now that i've heard some of the policies in because I just want to get some clarity on that listening session we were just in. What my concern is is,these are trainings for the future, and is there a place that this curriculum is made public as to how the training will be informed by the curriculum. What data, what sort of is where yeah can we see the curriculum, so that the public may review it. Rather than just because I think that's something that's important that the Community, be able to. bring some feedback into that sort of policy and making i'm curious is officers are currently excuse me i'm My tmj is affecting how I speak today. Is officers know qpr training and the reason I asked this is because the majority of Much of the response and what we're seeing in our communities is that responses to neuro divergent. People often ends in the centrality and I'm curious if they're aware that qpr exists and to utilize those qpr tactics before responding when it with anything other than less than lethal for someone like that. kind of what i'm tying into that question is the recent clips of the Swedish officers that were tourists in New York City and amongst the four of them,they were able to break up a violent fight that. With their techniques of de escalation managed to. subdue those men,without any harm, like any fatal harm to them, and it seems like it was quite easy technique to execute and that there was some significant training for them to all be so coordinated, even on their personal time. 2) yeah Thank you, you had mentioned that a certain percentage of calls to police work for mental health issues, I wonder what the criteria are that you use to make that determination and if those are criteria you use when the call comes in, or only after it's been responded to thank you 3) Okay urn so I'm a 40 year old one, almost 42 year old students have. an incredibly diverse school district in Dallas Texas, which was predominantly black and Brown. And we had a was Carter high school and I can tell you from my personal experience. That was a little over two decades ago. As sorrows only represented forces antagonism and a sense of internalized racism that perpetuates quite a lot of the bias that we see.That that are associated with as sorrows within the black and brown school systems and how a lot of those racist ideologies seep in and affect the quality of care and the quality of safety that our children have and the protections of a checklist policing. With that just simply can't be met without a cultural understanding of how we correct our youth and how elders within the Multi economies. Of of communities that exist here how we call in our youth and how we correct our youth. And how this way is not the way for children, children should not be policed children should not go to school in and fear this authoritarian influence around them and instill so they can get a quality education. And I disagree with having a sorrows as being a child of a family of several generations of students who've passed through the SRO system only to experience how much of my family had been affected by it. Because they were sucked in by that vortex of the school to prison pipeline, of having friends people I love who go to prison. For you know youthful folly that ends up being criminalized because there's an SRO officer there's an SRO rather than an elder right or. Not urn and it bothers me that you don't have K PR and that that sorrow officers who are in our schools in a state that has such highest. numbers of youth self harm and you've completion that you don't have officers that are qpr trained. it's it's it's disturbing to note that this is the first time you're hearing of it when it's existed for quite a while. And I'm wondering why there seems to be quite a lot of reinvention of processes when there's already good stuff that works out there right and why that just not simply being incorporated in that current training. modalities it's just, we need to keep our kids safe and COP have no business in our school. Maybe surrounding perimeters and and that sort of thing, but we need to have a. You know, principles and you know ways of being able to de escalate, even in like I said in the most dangerous situations, so the evidence that we can do that to do want to. Comment from Spanish line: (Diego Munoz)(Salt Lake City)()There's not security at RosePark school, we'd like to see a police officer there watching the kids. Facebook comments: to be provided by staff REPSLC Survey Name Response Rubina Halwani Tawnya Keller Benjamin Petrie Connor Arrington Lynn A Hanson Steve Woodall Angelica Brian Anonymous Jon Chu Moni Candia Venis Marie Weaver Justin Merrill Gayle Dawes John Allen Shaw Janet K. Cook Gretchen Krebs Answered 17 Skipped 3 Policies and Practices Can we agree that any police officer with 17+ "excessive use of force complaints" (like Derek Chauvin) should be dismissed from the force and prevented from serving in other jurisdictions? How many officers would be ousted? I am a liberal Democrat living on the West Side of Salt Lake. I am all for police reform and holding bad cops accountable, but the whole mayor in city council approach about hands off the homeless and de-funding the place is ridiculous. I called 911 I said your call will be answered in the order was received. We should not defund the place we should actually give them more money for diversity training and the independent investigation team that has nothing to do with the police force. (1 of 2) It is not the case that 1 bad apple spoils the bunch, be it police officers or any other groups of people, that is an unfair generalization. Cops risk their lives daily to keep us safe, and SLCPD needs resources, recognition and respect so they can do their jobs, and also get training to address community concerns. (2 of 2) In RP/FP, I am saddened to see homeless camps, drug activity on North Temple, stolen vehicles, trespassers, a trashed Jordan River Trail, gang houses w/ bullets fired into the air; it really comes off like the city is neglecting the area, &amp; cops can't do their jobs effectively. We must empower the community&amp; create change, but we also have to empower SLCPD, else we will continue to lose good cops, our property values will decline and you'll lose residents to bordering neighborhoods. I would suggest adopting policies and training procedures that have worked in other places— the texts KUER series, Mountain West News Bureau series "Elevated Risk," a project powered by America Amplified, had some very good reporting. Expanding the focus of police to deesculation and as a link to other social services would be a good direction. This past weekend, I witnessed a horrific &amp; brutal police response to a women who was suicidal!! My neighbors &amp; I were appalled by the way the police drug the distraught women down our hall, hitting her head on the wall, which caused bleeding &amp; tasing her more than 3 times.The department needs to scrutinize each applicant; member of any hate groups, write- ups for excessive force, signs of racism &amp; lack of self-control. SLCPD Training We have a huge gang/drug issue in SLC, west of 1-15 and in the Fairpark/Rose Park/Poplar Grove area. I bought in Rose Park to raise my baby daughters (we moved from New York), but if the neighborhood doesn't improve, I'll sell and move somewhere where it's safer. I see many complaints about teens firing guns into the air, theft and petty gang things that need to be addressed with a hard hand. None.They are already well trained they just have 0 leadership. That's why so many officers that can are leaving. I'm so excited my loved one will be leaving soon and won't miss the Hitleresc mayor and city council. Also, wondering how much taxpayer dollars were wasted on the bikini top masks when people are going hungry. SLCPD officers need Procedural Justice training to improve their interactions in the community. You can read the report of a random sample, controlled study showing how Procedural Justice training reduced police officers' use of force in the field: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1745-9133.12337 School Safety Students/children should not be treated as criminals.They should not feel that they are not safe. Security officers should be only against an outside threat. Untitled Activity count 11 Participant count 28 Average responses 10.09091 What part of Salt Lake City do you live or work in? Activity type Multiple choice Total responses 16 Unique