Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/02/2026 - Meeting Minutes PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 yi�L•.;•�µ r DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC LANDS Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory Board Meeting Steward, Advocate, Activate April 2, 2026 Join in person: Public Lands Administrative Building: 1965 W 500 S., Salt Lake City, UT 84104, Upstairs Parks Training Room Join Zoom meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/3703674458?pwd=xigAA5545gKVfbj u BUj Qh pO PQtU b20.1 Meeting ID: 370 367 4458 Passcode: 133477 AGENDA Board Member in attendance: Kerri Nakamura, Ginger Cannon, Aaron Wiley, Sarah Foran, Christian Chavez, Thomas Merrill, Meridith Benally, Steve Bloch, Melanie Perhson City Employees in attendance: Kim Shelley, Public Lands Director, Tyler Murdock, Deputy Director, Cameron Johnson, Senior City Attorney, Tyler Fonarow, Trails and Natural Lands Division Director, Jana Cunningham, Dustin Wiberg, Associate Landscape Architect, Maria Romero, Executive Assistant I Board Manager Member of the Public Present:Anne Cannon, Jan Hemming I. Call to Order, Introductions, and Welcome (5:00 pm) Board Chair welcomed Miranda Bradshaw, Board Member for the Transportation Advisory Board, ex officio voting member for the PNUT Advisory Board designee. II. Approval of Meeting Minutes (5:05 pm) a. Minutes from March 5, 2026 A motion to approve and adopt the Thursday, February 5th, meeting minutes for the Parks,The Natural Lands, Urban Forestry, and Trails Advisory Board was made by a Board Member,Aaron Wiley.The motion was seconded by Board Member Christian Chavez.The vote passed unanimously,with the Board Members present to approve and adopt minutes from Thursday, February 5,Advisory Board meeting. PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 III. Public Comment (5:10 pm) a. Verbal comments are limited to no more than 3 minutes; 15 minutes total. Written comments are welcome. Kerri Nakamura provided the time to Constituent Anne Cannon Anne Cannon provided the following comments to the board members. And I've, bought that follow-up area. And I understand we are renewing our efforts. Public Access. Once I drill it all, I'll delete them. Longtime possibility. And we hope it, comes in such a way that doesn't create new problems with Bicycles, and people with dogs. Who already entered from other access. And... Also, with the opportunity for the Elias Church property that is being sold, Which borders the northern portion of the preserve. We hope that there will be the opportunity to Cooperate with the board and city and community. in at least... As much a portion of that property as we can to facilitate the extended use M.A. Beautiful way. to the preserver. So I was here to let you know that as a community, I don't represent everybody. I have loaded, right? So I think we still have sentiment there. that... Values. Value of the preserve, and the way we want to complete it. have it available. for the public. In ways that will conserve it. Kerri Nakamura thanked Anne Cannon IV. Director's Report (5:25 pm) a. Summary of current high-priority department items— Kim Shelley, Public Lands Director Kim Shelley provided updates on the following areas: Leadership changes, hiring of Public Lands Planning& Design Division Director, and Parks PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 Division Director. A discussion around board participation occurred. Kerri Nakamura shared an interest in being part of the panel. Kim shared an update on the tree relocation efforts by Urban Forestry. Miranda Bradshaw commended the work of Urban Forestry. Kim Shelley shared an update from the mayor that the City is on Stage 2 of the drought mitigation and shared details on the implementation of City watering guidelines. Ginger Cannon asked a question regarding the removal of trees in front of Trolley Square. Kim Shelley responded by clarifying that the trees removed in Trolley Square are on Trolley Square property, and the City has little ability to affect how they manage their trees. Kim added to Tony Gliot, Urban Forestry Division Director he stood firm, and the City considers the tree specimens. Trolley Square did provide mitigation funding; they are putting 3 additional trees. She added some of the trees that where removed where in declining health. Kim added that the limited media coverage was not accurate. Kim added that the department prioritized the trees and really got the best outcome. Ginger Cannon responded with support with future communication. Kim Shelley added that within 36 hours of Trolley Square receiving approval to remove the trees. Half of the trees where gone. Thomas Merrill asked what the media got wrong. Kim Shelley added that KSL reported and implied it was a city decision to remove the trees. Within the article, it was implied that the Citywould respond to questions; however, the City will not speak on behalf of Trolley Square's decision. Steve Bloch asked what authorization Trolley Square received. Kim Shelley responded that it was the authorization for their landscaping plan. They approached the city, and the city met with them to influence the outcome. The outcome was that the City would receive mitigation funds, including 3 additional trees. Austin Whitehead asked if the city could have denied the authorization. Tyler Murdock responded that the city could not approve the authorization of the landscaping plan, but that would not have changed whether the private property owner would stop watering the trees or cut them down. The city reviewed the plans to at least receive mitigation funds. As the trees are specimen trees within ordinance, the city can seek mitigation funding even on private property. Austin Whitehead added that via MySLC app the response is the owners of Trolley Square were permitted to remove the London Plane trees due to the trees' declining health and compatibility with the space. Austin added that PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 communication from the city could be different to provide more accurate information. Steve Bloch added that, according to City communication, KSL's reporting is accurate. Kerri Nakamura asked Maria Romero to introduce Miranda Bradshaw, Board Member of the Transportation Advisory Board. Maria Romero shared that after the recent vehicular pedestrian Accident on 1700 s a urgent need to collaborate with the Transportation Advisory Board arose. Within the PNUT Advisory Board Ordinance, the Chair of the Transportation Advisory Board sits on the board as an ex officio non-voting member. V. Staff Presentations, Updates & Discussions (5:35 pm) a. Informational Update: Jordan River Commission-Soren Simonsen, Executive Director Soren Simonsen began by reminding the board that the Planning and Design Division is currently reviewing the Northwest Community Master plan, and the department has a role in shaping those districts. He reminded the group that this is educational and has tools to help with advocacy. Soren Simonsen shared a picture of a workshop put together by Mayor Jenny Wilson around the time the Great Salt Lake hit a record low. There are concerns that there will be another record low. Soren Simonsen explained that his comments focused on conditions affecting the Great Salt Lake and, in particular, the surrounding freshwater ecosystems that are often overlooked. He emphasized that while the lake itself receives significant attention, the wetlands, uplands, and tributary habitats that feed into it are equally critical. He referenced recent snowpack data, noting that the current year represents a record low compared to historical measurements, despite a record high occurring just a few years earlier. He used this contrast to highlight growing concerns about water availability and the long-term health of the basin. Sorenson described the three major tributaries to the Great Salt Lake—the Bear, Weber, and Jordan Rivers and explained that they support extensive freshwater systems that are essential for agriculture, industry, and wildlife habitat. He noted that these connected ecosystems are a key reason the lake area remains such an important environmental region. He then discussed land preservation patterns around the lake, pointing out that while some areas remain permanently protected, others—particularly near the Weber and Jordan River corridors face increasing development pressure. He highlighted the area west of the airport associated with the PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 inland port as an example of large-scale rezoning and industrial expansion that could further fragment sensitive ecosystems. To illustrate long-term land-use change, Sorenson provided historical comparisons of several sites. He described how areas that were once freshwater lakes, wetlands, or agricultural land—such as Hot Springs Lake and parts of western Salt Lake Valley—have been converted into industrial zones, infrastructure corridors, or recreational developments like golf courses, resulting in the loss of natural habitat. He also cited broader ecological trends, including significant declines in North American bird populations over the past several decades, particularly among species dependent on grassland, wetland, and shoreline habitats. He connected these declines to the ongoing loss and fragmentation of habitat around the Great Salt Lake. Soren Simonsen further explained how legal and regulatory changes have affected wetland protections, noting that recent court rulings have narrowed the definition of wetlands under federal law, leaving some ephemeral and seasonallyflooded habitats less protected than before. He provided examples of remaining high-value habitat areas, including ephemeral wetlands that serve as critical seasonal ecosystems for insects, microorganisms, and migratory birds. He emphasized that although these areas may appear dry at times, they play an essential role in supporting biodiversity during wetter periods. He concluded by highlighting increasing development pressure in areas adjacent to protected habitats, referencing industrial expansion near sensitive ecological zones and the resulting impacts on wildlife movement and habitat continuity. He also referenced regional planning efforts, including the Jordan River Blueprint, which seeks to balance development, recreation, and ecological preservation along the river corridor. Soren Simonsen provided a broader overview of conservation and development pressures along the Jordan River corridor and its connection to the Great Salt Lake system. He began by highlighting efforts in Saratoga Springs to preserve wetlands and uplands near the river's origin, noting that the city has established a 300-700 foot buffer along portions of the river. He explained that former agricultural land in the area is being restored to native vegetation and will eventually form a roughly 35-acre linear park stretching over a mile. He then referenced redevelopment of the former prison site in Draper, which is being transformed into a large-scale city center with a significant open- space buffer secured through mitigation efforts. He also identified other preserved areas along the Jordan River, including the Galena Sumkani PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 Preserve near Bangerter Highway, which recognizes Indigenous history tied to the region. Soren Simonsen described similar preservation efforts in Murray, where large setbacks from the river ranging from 300 to 1,000 feet have been incorporated into planning. He noted that some of these areas have become highly productive habitat zones, such as nature centers and restored open space, though other areas like golf courses provide limited ecological value. He emphasized that much of this land was historically industrial and has since undergone significant land-use transition. He then addressed jurisdictional questions, explaining that the riverbed and banks of the Jordan River are public sovereign lands dating back to statehood, similar to Great Salt Lake and Utah Lake. Land beyond the riverbanks, however, is typically privately owned or managed by municipalities that have acquired property for parks and conservation. Sorenson reviewed key planning frameworks, beginning with Salt Lake City's 2015 Plan Salt Lake, which set ambitious goals for expanding natural lands, reducing habitat fragmentation, and improving watershed protection. He noted that these goals are increasingly being applied not just to mountain watersheds but also to riparian systems like the Jordan River. He also referenced Salt Lake County's 2022 West General Plan, which designates portions of the northern river corridor as a Shoreline Heritage Area and emphasizes similar conservation strategies, including land acquisition and habitat restoration. He then discussed a more recent small area plan adopted approximately two and a half years ago, which included wetland and wetland-adjacent areas but also raised concerns about future land-use direction. He focused in particular on the North Point area north of the airport, much of which is transitioning from agricultural use toward industrial and manufacturing zoning. A key concern he highlighted was the Crossy Ranch property, which was annexed and subsequently rezoned for manufacturing despite being identified for preservation in earlier planning documents. He noted that a rezoning petition is currently before the City Council that could further impact nearby wetland areas. He also referenced adjacent industrial development, including large warehouse construction, as contributing to habitat fragmentation. Sorenson explained that efforts are underway in coordination with the Department of Public Utilities to acquire and preserve portions of this PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 landscape, particularly seasonal or ephemeral wetlands that provide critical habitat despite not holding water year-round. He stressed that these areas are essential for migratory birds and other wildlife. He further noted that the North Point Small Area Plan emphasizes industrial transition but does not provide strong guidance for long-term habitat protection, which he sees as inconsistent with broader city and county conservation goals. He referenced the Emerald Ribbon Plan and the Northwest Community Plan, expressing concern that they do not fully address the northernmost portions of the Jordan River corridor recently annexed into Salt Lake City. Sorenson concluded by urging stronger preservation tools, clearer policy alignment, and greater attention to cumulative impacts of incremental rezoning. He emphasized that both city and county plans recognize the ecological importance of this region, but that implementation has lagged behind stated goals. He asked whether the board could help reinforce the importance of protecting the Jordan River Great Salt Lake interface, describing it as one of the most ecologically critical and vulnerable areas in the entire watershed system. Steve Bloch asked for clarification on how the Jordan River Commission is structured and how it connects to Salt Lake City systems and to the board, noting that he was not familiar with the Commission's membership or its role within city processes. In response, Soren Simonsen acknowledged that he should have begun with an overview of the Commission. He explained that the Jordan River Commission was created in 2010 following Salt Lake County's leadership in developing the Blueprint Jordan River, a regional vision focused on river restoration, recreation, and habitat protection. The effort emerged from a recognition that management of the Jordan River had become fragmented across many jurisdictions. He noted that the Jordan River is unusual in Utah because it flows almost entirely through incorporated municipalities, unlike other major river systems in the state that are largely rural. This creates complex, overlapping jurisdictional responsibilities across cities and counties along the river corridor. Soren Simonsen explained that the Commission was formed as an opt-in coalition of local governments, state agencies, and federal partners to coordinate implementation of the Blueprint. All 19 local governments in the watershed are now members, including Salt Lake City, and each participates PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 through annual contributions and formal resolutions supporting the Blueprint's goals. He added that the Commission does not have regulatory authority. Instead, it functions as a collaborative, advisory, and coordinating body that supports jurisdictions in implementing shared goals. He described it as a facilitative organization that helps align local efforts rather than enforcing policy or stopping local decisions. Soren Simonsen also noted that the Commission was later designated as a watershed council under the 2020 Watershed Councils Act, expanding its focus beyond the immediate river corridor to broader watershed issues such as water quality, conservation, and ecological connectivity. Steve Bloch then asked what happens when a city's actions conflict with adopted plans or the Commission's goals, and whether the Commission has any ability to intervene. Soren Simonsen responded that the Commission has no enforcement authority. He described it as a "support and advocacy" organization whose role is to encourage alignment with the Blueprint through communication with elected officials, staff, and governing bodies across jurisdictions. He emphasized that much of the work involves ongoing coordination and relationship-building rather than regulatory intervention. Miranda Bradshaw asked how the Commission's work is received across different communities and whether it is considered controversial. She noted the perceived broad benefits of wetlands and river protection, including impacts on public health, air quality, schools, and quality of life. Simonsen replied that, in general, the Commission's work is broadly supported across the watershed despite political and cultural diversity among communities. He said the Jordan River and Great Salt Lake are widely viewed as shared regional assets that help unify stakeholders. However, he acknowledged that while there is general agreement on goals, challenges arise in implementation details, particularly as development pressures increase. He also noted that the Jordan River is heavily diverted and altered through the Salt Lake Valley, making its restoration and protection especially complex. Kim Shelley added that the board could play a meaningful advisory role by communicating with the mayor, particularly in her capacity as a representative on the Commission's governing board, helping reinforce priorities related to the river and surrounding lands. PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 Soren Simonsen agreed and noted that advisory boards like this one, along with planning commissions and other civic bodies, can influence outcomes by elevating concerns during the development of master plans and policy frameworks. He emphasized that as major redevelopment and rezoning continues, there is an opportunityfor advisory input to help ensure long-term preservation goals are reflected in city planning. Thomas Merrill concluded by raising a related question about what incentives the city has in allowing development in these sensitive areas rather than preserving them. Soren Simonsen responded that the issue reflects two intersecting pressures. He explained that one is the strong demand for development, particularly warehouse and industrial space, in a growing city. This creates pressure on municipalities to rezone land for commercial and industrial use. He noted that this dynamic must be balanced against private property rights, which are protected under both state and federal law. However, he emphasized that there are policy tools that can be used to work with private property owners when preservation is a goal. In his view, those tools are currently underdeveloped in Salt Lake City code. Simonsen pointed to the specific example of a wetland area under consideration for rezoning, noting that although recent legal changes have altered federal wetland definitions, the ecological function of the land remains unchanged. He stressed that these areas continue to serve important environmental roles regardless of regulatory classification. He added that the Planning Commission had already recommended against rezoning the property, and that the decision now rests with the City Council, likely following budget deliberations. He suggested that broader community planning processes could be used to establish clearer policies and provide stronger guidance for zoning and preservation decisions, including identifying tools that support long-term land protection. Melanie Perhson responded by reflecting on potential next steps and expressed interest in identifying more actionable ways for the board or commission to engage. She suggested the possibility of formal resolutions, more structured communication with the mayor and city leadership, and stronger integration of Jordan River priorities into planning documents such as the Northwest Community Plan and the Emerald Ribbon Action Plan. She also raised the idea of including an appendix or similar mechanism to reinforce conservation priorities within newly adopted plans. Steve Bloch responded by emphasizing that the responsibility for identifying actionable steps should remain with subject-matter experts. He stated that PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 while the discussion was engaging, the group needed clear, concrete recommendations from the Commission to ensure that momentum was not lost and that the board could meaningfully act rather than simply receive information. Soren Simonsen indicated he was willing to provide follow-up materials and work with staff leadership to outline potential actions the board could take. Melanie Perhson noted she would expand further on committee-related work during an upcoming update. Kerri Nakamura then shifted the discussion toward more practical considerations, emphasizing the importance of helping the public understand the Jordan River as a community asset. She shared observations from recent visits to the trail system, noting increased public use and improvements in cleanliness, while also acknowledging areas that still require maintenance and care. She asked how the Commission might help support local efforts to extend limited maintenance resources and improve conditions along the river. Soren Simonsen responded that the Commission is actively working to secure additional funding from multiple sources, including state appropriations, federal grants, and partnerships with state agencies. He noted recent funding successes, including multimillion-dollar allocations and smaller targeted grants for vegetation management and restoration work. He explained that while local governments are investing significant resources particularly through bond-funded park and river improvementsthose investments alone are not sufficient to meet long-term needs. He emphasized that continued coordination and funding at multiple levels of government will be necessary as additional sections of the river are incorporated into the city and as responsibilities expand. He concluded that a key priority of the Commission is ensuring that policy frameworks are in place now to guide future investment and protect the river system as it continues to grow in scope and importance. Aaron Wiley then asked for clarification on the geographic extent of the Jordan River area being discussed, particularly in relation to recent annexations into Salt Lake City. Soren Simonsen clarified that the relevant area includes newly annexed land at the northern edge of the city, near the Cross E Ranch property and the Legacy Nature Preserve, which now forms part of the updated planning boundary under the Northwest Community Plan. PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 Portions of the area had been included in the previous Community Master Plan, but were excluded from the current version. Stakeholders expressed concern about this omission and encouraged the city to reconsider the decision, noting that the excluded area represents a significant portion of the region under discussion. Melanie Perhson asked why the area had been excluded. Soren Simonsen responded that the exclusion was largely due to the city's adoption of the North Point Small Area Plan, which officials may have felt was sufficient. However, he noted that the Small Area Plan does not provide strong regulatory guidance or sufficient focus on the Jordan River and its important wildlife habitat. He added that stakeholders would like to see the area revisited within the Community Master Plan in order to establish broader public policy direction for these significant natural areas within the city. Steve Bloch emphasized the importance of timely engagement, stating that if the board expected support or assistance, it would need to reconnect in the near term so that action could be taken while the City Council was still considering the plan. He noted that this would allow the board's perspective to be heard during the decision-making process. Aaron Wiley asked about the project timeline. Soren Simonsen explained that the plan was moving forward to the City Council following approval by the Planning Commission approximately one month prior, which included a recommendation of support. He noted that final action would occur at the City Council level. He added that no action was expected in the next couple of months due to the City Council's focus on the annual budget, but anticipated decisions would likely occur in July or August. In the interim, he reported ongoing meetings with City Council members, the River Commission, and partner organizations such as Audubon, the Ruby Duck Club, and Friends of the Great Salt Lake to raise awareness of the issue. He also noted plans to speak at the Friends of the Great Salt Lake Forum in May, where he would address not only the specific area in question but also broader concerns regarding the freshwater system surrounding the lake. He emphasized that, similar to the Jordan River, the system spans multiple jurisdictions, with each addressing only a small portion of the overall issue. He explained that this fragmented approach highlights the need for more coordinated, system-level planning, which can be difficult due to the region's highly decentralized governance structure. While Salt Lake City is a PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 major municipality, it represents only about 10 percent of the region's population. He concluded that addressing these challenges requires collaboration among multiple partners to achieve collective action, and expressed hope that similar coordination efforts could be developed for the Great Salt Lake shoreline, similar to ongoing work along the Jordan River. Tyler Murdock added that the Public Lands department is frequently asked to provide feedback on the plan, most recently in August. He noted that while staff involvement is limited, references are often made to existing frameworks such as the Reimagine Nature Master Plan and the Emerald Urban Plan, which have helped guide their input. stated that both plans contain significant elements that the board could support and suggested that it may be beneficial to formally affirm those priorities and ensure they are incorporated into the Community Master Plan.He also proposed that planning staff be invited to present directly to the board regarding how the Community Master Plan integrates with those existing plans. He suggested that Kelsey Lindquist, a planning manager, could potentially lead or coordinate such a discussion. Kerri Nakamura concluded the discussion by thanking Soren Simonsen for his time and expressing appreciation for the work being done. b. Informational Update: Taufer Park Project Update (6:05 pm)- Dustin Wiberg, Associate Landscape Architect Dustine Wiberg from the Planning and Design Division explained that he has been assigned to work on Taufer Park. Prior to his involvement, significant progress had already been made, including community engagement efforts and the development of a conceptual design reaching approximately the 40% schematic design level. A new consultant team has since been brought on to advance the project from this stage through final construction documentation and construction administration. Dustin Wiberg noted that recent concerns at Taufer Park, particularly involving unhoused individuals and related maintenance challenges, have prompted the team to reassess key design principles. As a result, they are incorporating CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) strategies into the final design approach. These include maintaining clear sightlines across the park, ensuring that features remain low to support visibility, and coordinating closely with maintenance teams to ensure the park appears well cared for over time. PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 Dustin Wiberg emphasized the importance of long-term activation and stewardship. Rather than completing construction and stepping away, the team is collaborating with events staff and other city groups to program ongoing activities. These may include small-scale events such as yoga or Pilates, as well as other community-oriented gatherings to encourage consistent and positive use of the space. The existing playground, previously installed through a KABOOM! project, will remain unchanged. Design efforts will focus on the surrounding areas. Due to the site's natural slope, the team is exploring the creation of a small, flexible event space featuring terraced seating that could function as an informal stage area for community events. He added that additional seating will be incorporated throughout shaded areas and near the playground. A section of the park behind the largest tree has been identified as a surveillance concern. To address this, the design proposes a boulder garden using existing materials, combined with dense but low-growing vegetation to discourage loitering while maintaining visibility. The boulders will also serve as a natural play extension of the playground, designed to remain under approximately 24 inches in height to avoid creating hidden areas. Open turf areas will be preserved to support casual recreation such as picnicking or playing frisbee. The northern edge of the park, which currently includes a berm that limits visibility, will be regraded to improve sightlines from multiple directions. In terms of planting design,Wiberg described a mix of water-wise and structurally resilient vegetation that maintains visual interest year-round. The entrance area will feature more vibrant perennial plantings and is being referred to as the "Our Lady Guadalupe Garden," incorporating native rose species as a subtle nod to a significant tree located on the site. He expressed encouragement about the collaborative effort across multiple city departments, including parks, maintenance, events, public safety, and outreach teams. These partnerships aim to ensure the park's long-term success through activation, maintenance, and community stewardship. Plans are also underway to organize volunteer events prior to construction, helping to build community investment and advocacy for the park. Regarding the project timeline, the design is currently at approximately 70% completion (design development phase). The team expects to finalize planting plans within the next few weeks and complete 100% construction documents about a month to six weeks after that. The goal is to submit plans PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 for permitting by July or August, with construction potentially beginning in late summer or early fall, pending approvals and contracting processes. Thomas Merrill noted that the park lies within the district he represents and shared his personal connection to it. Thomas Merrill pointed out that nearby senior high-rise residences could serve as an important user base, though he did not recall seeing many residents using the park in the past. He asked whether the design includes features intended to encourage greater use by those residents. Dustin Wiberg acknowledged the importance of that point and explained that the project team plans to engage directly with those residents in the coming weeks. He indicated that they intend to visit the buildings, present the plans, and gather feedback to better understand how to make the park more welcoming and accessible. He emphasized that both the nearby Salt Lake County facility and the Salt Lake City senior housing are considered vital stakeholders, and the team wants residents to feel comfortable spending time in the park. Thomas Merrill then raised a concern about the existing fence separating the park from the adjacent senior housing green space, asking whether it could be made more accessible or inviting. Wiberg responded that this had not yet been considered, noting that there is also a grade change in that area. He added that the fence may have been installed for security reasons to protect the housing property, and that the current assumption has been to encourage access via sidewalks rather than direct entry. Aaron Wiley supported Merrill's point, suggesting that the park could be intentionally designed to serve aging seniors. He referenced examples from other parts of the country where outdoor spaces are tailored to senior activity, such as light exercise or morning routines, and emphasized the potential value of creating similar opportunities here. Kerri Nakamura reinforced this idea, expressing that the current layout may not feel like the seniors' space due to physical and psychological barriers such as fencing and indirect access routes. She suggested that creating a stronger sense of ownership, through features like shaded seating and gathering areas, could make the park more inviting and unique within the community. Sarah Foran added to the discussion by asking whether a one-way gate could address both accessibility and security concerns, allowing residents to enter the park without compromising the safety of their property. She also raised PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 questions about lighting, particularly whether additional lighting could be considered near the senior housing side to improve comfort and usability. Dustin Wiberg responded that these were valuable considerations and agreed that improving connections between the spaces could create meaningful synergy. He reiterated the importance of making nearby residents feel comfortable accessing the park and acknowledged that reducing barriers could play a key role. Regarding lighting, he confirmed that interior park lighting is planned to enhance visibility and safety, though no additional lighting is currently proposed on the senior housing side. He noted that he was not yet familiar with the existing lighting conditions on that property. Austin Whitehead contributed a final comment regarding bike parking, noting that nearby streets may become more bike-friendly in the future and that current parking options are limited. Wiberg acknowledged this feedback, stating that bike parking is not currently included in the design but could be considered as the project continues to develop. Thomas Merrill added that bike access could be especially important if the park becomes a destination for small performances or events. After some light discussion among attendees, Wiberg thanked everyone for their input and emphasized that the feedback would be valuable as the team continues engaging with nearby stakeholders. Kerri Nakamura concluded by encouraging stronger collaboration between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County to maximize the park's potential as a shared community asset. Wiberg agreed and noted that the team is also working to engage with a nearby women's shelter through outreach efforts coordinated with the city's HEART team. Dustin Wiberg expressed optimism that partnerships with local organizations and community members would support the park's long-term success and stewardship. c. Working Item: Communication Update (6:25 pm)-Jana Cunningham, Communication Manager Jana Cunningham explained that she oversees communications and community engagement at Public Lands. She noted that she had been asked by Maria to speak about board engagement, which connects to earlier discussion in the meeting. She said she was happy to walk through ideas her team has developed for how the PNUT board can engage with Public Lands, and how Public Lands can in turn engage with the community. PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 Jana Cunningham began by explaining that while the team has not experienced extensive turnover, there have been some changes. The department is organized into several groups: a communications team (including herself, a communications coordinator, a social media specialist, and a graphic design specialist), a community events team (two full-time and three part-time staff), a volunteer team (one full-time and two part-time staff), and a partnerships role led by Ashlyn Larson, who focuses on developing and managing public and private partnerships for events. She said the communications team focuses on external communication through social media, newsletters, the website, traditional media, signage, and an upcoming podcast, which is not yet live but will be launching soon. The team has already set up a small but professional recording space and secured the necessary equipment. She described the community events team as responsible for planning and executing free, family-friendly events that activate public spaces, including well-known events like drone shows, Jefferson Jams, and Children's Day, as well as a new event called Dancing Under the Stars at the Salt Dome. The volunteer team organizes stewardship events to care for public spaces, while partnerships efforts support collaborations and sponsorships. Jana Cunningham shared several ways the board can engage effectively. She emphasized the importance of listening to constituents and relaying their concerns, questions, and feedback. If board members encounter questions they cannot answer, they are encouraged to contact her team directly for support. She also encouraged board members to attend community and neighborhood council meetings, help answer questions, or direct residents to the appropriate contacts. Sharing information especially about open houses through email and social media was highlighted as one of the most effective ways to drive attendance. She noted that strong turnout at past events, such as the Jefferson Park playground introduction, was largely due to organic sharing through community networks. She suggested that board members either share relevant email lists or help distribute information through their own networks. Building and strengthening community connections, particularly around partnerships, sponsorships, and volunteer opportunities, was also identified as a key opportunity. Finally, she stressed the importance of staying informed about projects within each district. She explained that the team produces a monthly project update newsletter originally created for the City Council. It includes detailed updates on all projects, organized by district, with links for additional PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 information. Board members have been invited to subscribe, though those without an SLC.gov email address may need to request access directly. She noted that while the newsletter is text-heavy and designed primarily for information rather than engagement, it provides a comprehensive and efficient way to stay up to date. Kerri Nakamura asked how tagging works on social media, wondering whether using a hashtag like "#SLCPublicLands"would notify the team. Jana Cunningham clarified that while hashtags may make posts discoverable, they do not directly notify the team. Instead, she explained that tagging their account—@SLC Public Lands—is the most effective way to ensure visibility, especially on Instagram, where users can tag accounts directly in posts. Kerri noting she primarily uses Facebook and is less comfortable with Instagram. Jana Cunningham emphasized that sharing and engaging with posts on social media is one of the most effective ways to spread information, even though the team also communicates through email, newsletters, and their website. Jana Cunningham encouraged board members to tag the department when attending events and posting photos. In response to a question, she clarified that private accounts cannot effectively share posts in a way the team can engage with. She then invited feedback on additional ways to improve engagement. Jana Cunningham also addressed communication around press releases. She explained that while she writes them, they are distributed by the mayor's office. However, she offered to begin sharing press releases and brief summaries—directly with the board once finalized, noting that the next release would likely cover the Liberty Park Vision Study. Board members expressed that receiving these in advance or in real time would help them respond to constituent questions, especially when news coverage appears before they are informed. Thomas Merrill suggested expanding outreach into district-specific Facebook groups, noting that highly localized groups—such as resident-run neighborhood pages can be more active and effective than broader social media channels. Jana Cunningham acknowledged that the team has not typically engaged in Facebook groups but agreed it was a valuable idea. She added that one tactic the team could use is adding community groups as co- hosts to Facebook events, which would automatically share events with those groups' audiences. PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 Other board members echoed the importance of grassroots sharing, with Melanie Perhson noting that even informal or loosely organized neighborhood groups can generate strong engagement when information is shared there. There was also discussion about strengthening coordination between the communications committee and Jana Cunningham's team. Suggestions included creating more structured collaboration, possibly with the committee acting as a conduit for updates, feedback, and communication strategies between the board and staff. Kerri Nakamura reiterated that sharing press releases would significantly improve board awareness, particularly in situations where members are asked about issues they first hear about in the media. Jana Cunningham agreed and committed to distributing finalized press materials more proactively. Jana Cunningham addressed team capacity, acknowledging that her team is small but highly effective. She noted that a major focus this year is increasing attendance at community events. While larger events like drone shows already draw large crowds, smaller events such as Jefferson Jams, Children's Day, and the new Dancing Under the Stars would benefit from greater promotion. She emphasized that board members can play an important role by helping spread the word and encouraging community participation, which in turn helps activate public spaces and reinforce the value of the events her team works hard to produce. d. Working Item: City Board &Commission Form Review(6:45 pm) - Maria Romero Kerri Nakamura shared that she had challenged the board to reach a 90% response rate on the survey. The board ultimately achieved an 85% response rate, which she noted is the highest among city boards. Although she had planned to bring a treat to celebrate, she explained that unforeseen circumstances prevented her from doing so and said she would bring it to the next meeting. She then asked for a summary of the survey feedback. Maria Romero began by thanking the board, emphasizing that the survey provided valuable insight into how to improve the board member experience. As a new board manager, she explained that she has been actively seeking ways to make improvements and was encouraged to see that some requested changes had already been implemented. PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 She reviewed key feedback points from the survey. One request was for a better understanding of the city budget process and how city code ordinances are created and amended. In response, she noted that a Budget 101 presentation is expected from the mayor's office at the May meeting. She also plans to explore coordinating an additional training or presentation possibly with the recorder's office to explain how city code changes are implemented. Another request was for board apparel, which she confirmed has been ordered and is expected to arrive in May. She expressed appreciation for the board's quick responses, which made the ordering process possible. Maria Romero also addressed feedback about providing Zoom links for board-related presentations. She clarified that while she cannot share account access, she is available to set up and host meetings as needed. Board members noted that this would be particularly helpful given limitations on personal accounts, such as time restrictions. Additional feedback included a desire for stronger connections with other boards and city leadership. Maria Romero acknowledged this and said she would follow up with the city's Boards and Commissions Administrator to explore options, noting that similar feedback has been raised across multiple boards. There was also interest in greater engagement with the CDCIP board. Maria Romero said efforts will be made to ensure board members receive reminders about those meetings so they can attend and stay informed. She highlighted that a general board email address has now been created and added to the website. This inbox will be monitored, and messages can be directed to the appropriate board members as needed. Finally, she addressed a request for clarity about the board's role within the broader city structure. She plans to create a visual diagram outlining how the board fits into the city's leadership framework and how recommendations such as letters of support move through official channels. In response to the discussion, Aaron Wiley suggested organizing a social event to connect members across different boards, particularly during months when regular meetings are not held. Kerri Nakamura noted that the city previously hosted an annual "Thank You Picnic" for boards and commissions. PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 Maria Romero then transitioned into administrative updates. She thanked members for contributing ideas for the 2026 drone show, highlighting one creative suggestion involving peacocks in Glendale. She also mentioned ongoing efforts to recruit for a position representing the Indigenous and Native American community, including plans to share outreach materials for board members to distribute. She concluded by reminding committees to begin outlining their goals for 2026 and encouraged members to prioritize and document their objectives for future planning. VI. Board Discussion (7:00 pm) a. Administrative Update— Maria Romero, Board Manager b. Committee Reporting(7:10 pm)— Review SMART Goals Melanie Perhson shared that the Jordan River Committee now meets on the first Wednesday of every month, noting that it was helpful to finally have a consistent schedule. She added that there are many exciting developments related to the Jordan River. Kerri Nakamura briefly mentioned a community cleanup event involving Melanie Perhson's children, which she described as a fun and engaging activity. Ginger Cannon provided an update on the SCAMP and bylaws efforts. She explained that materials are currently under review and that she and Aaron Wiley had worked on bylaws revisions in March. While the goal had been to present them at this meeting, recent developments prompted additional changes. She noted that edits such as streamlining language, removing duplication, adding sections related to city code and membership responsibilities, and refining public input guidelines—are available in draft form in the committee folder. These will be reviewed by Cameron Johnson before being brought to the full board for adoption or further revision. Kerri Nakamura asked whether time should be allocated on the May agenda for this discussion, while others inquired about access to the draft and specifics of the amendments. Sarah Foran then presented an update from the communications committee, focusing on a proposal to improve the board's website. She explained that the goal is to make the site more user-friendly and informative for the public by adding quick links, clearer guidance on when and why to contact the board, and expandable sections to organize content more effectively. She emphasized that the proposal is in an early stage and intended to gather board feedback before moving forward. PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 Maria Romero noted that upcoming citywide updates to board and commission websites are already in progress, and she suggested that providing feedback now could help shape those changes. Ginger Cannon encouraged sharing the proposal with Spencer Matanay, the city's Boards and Commissions Administrator, as part of that process. Board members generally supported the idea. Thomas Merrill suggested aligning on the proposal and formally submitting it as a recommendation. Kerri Nakamura proposed adding a section outlining the board's committees to give the public better insight into its structure and priorities. Sarah Foran agreed and asked whether committee information should also be included alongside individual board member profiles. Board members expressed support for both approaches, listing committees centrally while also indicating each member's committee involvement. Christian Chavez noted that including this information could help community members identify the most relevant board representatives to contact or invite to local events, making engagement more targeted and effective. c. Board discussion period & request for future agenda items (7:25 pm) Kerri Nakamura reminded the board that the annual schedule is available in Google Drive and encouraged members to review it for gaps. She suggested that if members have ideas for topics or presentations, they should propose them to fill those open slots in upcoming months. Steve Bloch revisited an earlier discussion about trees near Trolley Square and the role of Urban Forestry. He referenced a prior presentation from the Urban Forestry division and raised the question of whether there are opportunities to strengthen its authority particularly through potential amendments to city code to allow for greater impact, including enforcement capabilities. He suggested that this topic could be elevated and revisited with additional input from staff. Cameron Johnson responded that while the issue has been raised previously, it has not yet been prioritized among other departmental objectives. Tyler Murdock added that there is an existing draft policy focused on increasing enforcement on city-owned property, particularly related to contractors and development. He noted that earlier reviews did not address private property but agreed that expanding enforcement tools at least on public land is worth further exploration. Steve Bloch suggested bringing the topic back to the board with a clearer proposal and potential path forward, possibly later in the year. Staff indicated that reconnecting with the Urban Forestryteam would be a reasonable next PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 step, though timing would depend on internal review processes and legal vetting. Kim Shelley emphasized that any proposal brought forward should be fully reviewed by the attorney's office before returning to the board. She noted that while the board could tentatively aim for a future discussion, timelines may shift due to competing priorities and staff capacity. Ginger Cannon then asked for an update on the donation policy and whether it would soon be ready for board approval. Tyler Murdock explained that one final issue whether the city can recover labor costs associated with donations—is being addressed. He anticipated that the policy could be finalized and brought forward for approval at the next meeting. Ginger Cannon expressed interest in reviewing and supporting the final version, pending legal review, along with the updated bylaws. Thomas Merrill introduced two potential topics for future discussion. First, he expressed interest in how GreenBike fits into broader planning for public spaces and non-car transportation. Second, he mentioned the Transit to Trails program, noting its alignment with the board's goals and suggesting a possible collaboration or presentation. Ginger Cannon responded that strategic planning for GreenBike is typically handled by the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB), particularly regarding station placement and system expansion. However, she acknowledged that integration with parks and public spaces is already part of broader planning efforts. Kerri Nakamura added that GreenBike had previously presented to the Urban Trails Committee and that existing planning materials already include current and potential station locations. She suggested revisiting that work within the committee, where there is also representation from TAB. Steve Bloch raised a broader concern about meeting effectiveness, noting that discussions about locations would benefit from visual aids such as maps. He suggested that having either interactive or physical maps available during meetings would improve clarity and engagement. Kerri Nakamura briefly confirmed that a Budget 101 presentation from the mayor's office is expected in May. Kerri Nakamura then asked if there were any additional board engagement opportunities or requests that had not yet been captured in the current schedule. PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 d. Board engagement opportunities/requests (7:40 pm) e. Written Update: i. 1700 Crosswalk Update ii. Baseball Field Update iii. Cemetery Update iv. Large Oak Tree Relocation Project v. Jordan River Corridor Vegetation Maintenance Project Kim Shelley began by saying they could introduce but invited Tyler Murdock to contribute additional insights, particularly from the planning and design team. Kim Shelley explained that at Glendale Park, as outlined in a written update, there had been coordination with the transportation department to install a signalized crossing. While most of the infrastructure is already in place, the project is currently delayed due to missing steel poles needed to complete the installation. They acknowledged that this delay is frustrating, especially given that 1700 South is a major roadway with fast-moving traffic and increased use by families and children accessing the park. Kim Shelley added that they had recently met with the transportation director but did not yet have a firm timeline to share. They emphasized that while this is primarily a transportation issue, their goal is to be part of the solution and ensure safe access to park spaces. Tyler Murdock confirmed that there were no new updates on timing. Kerri Nakamura asked whether all board members had been included in recent communications about the issue. It was clarified that only a few members had been looped in, prompting a brief recap for the full board. Austin Whitehead provided context, explaining that the new playground at Glendale Regional Park opened across the street from a residential neighborhood. The park's design includes two crosswalks—one existing crossing that is being upgraded and a second planned crossing. However, a recent incident in which a child was struck while crossing the street highlighted the urgency of completing these safety improvements. While the injuries were minor, the situation underscored the potential risks. He also raised concerns about how a recently passed state law, SB 242, could complicate the installation of new crossings. The law classifies roads into tiers based on traffic volume, and higher-tier roads face stricter limitations on modifications such as adding crosswalks or traffic-calming measures. He suggested that 1700 South may fall into a higher tier, which could create additional challenges. PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 Ginger Cannon added context about the law, explaining that Tier 1 and Tier 2 roads are subject to tighter restrictions, which can make safety improvements more difficult to implement. Kerri Nakamura noted that this issue also raised questions about transportation representation on the board and coordination with that department. Tyler Murdock clarified that while the state law may affect future projects, the immediate focus is on existing plans. He explained that the crossing being installed will be a HAWK signal(High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk), which stops traffic when activated. This type of signal is more appropriate for wide roads like 1700 South, compared to rapid flashing beacons, which are less effective on larger streets. The delay is due to supply issues, but installation is expected within the next few months. The group discussed concerns about whether children would reliably use push-button crossings. Some members noted that automated or sensor- based crossings might be more effective, though it was unclear whether that technology would be used in this case. It was also clarified that a second crossing is planned as part of a future phase of the park project, but that timeline may extend to 2027. Board members expressed concern that waiting that long could leave ongoing safety gaps, particularly for children accessing the playground from nearby neighborhoods. Austin Whitehead suggested that the board could advocate for accelerating the timeline of the second crossing. Tyler Murdock agreed that this is worth exploring, noting that while transportation projects are typically separate from park development, there may be an opportunity to coordinate more closely or reprioritize. Ginger Cannon proposed that both this board and the Transportation Advisory Board could issue a joint letter of support to strengthen the request. This approach was generally supported as a way to push for faster action. Finally, Sarah Foran raised concerns about the effectiveness of always- active signals, noting that drivers may become desensitized to them over time. She also asked whether temporary measures, such as flags, could be used in the interim. Ginger Cannon responded that such measures are generally not effective in ensuring pedestrian safety. Kim Shelley emphasized that quick fixes like flags or additional signage are generally not effective in improving pedestrian safety, even though they are PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 sometimes considered as immediate responses. She acknowledged that while such measures could be installed, they typically do not have a meaningful impact. Austin Whitehead clarified that the primary concern is not the existing western crosswalk itself, which already includes features like a median refuge, but rather the large distance between that crossing and the one at the Jordan River Trail. This gap creates challenges for people—especially those coming from nearby neighborhoods or adjacent parks—who may try to cross at unsafe points. Miranda Bradshaw asked whether any of the current crossings are raised, noting that increased visibility could help given that children are smaller and harder for drivers to see. Tyler Murdock responded that the upgraded crossing is not raised but has been improved with stamped pavement and a median island, and that older map imagery may not reflect these updates. Aaron Wiley pointed out that vehicle speed along the corridor is another major issue and suggested that broader traffic-calming measures could be considered. Austin Whitehead noted that earlier park planning documents had identified the road as a potential candidate for such measures, highlighting the importance of coordination between transportation and parks planning. He added that while safety features were planned alongside the park, the timing of their implementation has not aligned well. Tyler Murdock acknowledged the delay but noted that the timeline difference is relatively short on the order of months though still impactful. Kerri Nakamura then asked what actions the board could take, including whether a joint letter with the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) would be appropriate. Tyler Murdock responded that pursuing a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) request would likely not accelerate the timeline, since the current park project is already further along. He suggested that faster progress would depend on whether transportation has access to other, more immediate funding sources. Miranda Bradshaw proposed that the board's advocacy could also include updating the city's pedestrian and bicycle master plan, noting that it is outdated and does not adequately address pedestrian safety on this corridor. Tyler Murdock added that transportation had previously considered a "road diet" (reducing lanes), though it is unclear whether that effort has been delayed. Kim Shelley confirmed that the road diet had indeed been postponed but noted there may now be an opportunity to revisit it, particularly in light of recent legislative changes. She suggested continued coordination with PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 UDOT and emphasized that transportation staff are aware of the safety concerns. Cameron Johnson recommended that the board draft a formal letter to the mayor advocating for quicker action and increased attention to the issue. He suggested that the board could also approach TAB to co-sign or submit a separate letter, strengthening the overall message. He added that even a single letter from the board would help establish a formal position and initiate further discussions with city leadership. Kerri Nakamura proposed moving forward with drafting such a letter and circulating it among board members for feedback before submission. She coordinated timing with upcoming meetings and asked who would take the lead. Staff clarified that while they can assist with drafting, they prefer guidance from board members to ensure the letter reflects the board's position. Austin Whitehead volunteered to help lead the drafting effort in coordination with staff, and Tyler Murdock offered to connect him with the appropriate staff member. Melanie Perhson asked to be included in the process. Tyler Murdock also noted that transportation staff are expected to share updates soon regarding potential short-term safety interventions, which could inform the board's next steps. Kerri Nakamura concluded by emphasizing the tight timeline for drafting and submitting the letter, ensuring alignment among members moving forward. Miranda Bradshaw noted that since the letter would be presented at a joint meeting with the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) and the Bicycle Commission, it might make sense for all groups to sign on together rather than approaching them separately. Steve Bloch responded that, strategically, it may be more effective to present the letter as already developed and request support or signatures, rather than opening it up for edits. He emphasized that this approach could help move the process forward more efficiently. Kerri Nakamura thanked the group for the extended discussion and asked if there were any additional questions or comments on the written updates. Steve Bloch then asked where this issue fits within the board's committee structure, wondering whether there was a specific committee responsible for handling topics like this. He suggested that, in the future, similar issues PNUT Agenda April 2, 2026 might be addressed at the committee level before being elevated to the full board. Kerri Nakamura explained that in this case, there was no clear committee assignment, which is why the topic was brought directly to the full board. She added that some topics such as those related to GreenBike are better suited for specific committees like Urban Trails, but this particular issue required broader board attention. She also thanked Austin Whitehead for bringing the concern forward and noted that the connection to recent state legislation strengthened the board's position, as it highlights the real-world impacts of policy decisions on community safety. f. Communications Events Calendar Update g. Next Meeting: Thursday, May 7, 2026 VII. Adjourn (7:45 pm) Kerri Nakamura called for a motion to adjourn. Aaron Wiley made the motion, Ginger Cannon seconded it, and the board voted in favor. She concluded by reminding members that the next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 7th, and thanked everyone for their participation.