2026-10-20 - City Council Work Session

00:00[music]

00:40[music]

00:46[music]

00:55[music]

01:06[music]

01:23[music]

01:24>> We will start a little delayed today.

01:26We'll start at 2:15 p.m.

01:46>> [music]

01:55[music]

02:03[music]

02:12[music]

02:18[music]

02:31[music]

02:39[music]

02:45[music]

02:50[music]

03:01[music]

03:31[music]

03:40[music]

03:45[music]

03:52[music]

03:54>> Mhm.

04:03>> [music]

04:09[music]

04:40[music]

04:52[music]

04:58[music]

05:04[music]

05:15[music]

05:27[music]

05:34[music]

05:41[music]

05:47[music]

05:49>> Woo!

05:52>> [music]

05:58[music]

06:04[music]

06:17[music]

06:32[music]

06:39[music]

06:52[music]

07:00[music]

07:28[music]

07:41[music]

07:48[music]

07:55[music]

08:02[music]

08:32[music]

08:41[music]

08:45[music]

08:51[music]

09:01[music]

09:06[music]

09:31[music]

09:39>> Mhm.

09:41>> [music]

09:46[music and bell]

09:52[music]

10:01[music]

10:10[music]

10:21[music]

10:34[music]

10:43[music]

10:53[music]

11:04[music]

11:11[music]

11:16[music]

11:32[music]

11:36[music]

11:41[music]

11:48[music]

11:53[music]

12:01[music]

12:07[music]

12:18[music]

12:32[music]

12:41[music]

12:47[music]

12:52[music]

13:00[music]

13:05[music]

13:29[music]

13:34[music]

13:44[music]

13:56[music]

14:02[music]

14:07[music]

14:20[music]

14:32[music]

14:39[music]

14:46[music]

14:54[music]

15:02[music]

15:07[music]

15:13[music]

15:24>> Mhm.

15:25>> [music]

15:32[music]

15:41[music]

15:47[music]

15:53[music]

15:59[music]

16:28[music]

16:30>> to the work session meeting for

16:33October 20th. Um

16:35this

16:37meetings are public. You're welcome to

16:40join us in person or by watching the

16:42Council agenda page. You can also watch

16:44us through Zoom

16:46or YouTube.

16:47We hope that you continue to join us

16:49whichever manner you feel the most

16:51comfortable. This is a work session

16:52meeting which there is no public

16:55comment. Please join us tonight at 7:00

16:57p.m. at our formal meeting to share your

17:00comments.

17:01We of course you know, welcome your

17:03feedback and comments anytime. You can

17:06send it by mail at P.O. Box 145476

17:12Salt Lake City, Utah 84114.

17:15You can also email it to us, and the

17:18email address is

17:18[email protected].

17:23You can also call our 24-hour

17:25phone line, and it's [clears throat]

17:27801-535-7654.

17:31Comments we receive on agenda topics are

17:33shared with council members

17:35and posted on our website,

17:37slc.gov/council.

17:40Now, the first item on the agenda is an

17:43informational update from the

17:45administration. This is our parties,

17:47events, and gathering and gatherings and

17:50the enforce enforcement of which.

17:53Tim Cosgrove,

17:55mayor's community liaison, is going to

17:57join us at the table. We're also going

17:59to welcome

18:01Deputy Chief of Police

18:04Bill McNamara, maybe.

18:06>> [clears throat]

18:07>> Mary Stewart from the Police Department

18:09as well, and Arturo Garcia, director of

18:12finance operations.

18:25It's your time.

18:26>> Thank you.

18:27>> Is your microphone on?

18:30Light needs to be green and speak closer

18:32to the microphone so it can be recorded.

18:34>> Thank you, Mayor.

18:35Chairman Po'uha, thank you. Vice Chair

18:38Carlson,

18:39good afternoon, council members.

18:42Thank you for the opportunity to provide

18:45you with an update on 11-14, the unruly

18:48parties, gathering, and events

18:49ordinance.

18:51First, I want to recognize the City

18:53Council for giving us a tool

18:55that we can use to address nuisances

18:58outlined in 11-14.20

19:02that disturb the public's peace, safety,

19:04welfare,

19:05and quality quality of life issues on

19:09private property within the city.

19:12Prior to the ordinance, the city was

19:14tasked with identifying who was throwing

19:16the unruly party to be able to enforce

19:19on it.

19:21Unruly parties have grown over the past

19:23few years.

19:25And with the passage of this ordinance,

19:27it is a violation for there to be an

19:29unruly party gathering or event at any

19:33private property in the city.

19:36So, working

19:38with the ordinance over the last year

19:40and the impact that it is having, I can

19:43report

19:44that it is having an effect.

19:47We have a map.

19:49Um, that was going to be pulled up on

19:51the big screen, if we can.

19:57Thank you.

19:58So, on the map, we're identifying out of

20:02the 156

20:04warnings, the notices, the the letters

20:07that went out on warnings that have been

20:10sent to the private property owners

20:12after that occurrence of an unruly

20:14party.

20:15After that occurrence, we have 26 of the

20:19property owners that have received a

20:21second violation of a $1,000 fine.

20:26Six of the private property owners were

20:28given

20:29a reduction from the fine for

20:31participating in the good landlord

20:33tenant program.

20:35And only one private property owner thus

20:38far

20:39has received a second $1,000 fine.

20:44That that was a a private lounge that

20:46was operating with what we call

20:49a late night or after-hour party.

20:52Um, there are six property owners that

20:55have yet to pay.

20:56And one that is in an appeal.

21:00Just trying to give you a perspective.

21:03The

21:03the second map on the

21:07page is primarily of East Bench

21:11that's had the biggest impact from the

21:14college, the universities, the students

21:17uh with about 81 of those 156 receiving

21:22uh warning letter.

21:25Um next I want to go to our DCLO,

21:28Detective Community Liaison Officer,

21:30Detective Marie Stewart. She's going to

21:33provide information on the community

21:35outreach and the engagement with the

21:38private property owners and the parties.

21:43>> Hello. Thanks for having us all here

21:44today.

21:45Um

21:46so as far as the police department goes,

21:48we were incredibly excited to be able to

21:50have this in our toolbox. Uh previously

21:53as Tim said you would show up to a house

21:57and you'd have to identify the person

21:59throwing the party. Well, um

22:02it was

22:03little known fact that if you just close

22:06the door and don't answer and you just

22:08sit behind it giggling and uh

22:11you know, don't answer for the police,

22:12then you wouldn't have any punitive

22:14action. So really, really frustrating if

22:16you are a person living in a

22:17neighborhood and um there is one person

22:21who is not a very considerate neighbor.

22:23Now we're not talking about the people

22:25who are throwing, you know,

22:27parties for barbecues and open the door

22:30and we're like, "Hey, can you guys turn

22:31it down, you know?" And they're like,

22:32"Yeah, yeah, yeah, no worries."

22:34Great. Sometimes they'll offer you a

22:36plate of food, which is amazing that you

22:38can go in, but a great neighbor, right?

22:40And that's what we all want to be.

22:42Um so this was specifically geared for

22:44the people who are just

22:47blatantly

22:48um

22:49just being bad neighbors. We'll just say

22:51that.

22:52Uh so this gave us the opportunity to be

22:54able to find the homeowner and first

22:57send out the warning. And as Tim said,

23:00the warnings have been incredibly

23:02effective.

23:03Um they've gone out to the homeowners

23:06who have addressed the issue and they

23:08have been received a a fine.

23:11So the low number of fines as opposed to

23:13the warnings that have gone out has been

23:15incredible. It's exactly what we wanted

23:17to see. Um so education was another

23:20piece to this in letting everyone know.

23:22Um so we put together this public notice

23:25and I um personally handed it to

23:28160

23:30homes that were identified in the

23:32university neighborhood as um being

23:34problem homes for parties.

23:36Um I'm I'm a big believer in education

23:38and knowing, you know,

23:40what you can and can't do, you know, how

23:43to have a respectful party and how, you

23:45know, when it will turn unruly is really

23:47important. And I feel like it's made a

23:50big difference talking to the neighbors

23:52and our officers, we've noticed a

23:54reduction in um

23:56the the unruly parties in that

23:59neighborhood. Beyond that, it's helped

24:00us throughout the entire city um with

24:04these issues. So.

24:08>> And and then next we want to go to

24:10Arturo

24:12our Garcia. He's the director of finance

24:14and how that enforcement has been

24:16implemented once the reports are

24:19received in finance from our police.

24:22>> Yeah, thank you, counselor.

24:24Thank you, council members. I appreciate

24:26your time. Um from from the hearing

24:29officer's perspective, we have seen a

24:31positive impact um on the property

24:33owners who received a warning or a

24:36citation. Once they contact our office,

24:38we also educate them as well on the

24:42unruly party ordinance.

24:44Um they've shown willingness to address

24:47concerns with their tenants as well. So

24:50we definitely see have seen some

24:52positive uh

24:55on our side.

25:00Any

25:02Any more

25:04Any questions from the from our side,

25:06council members so far?

25:08Let's go ahead.

25:11>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um

25:13I'm just really impressed to see that we

25:15are seeing results.

25:17The fact remains that there are still

25:19some out there who don't understand the

25:21rules. So, how long do you think it's

25:24going to take to

25:26really get everyone on the same page

25:29when it comes to this kind of control?

25:32>> That's a very good question, council

25:34member. So, the the unruly party

25:36ordinance is kind of at its anniversary

25:39right now where

25:41it has an effect once the warning

25:43letters goes out for 365 days that it's

25:47in effect. So, even if they receive a a

25:51another report of an unruly party at

25:53that location within that 365 days,

25:56they'll still receive an additional

25:58fine.

26:00If Now, because we started this a year

26:03ago and typically football season is the

26:06season that they're having all these

26:08parties,

26:09um they're starting to drop off.

26:12So, therein lies the beauty of the

26:15ordinance. It's if the

26:17property owner has communicated that to

26:20the tenants and then the tenants get the

26:23message,

26:25and regardless of whether it's 365

26:28days, 2 years,

26:30they're complying with the unruly party

26:33ordinance. If they don't, because we

26:35know as students move in, move out, it's

26:38a new batch of students, maybe they

26:41don't get the message, it's still

26:43contingent upon

26:45the property owner to communicate that

26:48with their tenants. So, that I think

26:50that's the biggest strength that you've

26:52provided for us with this ordinance is

26:55it goes right to the property owner.

26:59>> Well, I thank you. And is there anything

27:01else that needs to be tightened?

27:04>> Um

27:05we we have a small working group

27:08we have a big working group

27:11that's been working with the university

27:13um

27:14the East Central Community Council. We

27:17did identify a couple items.

27:20They were both within So um

27:24with the satellite off-campus sites we

27:28we were looking at maybe multiple

27:30warnings in one night whereas an officer

27:33would report to a home that's having an

27:36unruly party. She said, "Hey guys, close

27:39it down. I'm writing up a report. You're

27:41going to get a fine. If I come back here

27:43in an hour and you're still going on

27:46do we write another report?

27:48Um if we go if she goes I keep looking

27:52at Detective Steric cuz she's done this.

27:54Um if she goes to another if she goes

27:56back to that house in another hour and

27:58they're still going on, do we give them

28:00another fine?

28:02There so could be some heavy-handedness

28:04there. Uh we looked at also the

28:07extension of 365 days to maybe 2 years.

28:11And possibly if we can add layers if the

28:16trash isn't picked up by a certain

28:19time in the day the next day, how long

28:21do the neighbors, the constituents have

28:23to put up with that?

28:25If that's worthy of another fine.

28:28Did I catch everything?

28:30>> Yeah.

28:30>> I don't know.

28:31>> Absolutely.

28:33Okay. Well, thank you for your work. I

28:35know the neighbors appreciate it.

28:37We're not there yet, but um I think we

28:40are getting there. So thank you.

28:42>> It is a work in progress. Um

28:44I I I to say that uh

28:48I want to recognize one of our very

28:49caring, compassionate community members,

28:52Esther Hunter, from the as a chair of

28:54East Central Community Council.

28:57I think she's done an enormous amount of

28:59work with our team.

29:01Um

29:02with the university, with the renters,

29:04in door-to-door conversations with the

29:05party houses. This This is important.

29:09This helps because as we're

29:11building a community,

29:13we all have to live, learn to live and

29:16play in that same sandbox together,

29:19right? So, it's having those

29:22relationships within the community that

29:25they deserve, that constituents deserve

29:28a quality of life.

29:31We expect that we we they demand that.

29:34That's what we should be be providing

29:36for them.

29:37But, in sharing that um

29:41we're doing the best that we can to

29:42address all of all of those concerns.

29:45>> Yep. Councilmember Petro.

29:48>> Um thank you. It's great to hear this,

29:51and I'm actually not terribly concerned

29:52with this ordinance, but it does

29:55remind me of another one that we're

29:56working on. Is there any way that you

29:57have any data about how your enforcement

30:00conflates with those that are operating

30:02as short-term rentals?

30:04I think as we move forward making

30:06decisions around the short-term

30:07residential ordinance, since we have

30:10data from this ordinance, it might be

30:11potentially helpful to us as we

30:13determine where the boundaries really

30:15need to be to protect us moving forward.

30:20>> We We don't have that with us now, but

30:21we can we can get that.

30:23>> Thank you.

30:23>> Yeah.

30:24>> [clears throat]

30:24>> And I And I know there's always a

30:26question with the another section of the

30:28ordinance on nuisances with the 11-18,

30:30the responsible property owner.

30:33Um

30:34we've been working on that in other

30:36areas as that complies with other

30:39nuisances, is from businesses.

30:42Um business licensing,

30:45we can address that in at a at a

30:48additional meeting, too, if you'd like

30:49to hear an update.

30:52>> That would be very useful. Thank you.

30:53The I I have a few questions, um and it

30:56relates to uh the

30:59our

31:00you know, there is a a police agency

31:02that is abutting uh you know, this area,

31:04which is the university police. Um

31:07how we uh able have we been able to

31:11build a partnership uh on responding for

31:13some of these calls with them?

31:17>> We have. Um

31:18and our relationship with the University

31:20of Utah is First of all, I'm sorry.

31:21Thank you. I just want to thank the the

31:23council for all their support for the

31:25police department.

31:26Um our our relationship with the

31:28University of Utah is better than it's

31:29ever been.

31:30Um we have recently, you know, prior to

31:34maybe last year, we were we were

31:36handling all the calls outside of the

31:38university. They are now assisting us

31:40and taking the the lower-end calls.

31:43Uh not all of them, but they're they're

31:45they're assisting. Uh we are still

31:46taking, you know, any any major crime

31:48that that occurs up there.

31:50Uh but their assistance and willingness

31:51to help, not just with the calls for

31:53service, but also with those fraternity

31:55the front row shifts that that that are

31:57monitoring those parties, has been a a

32:00great help to us.

32:02And I would just add this, Council

32:03member, as well.

32:05Calls for service in general as a whole

32:07in the in Salt Lake City are down.

32:09I contribute

32:11uh uh uh

32:12things like this to to helping in that.

32:14I mean, this is obviously not all of it,

32:16but it's a piece of the puzzle that is

32:17helping and reduce those

32:19So, programs programs like this,

32:21ordinances like this that that pass that

32:23help, it it reduces the calls for

32:25service. It helps our officers have more

32:27time and are freed up to go elsewhere.

32:29So, I think it is a good program.

32:31>> That that's encouraging that you know,

32:32the the University Police is helping on

32:35this. I It is my hope that they see the

32:38community around it as part of, you

32:40know, some of their service areas in

32:42some ways, right? Because in some cases

32:44they are

32:45uh you know, uh actually organizations

32:48that are,

32:49you know, chartered by the university

32:51that are throwing some of those parties,

32:53and I I wish that they can actually have

32:54a closing of the loop as well uh for

32:57feedback to those organizations to say

32:58like you have to, you know, remember

33:01these rules of the neighborhood as well

33:03because we may have thoughts about your

33:06rechartering of your organization. Um I

33:08think that will be another way of

33:10ensuring that there are uh you know,

33:13uh better feedback uh onto the system.

33:15Now, the How do we measure success is

33:18one of my questions is like, you know,

33:19because

33:20you're getting a warning, then

33:22potentially getting a ticket,

33:24how do we And there's so many people

33:26involved in these things, and people

33:28move in and move out, people throw

33:29parties that, you know, now, but they

33:32might not throw another one of someone

33:33else might throw a party in the

33:35in the property. How do we measure

33:37success that this is working? Um

33:41or is it the the mechanism just to try

33:44to mitigate it every time that shows up,

33:46not in a way of educating?

33:49>> Well, I think, as I mentioned, I think

33:50the calls for service is a big indicator

33:53of the success. Well, we're getting less

33:55calls to on loud parties that are up

33:57there in the area.

33:58Um as Tim mentioned, we're just getting

34:00back into the school year this year, so

34:03this over the next month month and a

34:05half will really get more of an

34:06indication of how well it's working.

34:08But for us at the in the police

34:10department, that's that's probably one

34:11of the biggest indicators of the success

34:14of the program.

34:16>> I I just want to add that about 60% of

34:19the citations that are issued are

34:21actually on the east side.

34:23That's roughly about 90 citations that

34:25were issued. Out of those citations, we

34:27only had a handful of them that became a

34:30second citation where

34:33uh we issued them a thousand dollars. Um

34:36those property owners reached out and

34:38they had a hearing.

34:40Um we provided them the information. We

34:42haven't seen a third citation, so

34:44they're communicating with their tenants

34:46and

34:47uh building that relationship and

34:49addressing the the concerns.

34:51So

34:52>> Uh that's that's a good sign, right?

34:54That there are like we're seeing less

34:55seconds and thirds, certainly not thirds

34:57because people are a little worried.

35:00I guess it works a little bit like a

35:01speeding ticket, right? Like you you

35:02know, hurts enough that you're you're

35:04learning your lesson. Um I wish that,

35:06you know, some of these lease agreements

35:08to some of these

35:11in these properties will include some of

35:13the language that, you know, that we we

35:15hope, maybe with through the the good

35:18landlord program,

35:19uh that we can include that some of

35:21these lease agreements they're

35:22responsible to obey these rules and

35:24these are the community rules about the

35:25hours. If not, you're going to be

35:27responsible for those for those fees.

35:30And then there is a big clear mechanism

35:33to charge those people for for being

35:36responsible as the, you know, the

35:38signee. So I wonder if there is a way of

35:39looping the the good landlord program uh

35:44and and requiring, hopefully, maybe an

35:47update on some of the language.

35:49>> And and we have Councilman Boyd, um we

35:51actually implemented that about four

35:54months ago. So it's in the training. So

35:57it's part of the training.

35:59>> Yeah, we heard from our landlords

36:02that they've gone back to their

36:04residents and said, you know, you will

36:05not have any parties that violate this

36:08ordinance. If so, you know, you could

36:10face possibly eviction and so on and so

36:12forth. And that was our hope with

36:14addressing the property owners versus

36:16the people staying there is that they

36:18would um police their own property and

36:22that they would implement those rules.

36:24Otherwise, they would face uh punitive

36:28uh,

36:28consequences within their own home. So,

36:30we are do we are seeing, um, a lot of

36:32success with that just in the amount of

36:34warnings versus fines. I think it's a

36:36great measurement of success.

36:38>> Councilor

36:39Any other questions, council members?

36:41I would really appreciate the update and

36:43it's good news that it's working. So,

36:45there is maybe little still some work to

36:47do and maybe more education, uh,

36:49to do about the the consequences, but

36:51thank you for the work.

36:53>> Thank you.

36:54>> Thank you.

36:54>> Thank you for the update.

36:57We're moving on to item number three.

37:00This is an informational item. Uh, we're

37:02going to skip number two for 1 minute,

37:04um, and uh, the community clean energy

37:07program update. So, we're going to

37:09welcome at the table Michael Sanders,

37:11uh, council policy analyst, Blake Sward,

37:13senior energy and climate program

37:15manager, and Sophia Nikola,

37:18uh, deputy director.

37:23And Michael, your is your time.

37:27>> Okay.

37:28Let's go ahead and get started while

37:30everyone's coming up.

37:32>> [sighs]

37:32>> So, just by way of introduction,

37:35during the April 21st, 2026 formal

37:38meeting, the council passed a

37:39participation ordinance for the

37:41community clean energy program. This

37:44enabled the program for nearly all Rocky

37:46Mountain Power customers in Salt Lake

37:49City. These residents and businesses

37:51will soon be automatically enrolled in

37:52the new renewable energy program on an

37:54opt-out basis. The purpose of this

37:57briefing today is informational only and

37:59will give the administration the chance

38:01to give an update on the progress of the

38:02program implementation and a timeline.

38:08>> All right, good afternoon, council

38:09members. It's great to be here with you

38:12today, uh, marking this milestone. It's

38:15been a long time coming.

38:17Next slide, please.

38:20So, just to ground us a little bit, um

38:23clean energy is popular. It's still

38:25popular even in 2026. This is a survey

38:28from 2023, a scientific survey from Utah

38:31State, um that shows that Utah residents

38:35have uh significant support support for

38:37renewable energy projects. And we know

38:39from our own work that Salt Lake City

38:41residents support it in even greater

38:42numbers.

38:44Next slide.

38:48And I'll just say that forms the basis

38:50of why we've been working on the

38:52community clean energy program for so

38:54long.

38:55So, also a little bit of orienting here,

38:58uh

38:59the electric generation is the biggest

39:02piece of the puzzle for taking action on

39:05reducing emissions, carbon emissions

39:07specifically,

39:09but it also has an air quality impact.

39:11And this is a graph from the State of

39:13Utah's Beehive Emission Reduction Plan

39:16that they put out last year.

39:18You can see in the dark blue that

39:20electric generation is still the vast

39:23majority of our our carbon emissions.

39:27Next slide.

39:28>> [snorts]

39:30>> So, just big picture when we're talking

39:31about, what do we do about that? How do

39:33we uh

39:35work towards a cleaner

39:37um system? How do we decarbonize? How do

39:39we create a healthier environment?

39:42There's really three keys to eliminating

39:45emissions. We cut energy waste, we

39:48electrify everything,

39:50and we work towards a 100% clean grid.

39:54Next slide.

39:56And for the last 10 plus years, we've

39:59been putting a lot of time and effort

40:01into that orange bucket there, um and uh

40:05uh targeting that that biggest piece of

40:07the pie. Next slide.

40:11So, back in 2016, the council and mayor

40:14passed a joint resolution establishing

40:17our climate goals.

40:19This includes a 100% renewable energy

40:21goal for our community electricity

40:23supply by 2030. It also includes our

40:26municipal goals, and then it also sets

40:28some goals for our overall greenhouse

40:30gas emissions reduction by 2040 of an

40:3380% reduction.

40:35Next slide.

40:38So, we got to work and it's taken many

40:40different people, many leaders across

40:43Salt Lake City and our participating

40:46partners throughout the state of Utah.

40:48Uh we were able to work with Rocky

40:50Mountain Power in 2019 to pass uh HB

40:53411,

40:55uh which enabled communities to work on

40:57behalf of their communities to achieve

40:59this 100% renewable goal.

41:01Next slide.

41:05So, just a quick uh program history. Um

41:08ever since 2019, we've been working on

41:11designing the program, working with uh

41:13the other communities in coalition

41:16uh with Salt Lake City. This included uh

41:19forming an interlocal cooperative agency

41:21called the Community Renewable Energy

41:22Agency. Council member Dugan is our

41:24chair.

41:26And um

41:28moving through the process, which is a

41:30lot of a lot of uh background work that

41:33you know, this council's heard about

41:34over the years.

41:35And we're finally at the point where, as

41:37you know, the Public Service Commission,

41:39our state regulatory body, approved the

41:41program

41:42in March of 2026.

41:45They also had approved a resource

41:46solicitation process in uh May of 2025.

41:51Uh

41:52and then it was up to communities to

41:53decide if they wanted to move forward.

41:56And as you recall, in April, the day

41:58before Earth Day, the Salt Lake City

42:00Council enacted the ordinance um for the

42:02Community Clean Energy Program.

42:05So, we're on track and I'm going to let

42:06Glade talk a little bit more about that

42:08in just a moment. Uh Uh, but next slide.

42:13And this is just a quick overview of the

42:16ultimate 16 communities that are uh

42:20working on this journey uh going on this

42:22journey with us.

42:23Next slide.

42:27>> Okay. Uh thanks, Sophia. Just going to

42:30cover a little bit of background about

42:32the program and how it works and then uh

42:34our upcoming milestones for the program

42:36launch. So, uh

42:38the Community Clean Energy Program is uh

42:42an opt-out program by [clears throat] by

42:44design by the enabling legislation that

42:47Sophia mentioned before. So, the

42:49communities uh functionally opt their

42:52customers in and then they have the

42:54opportunity to opt out. Uh and the idea

42:57is to develop new clean energy resources

43:00to augment existing clean energy that's

43:02already on Rocky Mountain Power's grid.

43:04So, you know, Rocky Mountain Power

43:06PacificCorp, their [clears throat]

43:08parent company has uh six-state service

43:11territory throughout the Pacific

43:12Northwest and Intermountain West uh

43:15including uh

43:17hydroelectric power in the Pacific

43:18Northwest, Wyoming wind, and

43:20increasingly but maybe not quickly

43:22enough uh solar power in Utah. So, the

43:25idea is to add these new clean energy

43:28resources to the grid to power our homes

43:30and businesses. Next slide, please.

43:33So, to dig into that a little bit more,

43:35this [clears throat] is kind of a

43:36conceptual uh chart showing that

43:39existing clean energy resource in blue

43:42and the legacy fossil resource, the

43:44things like coal-fired and natural

43:46gas-fired power plants power in orange.

43:49And our goal is to in phases build in

43:53new clean energy resources depicted in

43:55green

43:56uh to to ultimately

43:58um

43:59augment that existing grid clean energy

44:03resource uh

44:05to develop net 100% energy for our

44:07customers. Next slide, please.

44:11And the idea is ultimately to match the

44:13consumption [clears throat] of our

44:14participating customers with the amount

44:16of clean energy generated and and from

44:19that existing clean energy on the grid.

44:21Next slide, please.

44:25So,

44:26many people as we've gone around to

44:28community councils and other community

44:29groups have have asked, "Well, aren't

44:31there already clean energy offerings

44:33with Rocky Mountain Power?" And and

44:35there are. Of course, folks know that

44:37you can put your own rooftop solar on

44:40your home or business. There are

44:41actually also rate schedules designed

44:44for large customers, including Salt Lake

44:46City, to go out and develop their own

44:48large utility-scale energy projects. So,

44:51those two

44:52categories of of program are

44:54customer-owned energy. You may have also

44:57heard of Blue Sky Power, where you can

44:59buy blocks of renewable energy, mostly

45:02supplied via credits called RECs

45:05or renewable energy certificates.

45:07There's also a subscriber solar program,

45:10where the company built one large-scale

45:12solar plant in southern Utah and you

45:14could subscribe to blocks of that. But,

45:17there are some limitations associated

45:19with each of those programs. So, if you

45:20go to the next slide, please.

45:22This is where our program, the community

45:25clean energy program, fits in. Again,

45:27it's an opt-out program.

45:29It's really kind of the easy button, so

45:31to speak, for participating in clean

45:33energy. And we see all of these as sort

45:35of a

45:36This is another tool in the toolkit.

45:39Just another option. And there's there's

45:41no right or wrong way to go about

45:44helping with clean energy, but this is a

45:45really great straightforward option for

45:48our customers. Next slide, please.

45:53So, who can participate? Just about

45:55everyone.

45:56I have an asterisk there. Residential,

45:58commercial, and industrial customers can

46:00broadly participate if they're in one of

46:02our participating communities.

46:04Uh the one exception is in the

46:06legislation that Sophia mentioned

46:07before, there was a uh restriction for

46:11uh existing schedule 135 customers.

46:14That's

46:15uh rooftop solar customers with net

46:17metering under the old uh kind of

46:19grandfathered program

46:22uh prior to about uh 2017. So, they

46:24those residential customers under under

46:27uh rate schedule 135 would have to make

46:29an either/or decision. But otherwise,

46:32all of our participating customers can

46:33participate. Uh next slide, please.

46:38So, in terms of what it costs, the Utah

46:41Public Service Commission approved a

46:44flat $4 monthly charge for residential

46:47customers uh with the exception of those

46:51uh income-qualifying customers enrolled

46:54in Rocky Mountain Power's uh Home

46:56Electric Lifeline Program or HELP

46:58Program, they can participate for free

47:00in our program.

47:02Uh then for non-residential customers,

47:04businesses, and institutional customers,

47:06they would pay on a a volumetric basis.

47:09So, a little over 6/10 of a cent per

47:11kilowatt-hour uh plus a small surcharge.

47:13And there And I didn't mention it, but

47:15there's also a small surcharge in that

47:16$4 monthly rate for residential

47:19customers. And those surcharges feed

47:21back into that low-income provision I I

47:23just mentioned a moment ago.

47:25Um in terms of non-residential

47:27customers, the the uh rate impacts will

47:30vary, uh but estimates are showing

47:32between 4 to 9% in terms of the premium

47:34for those customers to participate. And

47:38in term the program rates themselves,

47:40like all utility rates, uh

47:42will periodically be reviewed. There'll

47:44be a a an annual report filed by Rocky

47:46Mountain Power to the Public Service

47:48Commission. They'll review the the costs

47:51and all the different uh program

47:52parameters and make adjustment Excuse

47:55me, adjustments as needed. Uh the PSC

47:58did note in their approval of the

47:59program back in March though that they

48:01do not anticipate rates to go up from

48:03these initial rates, at least not

48:05anytime soon based on the structure of

48:07the program. They indicated if anything

48:10they would be likely to go down over

48:12time. So there's no guarantee of that,

48:15but it was interesting that they pointed

48:17that out in their order. Next slide,

48:19please.

48:21So just a little bit about program

48:23logistics and the really exciting

48:25prospect of our program launch. Next

48:28slide.

48:29I mentioned this is the easy button. So

48:32the way you participate is you just stay

48:34opted in.

48:35Next slide, please.

48:38The basics of the program, you would the

48:41customers remain customers of Rocky

48:43Mountain Power. The program costs that I

48:46just mentioned a moment ago are just

48:47going to show up as an additional line

48:49item on your monthly electric bill and

48:52your utility service isn't interrupted.

48:54There's no installation required. It's

48:57still reliable service that's backed by

48:59the grid and again all you have to do is

49:01stay opted in.

49:02Next slide, please.

49:05So

49:07a little bit about customer noticing.

49:09Next slide, please.

49:11The way this is going to roll out, we're

49:13really close here just what 10-12 days

49:16out from November 2nd, the first of two

49:19notices will go out to customers in

49:22participating communities. The first

49:24notice will be a paper notice.

49:26If you're if you receive your bills

49:28electronically conventionally, then

49:30you'll get

49:31your second notice as an email.

49:33Otherwise, if you get paper bills,

49:35you'll get a second paper notice. The

49:37exception there is for large customers

49:39over 1 MW of service or larger at a

49:42single meter. They will actually get

49:44virtual visits by default

49:47in person.

49:48Well, one-to-one with a

49:51business liaison at Rocky Mountain

49:52Power, they can also opt for an

49:54in-person visit. Uh so that's November

49:572nd when those start.

49:59At

50:00then uh beginning on January 1st, that

50:03line item will start showing up on

50:04customers' bills. So there'll be a

50:07charge for participating participating

50:09in the program. Uh but customers will

50:12have been able to opt out without a

50:14termination fee starting November 2nd.

50:17Uh and even after the bill impacts begin

50:19on January 1st, there'll be another 4

50:21months during which customers can opt

50:24out without a termination fee.

50:26Uh after May 1st though, a termination a

50:29one-time termination fee will apply.

50:31It'll be $30 for residential customers

50:34and small business customers. And then a

50:36usage-based termination fee for larger

50:38customers. Next slide, please.

50:42I think I already covered some of this,

50:43but you can see a depiction here of what

50:45the notice letter will look like. Uh

50:48important notice about your electric

50:49charges, new clean energy fee, review

50:52your participation. Uh and I mentioned

50:54that the 60-day noticing period, there

50:57are several requirements that are met by

50:59the the letter that's going to be in

51:00this envelope, and I won't go over

51:02those, but you can see them there on the

51:03slide. And again, in-person or virtual

51:05visits for those large customers. Next

51:07slide.

51:10Uh

51:11the program website for on the Rocky

51:13Mountain Power side is already live

51:15adjacent to some of those other clean

51:17energy programs I mentioned. So you can

51:19learn all about the program there. And

51:21on the next slide,

51:23there is uh our companion website, the

51:25Utah Renewable Communities has its own

51:27website with updated FAQs and all kinds

51:30of resources and information. Next

51:32slide.

51:34And so uh

51:36you can go to that website by scanning

51:38the QR code here, and there's also an

51:41option to sign up for an e-newsletter.

51:43And so if you have there are marketing

51:45materials if you want to cover some of

51:46>> Yeah, we'll just cover a couple things

51:48on the next slide, please.

51:51Uh so we've been going around the

51:53community offering presentations to

51:55community councils, one-on-ones with

51:58businesses. We presented to the business

52:00advisory board, talking to all the

52:02chambers, just trying to do as much as

52:04we can to spread the word

52:06um

52:07as far and wide as possible. So next

52:09slide.

52:11I'll note that that this presentation is

52:13basically a version of what we've been

52:15sharing wider in the community. We have

52:18these handouts. You should have a stack

52:21in your little case out there, but let

52:23us know if you need more. Just a

52:24two-pager.

52:25Next slide.

52:29We have stickers that can go on our Salt

52:32Lake City computers or you can give them

52:34out.

52:35>> [laughter]

52:36>> I should brought some.

52:37Uh next slide.

52:39Uh we also developed some business

52:41stickers because we understand that for

52:43a lot of businesses that have

52:44storefronts or otherwise, you know, are

52:46public-facing, they probably want to

52:48show that they are participating in this

52:50program, that they're getting something.

52:52So

52:53we have these stickers.

52:54If if you're communicating with any

52:56businesses or residents and it seems

52:57like they might want some, just let us

52:58know and we're happy to connect with

52:59them. Next slide.

53:03And what would be a program without a

53:04yard sign? So we have yard signs.

53:08Folks can go ahead and request them on

53:10our website and we are

53:12bringing them. So

53:15feel free to spread the word if if

53:16you're interested.

53:18And next slide.

53:20That might be all we have. So thank you

53:23very much.

53:24>> Council members? Council member Dugan?

53:29>> Thanks [snorts] for all the work.

53:31Appreciate it very much. Could you kind

53:32of touch on the

53:34the low-income plan and who you're

53:35working with on the low-income plan?

53:39Thank you.

53:40>> [clears throat]

53:40>> Uh yes.

53:41Thanks Council member Dugan. We actually

53:43met

53:44the low-income so

53:46our agency has three different

53:47committees, one of which is a low-income

53:49plan committee. It's a requirement of

53:50the statute to to develop a plan and

53:53each of our communities have have done

53:55that, developed plan. You I mentioned

53:58earlier the free participation credit

54:00for qualifying low-income customers, but

54:03we've also been reaching out to various

54:05community groups

54:07in each of the communities to

54:09that that work with low-income

54:11populations. We actually just had a

54:13webinar this morning that went really

54:15well to to help just remind folks of the

54:18our partnership on that and to prepare

54:21for the program launch. And so I don't

54:23you want to give some examples.

54:25>> So service providers mostly and and our

54:27plan has a list of those that we've said

54:30that we are committing to connect with

54:33and then we have a whole other list of

54:34of organizations that we're working

54:36with. And we did attend the annual HEAT

54:39conference down in Provo, I think, a few

54:42weeks ago and connected with everyone

54:44who was there at that conference, which

54:45was really helpful.

54:48And we're distributing in-person flyers,

54:51posters, materials at at physical

54:54locations on this program.

54:55>> Council Member Carson.

54:57>> Um, just a comment to say I've had an

55:00opportunity to see some of the outreach

55:01that you're doing at different community

55:03meetings and forums and really

55:05appreciate how proactive you've been in

55:07getting the word out about this program.

55:09Thank you for that work. Thank you very

55:11much.

55:13>> I

55:14Any other questions, Council Members?

55:15Thoughts?

55:17Um,

55:18the

55:21you know,

55:22I'm excited that we got to this place.

55:24It took many many many years. So I would

55:27like to highlight Council Member Dugan's

55:29work on this and

55:31it's been moving along. It's been a huge

55:33pain to deal with. So I I I really

55:36appreciate your work and leadership on

55:38this matter. So, thank you.

55:41>> I shared. Yeah, thank you.

55:43>> Thanks. Thank you for the update.

55:50Council members, we're moving on to a

55:51different topic. Thank you.

55:53Um moving back to on the agenda, we're

55:55going to go to number two, which is

55:57expanding housing options text

55:59amendment.

56:00Uh this is an ordinance um and we're

56:02discussing it. Michael Sanders

56:05uh is going to sit at the table. Uh this

56:07he is a council policy analyst. Michaela

56:09Bell, deputy planning director,

56:12um Ben Buckley, principal planner,

56:14Alicia Seely, principal planner, and

56:17Holka, senior planner, are going to join

56:19us at the table. So, Michael.

56:22>> Great. Thank you, Council.

56:24So, following a March 4th, 2025 Council

56:27legislative action, the administration

56:30has proposed a text amendment known as

56:31expanding housing options. The proposal

56:34includes a new permitted use for the R1,

56:36R2, SR1, and SR1A zones known as small

56:40lot dwellings, which functions as a

56:42permitted by right development option

56:44within these base zones.

56:46The proposal also consolidates the

56:47development standards for the R1 and SR1

56:51zones into tables and includes

56:52modifications to various development

56:54standards including changes in building

56:56height, setbacks, lot width, and

56:58building coverage. Additionally, the

57:00proposal updates flag wa- flag lot

57:03requirements.

57:04The Planning Commission held public

57:05hearings on this item on September 9th

57:07and 23rd of this year. Ultimately, the

57:10Commission recommended the Council

57:11approve the proposal during their

57:13September 23rd meeting.

57:15The Planning Division conducted

57:16extensive public outreach during the

57:18months preceding the Planning Commission

57:19hearings.

57:21The Council office prepared and mailed a

57:22postcard to all affected properties with

57:25links to the

57:26um Shape SLC project page and provided

57:30the public hearing dates.

57:32Attachment G to the staff report in your

57:34packets includes the comments which were

57:36sent to the council office between

57:38January 1st of this year and October

57:4014th. Comments received between the 14th

57:43and and yesterday were emailed to you

57:45this morning.

57:47Comments sent to the council office have

57:48been similar to those which were sent to

57:50the planning commission in that comments

57:52have been split on for and against the

57:54proposal. Some comments say the proposal

57:56goes too far and others not far enough.

57:59Comment themes are discussed on page

58:01four of the staff report. Policy

58:03questions are included on page two of

58:05the report that reflect some of the

58:06major themes from commenters and council

58:08members which I've heard over the past

58:09several months. And with that, I'll turn

58:11it over to the planning division.

58:15>> Awesome. Thanks for having us. As

58:16Michael just said, this is the briefing

58:19for expanding housing options. Next

58:21slide, please.

58:23As a high-level overview of this

58:26project, it was initiated by you, city

58:28council,

58:30back in early 2025

58:32to change the residential zoning rules

58:34to help ease the housing shortage. The

58:36primary goal is to enable smaller infill

58:39housing

58:40that is one, compatible with existing

58:42neighborhoods, and two, attainable to

58:45buy or rent.

58:46It does impact six districts, all three

58:49R1 districts, the R2 district, the SR1

58:53district, and the SR1A district. Next

58:56slide, please.

58:59This is the legislative intent that you

59:01adopted

59:03um

59:03to call out just something

59:05important here is that it it includes

59:08simplifying the R1 single-family

59:09residential districts, including updates

59:12to the residential flag lot standards,

59:14the addition of new housing options, and

59:17to the extent possible eliminating

59:19barriers to homeownership.

59:21Next slide, please.

59:24This is the map um, calls out all six of

59:27those districts. Um, it's important to

59:29note that these six districts are almost

59:32exclusively single family, aside from

59:34the R2 district, which does allow for

59:36duplexes, and all of of these six

59:39districts do allow for, um, the

59:41affordable housing incentives, which

59:43allows up to four units on a lot.

59:46Next slide, please.

59:50>> Great. So, uh, this proposal includes

59:53three main components.

59:55The first, as was mentioned, is allowing

59:58smaller single family dwellings, as well

1:00:00as duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and

1:00:03town homes with up to four units on

1:00:05smaller lots. This is what we're calling

1:00:07small lot dwelling, which we will

1:00:09explain in much greater detail.

1:00:12The other the next component is changes

1:00:15to the development standards in the base

1:00:17zoning districts. So, those R1, R2, and

1:00:20SR1 zones.

1:00:22Some changes include things like changes

1:00:24to setbacks, height, and lot coverage

1:00:26requirements. And then, the third main

1:00:29component is changes to the flag lot

1:00:31standards.

1:00:32As a reminder, flag lots are lots that

1:00:35are subdivided behind existing lots that

1:00:38don't have their own street frontage.

1:00:41Next slide, please.

1:00:43There are also a few things that we just

1:00:46want to make sure that we're clear about

1:00:47that the proposal does not do. It does

1:00:49not prohibit the expansion or

1:00:51construction of new single family homes.

1:00:54It doesn't require the small lot

1:00:56dwelling standards to apply to all new

1:00:59construction or additions to existing

1:01:01homes.

1:01:02It doesn't make any changes to historic

1:01:04districts, so the historic overlay will

1:01:06remain the same, and those protections

1:01:08will remain in place.

1:01:10And this proposal does not rezone or

1:01:12modify the zoning map in any way.

1:01:15Next slide, please.

1:01:20>> Okay.

1:01:21Uh, we want to very quickly touch on and

1:01:23review why this is being proposed and

1:01:25the goals of the project. Next slide.

1:01:29The overall goal is to simply stated

1:01:32respond to the housing crisis and the

1:01:34ways that we see this manifest in Salt

1:01:36Lake City is first and foremost

1:01:37obviously the rising cost of housing

1:01:40relative to income and wages. Since 2005

1:01:43the median home value has risen by 83%

1:01:46and 72% of households in Salt Lake City

1:01:49do not make enough to afford the median

1:01:51house. This has also led to fewer

1:01:53opportunities for

1:01:55Sorry, can we go back?

1:02:01Yes, thank you.

1:02:03This is also led to fewer opportunities

1:02:05for home ownership in recent years. Kem

1:02:08C. Gardner data estimates that 86% of

1:02:11renters in Salt Lake City are priced out

1:02:13of home ownership in today's market. We

1:02:15know also that families have been hit

1:02:18especially hard by the housing crisis as

1:02:20they have fewer options for attainable

1:02:22starter homes in the city and not a lot

1:02:24of options between a large single-family

1:02:26home, most often out of their price

1:02:28range, and a large apartment building

1:02:30downtown. So we do have data that

1:02:31families are leaving Salt Lake City in

1:02:33search of more attainable housing. On

1:02:36the other side of this is the aging

1:02:38population. Seniors are staying in their

1:02:40larger homes long after their families

1:02:42are grown and moved out because they do

1:02:44not have options to downsize and age in

1:02:46place within their neighborhoods.

1:02:49And so the existing family-size housing

1:02:51stock is not turning over.

1:02:53Impacts on prices.

1:02:55Reports and data from real-world

1:02:57examples, which we'll talk about more

1:02:59throughout the presentation both locally

1:03:01and around the country, provide strong

1:03:03evidence that allowing smaller homes,

1:03:05smaller lots, and a variety of housing

1:03:08types has a direct impact on housing

1:03:10prices.

1:03:11And finally, the goals of the project

1:03:12are supported by the general plan, which

1:03:14calls for more compact development to

1:03:16achieve sustainable growth, increasing

1:03:19opportunities for homeowners and renters

1:03:21in all neighborhoods, and increasing the

1:03:23number of medium-density housing types

1:03:26and options.

1:03:29>> So, we'll get into the to the bulk of

1:03:31the ordinance right now. Um the first

1:03:34key component is the small lot

1:03:35dwellings. Uh as mentioned previously,

1:03:37it does permit new building types.

1:03:40Um it does also permit those new

1:03:42building types to be on 2,000 square

1:03:44feet per dwelling.

1:03:46Um

1:03:47these new building types would be

1:03:48regulated with similar building heights

1:03:50and setbacks as the base zoning

1:03:52districts.

1:03:54And then the parking is regulated at one

1:03:56parking space per dwelling unit, which

1:03:58is identical to the affordable housing

1:04:00incentives and very similar to uh the

1:04:04accessory dwelling units. Next slide,

1:04:06please.

1:04:16>> Scott was having some technical trouble

1:04:18earlier. Scott, oh, there we go.

1:04:19>> There we go. Cool.

1:04:20>> Thank you.

1:04:21>> Um in exchange for those smaller lot

1:04:24sizes, we do have

1:04:26regulations on the building sizes.

1:04:29Uh both the footprint and the gross

1:04:31floor area. The footprint is the

1:04:33measurement of the space the building

1:04:35takes up on the ground, and that is

1:04:37regulated at 850 to 1,000 square feet

1:04:39per unit, depending on building type.

1:04:43Gross floor area is the space uh inside

1:04:46the building, both floors, basically the

1:04:48usable space of the building.

1:04:50Um and that is limited to 1,200 to

1:04:521,700, depending on building height.

1:04:56Next slide, please.

1:04:58Um throughout the whole process, uh

1:05:01there have been questions whether 1,200

1:05:03square feet is adequate for family-size

1:05:05housing.

1:05:06Um the floor plan to the right does show

1:05:08that three bedrooms can in fact fit in

1:05:121,200 square feet along with two two

1:05:14bathrooms. Um additionally, there are

1:05:16shifting demographics and household

1:05:18sizes not only locally, statewide, but

1:05:21also nationally. And then this also, as

1:05:24mentioned previously, does not ban

1:05:26larger single-family homes. Um if one

1:05:28does desire a larger family uh excuse

1:05:30me, a larger single-family home, um that

1:05:32can still be built. It just has to be

1:05:34built to the to the zoning standards of

1:05:36that base zoning district. Next slide,

1:05:38please.

1:05:40Um this is the table that will be in the

1:05:43ordinance.

1:05:44Um as you can see,

1:05:45uh the the building height is just

1:05:47referred to the district maximum.

1:05:49Otherwise, um most of this is is similar

1:05:52to what we just talked about.

1:05:54Next slide, please.

1:05:58>> Oh, yeah.

1:05:59>> Okay. As part of this process, um staff

1:06:03built a geospatial model to help us

1:06:05understand approximately how many lots,

1:06:07as they exist today, would likely have

1:06:10capacity to add one or more small small

1:06:13lot dwellings. Uh we also did this to

1:06:15ensure and get a visual that lots with

1:06:17capacity were equitably distributed

1:06:20throughout different districts and

1:06:21neighborhoods, and that one neighborhood

1:06:23would not be disproportionately impacted

1:06:25by the proposed changes. Uh the way that

1:06:27the model works is that we input the

1:06:29geographic area of each of the lots, as

1:06:32well as the location, size, and shape of

1:06:34the primary building. Uh we did not

1:06:36include accessory structures like

1:06:38detached garages or sheds in the

1:06:40analysis, because those can be more

1:06:42easily removed or relocated as needed.

1:06:45We then applied 10-ft buffers within the

1:06:47property lines and around the primary

1:06:49structure to account for setbacks, space

1:06:51between buildings, and eliminating

1:06:53narrow side yards that would not be

1:06:55feasible for development. Of the

1:06:57remaining space, we then eliminated any

1:06:59pocket of space that was not at least

1:07:032,000 square feet of continu- contiguous

1:07:06space. Then, if there was still a

1:07:08continuous area of over 2,000 square

1:07:10feet in area, we counted that lot as

1:07:12having capacity for one or more

1:07:14additional homes. So, when we say that

1:07:16approximately 35% of parcels in the

1:07:19affected zones are likely to have

1:07:21sufficient capacity for infill

1:07:23development, this is how we arrived at

1:07:26that figure.

1:07:27While this has been helpful to

1:07:28understand development potential, it is

1:07:31a simplified model of real real-world

1:07:34conditions, and there are a lot of that

1:07:36couldn't be modeled that might be

1:07:38mitigating factors to development, such

1:07:41as topography, driveway access, unique

1:07:43lot shapes, and so forth. So, in the

1:07:45end, this is intended to be a rough

1:07:47estimate of capacity rather than a firm

1:07:50determination of eligibility.

1:07:52Um so, building on that, a common

1:07:54question

1:07:55that we've received throughout this

1:07:57process is what is going to happen right

1:07:59away. And we've also heard concerns that

1:08:02this will bring about too much change

1:08:04too quickly. So, we wanted to keep a

1:08:06perspective of what we can realistically

1:08:08expect to see in terms of utilization.

1:08:11If we look at existing policies that

1:08:13allow infill housing already, those

1:08:15would be accessory dwelling units and

1:08:18affordable housing incentives primarily,

1:08:20these elicited many of the same

1:08:21concerns. Um however, even though 100%

1:08:25of residential properties are eligible

1:08:27um to utilize these programs, we've only

1:08:30seen so far half a percent um of these

1:08:33properties, 0.5% put in applications to

1:08:36build them. It's been very gradual

1:08:39change. This is also the case um this is

1:08:41supported by data from Durham, North

1:08:43Carolina. When they implemented very

1:08:45similar code changes, they have reported

1:08:47215 units built over the first four

1:08:51years. Uh they've also not seen,

1:08:53importantly, an increase in demolitions,

1:08:56which has been a big concern. So, if we

1:08:58applied

1:08:59a optimistic 1% utilization rate to the

1:09:03properties with capacity, which is a

1:09:05pretty high expectation given what we

1:09:08have seen. We could expect to see

1:09:10approximately about 130 properties

1:09:13across the city add small lot dwellings

1:09:16in the next few years. Next slide.

1:09:21>> All right, so we want to walk you

1:09:22through a couple examples of

1:09:25how this might work. Now, as the name of

1:09:28the project implies, expanding housing

1:09:30options, there are a lot of different

1:09:32options, a lot of different ways that

1:09:35this code could be implemented, but we

1:09:36wanted to take a couple examples to just

1:09:38help illustrate how things work. So, in

1:09:41this first example, we have a

1:09:43single-family home on a large lot that

1:09:45has at least 4,000 square feet of open

1:09:49space in the side yard.

1:09:51And under today's code, that would be

1:09:53difficult to develop cuz it's too small

1:09:55to subdivide in any of these zones.

1:09:58And ADUs are only allowed in the rear

1:10:00yard, not in the side yard, so unless

1:10:04you have experience building low-income

1:10:06housing and use the affordable housing

1:10:08incentives,

1:10:09um it would be difficult to build

1:10:10anything in that space.

1:10:12Next slide, please.

1:10:15As previously discussed, the small lot

1:10:17dwelling code includes several standards

1:10:19that limit the size of new buildings.

1:10:21This is intended to ensure that the new

1:10:24dwellings are at a more attainable

1:10:26starter home size.

1:10:28In this example, um

1:10:30we want to look at how the requirements

1:10:31for height, footprint, and floor area

1:10:34work together.

1:10:35So, for small lot single-family

1:10:37dwellings, the maximum footprint is

1:10:391,000 square feet.

1:10:41This is aligned with what we already

1:10:44allow for accessory dwelling units.

1:10:47You'll notice that the standards for

1:10:48floor area are different depending on

1:10:51the height of the building. So, for

1:10:53buildings that are up to 17 feet high,

1:10:56they get a larger floor area of 1,700 sq

1:10:59ft. Whereas taller buildings that are

1:11:02over 17-ft high have a smaller floor

1:11:05area that's allowed of 1,200.

1:11:08So, what would that look like? Let's

1:11:09move to the next slide.

1:11:13So, here's two examples showing how it's

1:11:16it's not necessarily possible to build

1:11:19to the maximum of every standard in this

1:11:21code. So, if you want to maximize your

1:11:24footprint on a floor area, you may have

1:11:26to trade off on the height of the

1:11:28building. If you want to build to the

1:11:30maximum height, you may have to give up

1:11:32on footprint or floor area.

1:11:35So, in the example on the left, there's

1:11:38a small lot dwelling that's built to the

1:11:40maximum footprint of 1,000 sq ft.

1:11:44Um and a maximum floor area of 1,700 sq

1:11:48ft.

1:11:49Um that's allowed only because it was

1:11:52built up to 17 ft. It's a single-story

1:11:55building. So, that additional 700 sq ft

1:11:58could be um placed in a basement.

1:12:01So, in that example, they built to the

1:12:03maximum

1:12:04floor area and footprint, but they have

1:12:06to make the building shorter.

1:12:08Whereas the example on the right is

1:12:10built to the maximum height.

1:12:12As a result, they're only allowed 1,200

1:12:15sq ft. So, what that means is that

1:12:19in order to have equal first and second

1:12:21levels, they would have to shrink the

1:12:22footprint down. And you can kind of see

1:12:24the comparison on the site plan view

1:12:27that the taller building takes up less

1:12:29space on the lot. That's intended to be

1:12:31again a trade-off that

1:12:34some options may work in some situations

1:12:36and not in others, but that that will be

1:12:39um

1:12:40those will be choices that owners will

1:12:43have to make as they're just deciding

1:12:45what to build.

1:12:46>> Mr. Chair, can I ask a question about

1:12:47this slide?

1:12:48>> Sure.

1:12:49>> So, both of these are are detached. Um

1:12:54what

1:12:56um impact would it have if let's say

1:12:58these were in a um going to be built on

1:13:02to an existing unit and they're going to

1:13:03keep our house and they're going to keep

1:13:04that house. Does it Does it change at

1:13:07all

1:13:08any of these that that sort of

1:13:10scales?

1:13:12>> Uh

1:13:13other than I I believe it if if you were

1:13:16adding a new unit to an existing unit,

1:13:19then that would then be two attached

1:13:22units. So, we would then look to the

1:13:26multi-family

1:13:27standards. It would change a little bit

1:13:29and we have some examples not showing

1:13:31that exact scenario, but

1:13:34um it the new portion would still have

1:13:38to meet all of these standards as far as

1:13:40the size and height and setbacks.

1:13:42>> Okay, okay. Cuz what I'm getting at in

1:13:44in [snorts] an example from

1:13:47um a resident something that a resident

1:13:49brought up is that let's say somebody

1:13:52has you know, wanted to put or wanted to

1:13:57make their house bigger

1:13:59and they haven't been able to do it. Um

1:14:01either they wanted to build on to the

1:14:02back of it or they wanted to build up

1:14:04and they weren't allowed to.

1:14:07But now

1:14:08if they say that they have another unit

1:14:12does this allow them to just build a

1:14:14bigger house?

1:14:17And and get

1:14:17>> It would allow new units to be added on.

1:14:21>> Right, but like is the Is it

1:14:25>> It couldn't be part of the same house

1:14:28under the small lot dwelling code if

1:14:30that's what you're asking. There are

1:14:32some modifications to the base zones um

1:14:35that allow you to modest increases to

1:14:38height and decreases to setbacks. So,

1:14:40they could utilize the base zoning um

1:14:43provisions for that, but if it was an

1:14:45attachment but part of the same, you

1:14:48know, family, the same household living

1:14:50there, it could not be considered an

1:14:52additional small lot dwelling.

1:14:54>> Okay, great. That's Thank you. That's

1:14:56what what I'm trying to ask is

1:14:58uh

1:14:59right, cuz we're one of the goals is not

1:15:01to allow people to just build bigger how

1:15:03to

1:15:05to renovate their house and make it

1:15:06bigger.

1:15:07Um but how do we know that

1:15:11what if they, you know, make it so it

1:15:12kind of looks like it's two houses, but

1:15:15it's not? How do we know that that's

1:15:18what they're

1:15:19How do we know they're creating a unit,

1:15:21a separate unit?

1:15:23>> We would look at if if there is a

1:15:26physical separation or whether they're

1:15:28connected by the doors, and I I think

1:15:31our definitions defines what counts as a

1:15:33dwelling unit. So, you know, a separate

1:15:36kitchen and bathroom and living space

1:15:39um as a separate unit would be, I think,

1:15:41important, and that's what we would look

1:15:43for.

1:15:44>> Okay.

1:15:44>> This is also evaluated when they apply

1:15:46for that certificate of occupancy when

1:15:48they build a new unit.

1:15:49>> Okay, so you look at the blueprints and

1:15:51and that would tell you.

1:15:53Okay.

1:15:54>> Yes. And we do have a little bit more on

1:15:56a a few slides about what happens if you

1:15:59do preserve an existing building, how

1:16:01that works, and um some of the other

1:16:04changes to the underlying zones, but

1:16:06good question. Thank you.

1:16:07>> Thank you.

1:16:09>> Um okay, I think we got through this

1:16:11one. So, again, just showing the

1:16:12tradeoffs. If you want to build taller,

1:16:15then you may have to give up on some of

1:16:17the other um standards. Uh let's move to

1:16:20the next slide.

1:16:23Um so, this just shows what those

1:16:25examples might look like in that

1:16:27previous example, right? And in this

1:16:29case, the hypothetical homeowner could

1:16:31build one or both or or a completely

1:16:34different configuration.

1:16:36But this, again, is intended to show

1:16:38that just depending on what the property

1:16:41owner chooses to build, they will have

1:16:43to make choices on which parameters

1:16:45they're trying to maximize.

1:16:48Um

1:16:49let's move to the next slide. We have

1:16:50another example here. This is a larger

1:16:53one showing what might look like with

1:16:55multiple units. So, in this example, we

1:16:57have an 8,000 square foot vacant

1:17:00property, which is the minimum size that

1:17:01would be needed to build four units

1:17:04under the small lot dwelling code.

1:17:06Next slide.

1:17:09So, in this example, we want to

1:17:10highlight how the maximum footprint

1:17:12standards work for the multi-unit

1:17:14building types.

1:17:16If a building has multiple units, they

1:17:18could be arranged either side by side or

1:17:20stacked one on top of the other.

1:17:23So, um as proposed, the maximum

1:17:25footprint allowed would typically be 850

1:17:28square feet per dwelling unit

1:17:30unless they are stacked. If the dwelling

1:17:32units are stacked, then the maximum

1:17:34footprint is 1,200 square feet per

1:17:36ground floor unit.

1:17:39Let's take a look at some examples of of

1:17:41how that might work. Next slide, please.

1:17:45So, here are two uh four-unit examples.

1:17:47The one on the left shows four attached

1:17:50units that are side by side.

1:17:52The example on the right is a fourplex

1:17:54with two units on the ground floor and

1:17:56two units stacked on the second level.

1:17:59So, with the row home example on the

1:18:01left, the maximum footprint is 850

1:18:04square feet per unit.

1:18:07And I want to point out why 850 is

1:18:11important. If you remember from the

1:18:12previous example, the max footprint for

1:18:15single-family dwellings is 1,000, so

1:18:17they have a little bit of a larger

1:18:19footprint. That was intended, as I

1:18:21mentioned, to align with what the ADU

1:18:23code allows, but also to be a sort of an

1:18:26incentive or a benefit for the

1:18:28single-family dwelling types to

1:18:30encourage those types of buildings.

1:18:33850 is a smaller amount that helps to

1:18:36mitigate the overall impact of the

1:18:38larger multi-unit buildings.

1:18:42But, on this example, you'll notice that

1:18:44the second level is not the same size as

1:18:47the ground floor. It looks a little bit

1:18:48wonky. Why does it look like that? In

1:18:51this example, we're trying to illustrate

1:18:53what might happen if a builder tried to

1:18:56maximize

1:18:57the footprint, the height, and the floor

1:19:01area, right? In the previous example,

1:19:04if they were trying to maximize their

1:19:07height and floor area, they shrunk the

1:19:08footprint. In this example, they're

1:19:10keeping the footprint,

1:19:13maximizing all of the other standards,

1:19:17and that means that they only have 350

1:19:20ft left for the second floor, which

1:19:22leads to this kind of asymmetrical

1:19:25design.

1:19:27It means they have to break up the

1:19:29massing again, which is another

1:19:30trade-off, depending on what people are

1:19:33interested in building.

1:19:35They will have to choose what to do,

1:19:37whether to reduce their footprint or to

1:19:40trade-off on the massing of the second

1:19:42level.

1:19:44>> Thank you. Can I just ask a quick

1:19:45question about this one? So, I see

1:19:49in your second version, the four parking

1:19:53spaces. In the first one, are we

1:19:55assuming that there are also four

1:19:57parking places in the back or that

1:19:59there's somehow like garages? I'm just

1:20:02trying to make sure that those parking

1:20:04standards are represented.

1:20:07>> Yeah, they they are. It's not clearly

1:20:10marked on this site plan, but that was

1:20:12the intent was to ensure that there was

1:20:13enough space in the back to provide

1:20:15parking.

1:20:16>> Okay. And then one follow-up. Would it

1:20:19be possible under the proposed code if

1:20:22they decided to push the building back

1:20:25and place their parking in front of

1:20:27that? Is that allowed?

1:20:30>> Our current standards don't allow the

1:20:33parking to be in front of the building.

1:20:35>> Okay.

1:20:36>> Um so that's that currently would not be

1:20:38allowed.

1:20:39>> And what I guess Okay, I just Sorry,

1:20:42this is for my own clarification. So, in

1:20:44what's being proposed, it would still

1:20:47not be allowed?

1:20:49>> Correct.

1:20:50>> Okay. Thank you.

1:20:52>> Um

1:20:54Okay, so the the one on the left again

1:20:56is trying to show some of these

1:20:58tradeoffs, right? If you want the larger

1:21:00footprint and to go higher, the second

1:21:02level will inherently have to shrink.

1:21:05Again, breaking up the massing, trying

1:21:08to address the impact of these larger

1:21:10buildings.

1:21:12Let's look at the fourplex example on

1:21:13the right. So, this is stacked. If you

1:21:15remember,

1:21:17the maximum footprint for stacked units

1:21:20is 1,200 square feet per ground floor

1:21:22unit. So, with two units on the ground,

1:21:25that's 2,400 square feet.

1:21:28Since each unit is on its own level,

1:21:30they wouldn't be able to build to the

1:21:321,200 square foot maximum that Ben

1:21:34talked about earlier.

1:21:36As we discussed with that, that's what

1:21:38we feel is a good starter home size that

1:21:42is also large enough for families. And

1:21:45so, we did want to make sure that um we

1:21:47allowed that size of unit to be built in

1:21:50stacked um configurations like this

1:21:52example.

1:21:54By tying the footprint to the ground

1:21:56level units only, you allow that 1,200

1:21:59square foot size that is attainable

1:22:02family size, but also prevents it from

1:22:05being overly large. As you can see on

1:22:07the site plan, the footprint of the

1:22:10fourplex is smaller than the footprint

1:22:12of the four-unit row home example. Yes.

1:22:16>> Um Mr. Chair, um the one on the

1:22:20um

1:22:21left, is that

1:22:23Tell Talk to me about the setbacks from

1:22:25the street.

1:22:27So, that one's a little bit further

1:22:29closer to the street than the the other

1:22:31example. How do you What's the minimum

1:22:35amount

1:22:36um

1:22:37of setback

1:22:39on those kinds of units?

1:22:40>> 10 ft. And you're right. I think the the

1:22:43fourplex example was

1:22:46maybe 15 ft or something. It it it

1:22:49>> So, do we

1:22:50>> could be a a 10-ft setback as well.

1:22:52>> Okay. So, how is it Is it

1:22:55measured? Is it Is it If you're building

1:22:58townhomes, it's 10 ft, and if you're

1:23:01building

1:23:03a fourplex, it's 15, or is it like

1:23:06this is how big the footprint is?

1:23:09This is how much

1:23:11Okay.

1:23:12>> All of the small lot dwellings are

1:23:14required to provide a 10-ft front yard.

1:23:17So, this the fourplex example

1:23:20just doesn't show the minimum on on the

1:23:22front yard, but it could be

1:23:24>> Okay.

1:23:24>> a 10-ft as well.

1:23:25>> On other

1:23:27uh parts of the code, I think we've

1:23:30talked about or um

1:23:32there's been debate about Do you take

1:23:35the average of

1:23:37all the structures on the block face?

1:23:39Does that play into this at all?

1:23:41>> Yes, and and we do want your input on

1:23:44front yards. So, we have some more

1:23:45discussion on that coming.

1:23:47>> Okay. Cuz

1:23:49Just to give my The reason I'm asking

1:23:50this is that if you think about the left

1:23:54the example on the left, um I mean maybe

1:24:00Most of my interactions with my

1:24:01neighbors, 90%,

1:24:03are when we're both in the front yard.

1:24:07Um and that's when we talk. That's when,

1:24:11you know, you're actually doing

1:24:12neighbor-to-neighbor

1:24:13interactions. And I think that that's

1:24:15important, whether they're renters or

1:24:18owners or however many people live

1:24:20there.

1:24:21Um so, to me having some amount of front

1:24:24yard so that you're not it's not just a

1:24:27creating a wall is important and I think

1:24:31um, when people say that they're worried

1:24:33about losing, you know, the feel of the

1:24:35neighborhood, I think that

1:24:37that is legitimate because at least in

1:24:40my experience like

1:24:42that would reduce significantly the

1:24:44amount of time that I talk to my

1:24:45neighbors

1:24:46and and that is important I think to

1:24:49community.

1:24:50So do you want to speak to that now or

1:24:51do you want to wait until we get to that

1:24:53part?

1:24:55>> Uh, happy to

1:24:57speak about it or for you

1:24:59>> Well, you know, I think that since they

1:25:01they want feedback on that and I, you

1:25:03know, I I I agree with with the

1:25:05sentiment. I think what what we both

1:25:08disagree on the solution there. Um, I

1:25:11think let's let's go through the

1:25:12presentation and let's address that

1:25:14because they do want clarity on that

1:25:15from us.

1:25:16>> Great.

1:25:18>> All right, thank you very much. Let's

1:25:19move to the next slide then.

1:25:27Um,

1:25:28and then uh, just the lastly just to

1:25:31again show how something like this might

1:25:34fit in the neighborhood context.

1:25:37Um,

1:25:39we want to be very transparent about

1:25:41what is possible under this proposal.

1:25:44But we also want to emphasize that even

1:25:46the largest building with the most units

1:25:49allowed under this code is

1:25:52um, still compatible in scale to what

1:25:55can already be built currently under the

1:25:57base zoning.

1:25:58Next slide, please.

1:26:03>> Okay, one more example here just to

1:26:05really illustrate um, what Andy was

1:26:07talking about with the tradeoffs um, and

1:26:09the size limitations.

1:26:11What we want to emphasize here is that

1:26:13because these small lot dwellings do

1:26:15have these size limitations and

1:26:16tradeoffs, They will always be smaller

1:26:19than a single-family home that can be

1:26:21built on the same lot under the proposed

1:26:23base zoning regulations. Here's so we

1:26:26have an example lot that is 8,500 square

1:26:29feet. This would be considered a fairly

1:26:31large lot in most of these

1:26:32neighborhoods. If you built a

1:26:34single-family home on this lot, you

1:26:36could have a footprint of up to 4,250

1:26:39square feet. But the maximum small lot

1:26:42dwelling footprint you could have on

1:26:44this is 3,400 square feet. The maximum

1:26:47small lot dwellings you could have on

1:26:48this lot is four.

1:26:50So the footprint is already 20% smaller.

1:26:54Then when you build out the massing and

1:26:55max like really maximize that building

1:26:57envelope, the difference is even

1:26:59greater. So a single-family home could

1:27:02max out their second floor and construct

1:27:04a building that has an above-ground

1:27:06gross floor area of 8,500 square feet.

1:27:09This is excluding any basement. In

1:27:11contrast, again, the absolute largest

1:27:14building you could construct under the

1:27:16small lot dwelling code has an

1:27:18above-ground gross floor area of 4,800

1:27:20square feet, which is 43% smaller than

1:27:24the single-family home. Um

1:27:27And yeah, again, the single-family home

1:27:29could also build out a basement. So we

1:27:32understand that most single-family

1:27:34homes, especially older homes, are not

1:27:36built to the maximum building envelope

1:27:39of what is allowed in the neighborhood.

1:27:40But taking the maximum standards helps

1:27:43us make a compatibility comparison that

1:27:46is apples-to-apples as far as what is

1:27:48allowed, while also recognizing that any

1:27:52single-family home that exists right now

1:27:54could redevelop or remodel to the

1:27:56maximum standards at any time.

1:27:59Next slide, please.

1:28:03Um the proposal right now is designed so

1:28:06that additional modifications to small

1:28:08lot dwellings are not permitted. So you

1:28:10would not be able to double dip, per se,

1:28:13and get additional modifications to

1:28:15setback density, height, or other zoning

1:28:19provisions through planned development,

1:28:22building preservation incentives, or

1:28:24affordable housing incentives. Next

1:28:26slide.

1:28:29Uh there is, however, a density bonus

1:28:32built into the small lot dwelling code.

1:28:35Um this is in response to a desire to

1:28:37keep streetscapes intact, um

1:28:40which is why this is included, and also

1:28:42fear of demolitions.

1:28:45Um so, that when an existing principal

1:28:48residential building is retained,

1:28:50um a builder can qualify for a bonus

1:28:53unit. So, in exchange for preserving an

1:28:56existing unit on a project that adds one

1:28:58or more units through the small lot

1:29:00dwelling ordinance,

1:29:02um you could qualify for a bonus unit.

1:29:04This bonus unit does have a lot of

1:29:06flexibility. It could be added to the

1:29:08existing primary structure as an

1:29:10internal or attached unit, or it could

1:29:13be added to one of the small lot

1:29:14dwellings, or it could even be its own

1:29:17detached small lot dwelling structure,

1:29:19provided all other standards, setbacks,

1:29:22height are met. Uh the bonus unit is

1:29:24not, however, subject to minimum lot

1:29:27area, lot coverage, or off-street

1:29:29parking requirements. Um and then that

1:29:32retained building is protected via a

1:29:35restrictive covenant for a period of uh

1:29:37no less than 30 years.

1:29:39Next slide.

1:29:43Okay, we have also had several questions

1:29:45throughout this process about how this

1:29:47proposal differs from existing policies

1:29:49that allow infill housing, and whether

1:29:51the proposal makes these other programs

1:29:54obsolete. So, this chart basically

1:29:56represents different tools in our

1:29:58toolkit. Each of these policies has

1:30:00different goals and different mechanisms

1:30:02for achieving them. They're all aimed at

1:30:05easing the housing shortage, but no one

1:30:07policy alone is a silver bullet, and

1:30:10these policies are all needed to tackle

1:30:12the issue from different angles, and not

1:30:14every one of these is going to work on

1:30:17every property, um but having different

1:30:19programs provides options to fit

1:30:22different situations. Um so, to

1:30:24highlight some of the key differences

1:30:26here, the main difference between

1:30:29affordable housing incentives AHI and

1:30:32EHO is that AHI developments require a

1:30:35restrictive covenant for

1:30:36deed-restricted, what we call capital A

1:30:39affordability that the city enforces,

1:30:41whereas a restrictive covenant would not

1:30:43be required for EHO developments. Um

1:30:46this EHO tool gets at allowing missing

1:30:49middle housing types at scales that are

1:30:51demonstrated to be more attainable than

1:30:53a standard single-family home, but are

1:30:55not deed-restricted affordable.

1:30:58Uh with that, EHO does allow the same

1:31:00building types as AHI, uh but has

1:31:03additional size restrictions, as we've

1:31:05discussed.

1:31:06On the other side of this, the biggest

1:31:08difference between the EHO proposal and

1:31:10ADUs, or accessory dwelling units, is

1:31:13that ADUs are limited to one unit per

1:31:15lot, and they are rentals only, whereas

1:31:19new units under EHO can be sold and can

1:31:22offer homeownership opportunities.

1:31:24Uh building preservation incentives, or

1:31:26BPI, is another tool. It's a little

1:31:29different and more nuanced, um so we

1:31:31won't get into discussing it in detail,

1:31:33but we did want to include it as another

1:31:35tool to help retain existing housing

1:31:37stock and add new housing. Next slide.

1:31:43>> All right, now we're going to get into

1:31:45the base zoning district amendments.

1:31:46First up

1:31:47>> quick quick quick question. I mean, this

1:31:49this previous Sorry for interrupting.

1:31:50>> Yeah, you're fine.

1:31:51>> Uh I just want to close the loop on this

1:31:53because the previous

1:31:54you know, this relationship between the

1:31:56affordable housing incentive, uh the

1:31:58expanding housing options, and the ADU

1:32:00was something that you brought up

1:32:01concerning Wharton as a conflict and I

1:32:05don't see one but I want to see if this

1:32:07answers some of that or you have further

1:32:09questions on this because

1:32:10uh

1:32:11how it was framed on on presentation it

1:32:13was like this is going to undermine all

1:32:15of these other things but administration

1:32:17is saying it's not. So,

1:32:21I wonder if there is more questions

1:32:22about this to make sure that we are like

1:32:24seeing or understanding this the same

1:32:26way.

1:32:27>> I would be delighted to elucidate

1:32:31um on that. Uh thanks for the

1:32:33invitation. I I guess

1:32:37uh this is this is where I am

1:32:40a chief area of concern for me where I

1:32:42think that we're

1:32:43incentivizing

1:32:45um institutional ownership and where I

1:32:48feel like we're removing the incentive

1:32:51to put that affordability

1:32:53restriction in place.

1:32:54So, why would I

1:32:58if I'm going to build this

1:33:00this addition this this additional unit

1:33:03uh

1:33:04and I'm going to have to

1:33:06um presumably take out some kind of

1:33:08mortgage or some kind of loan to build

1:33:10it.

1:33:11Um

1:33:12can't I

1:33:14I'm going to try to get the most that I

1:33:16can out of it. There's no affordability

1:33:19restriction. Um

1:33:22and

1:33:23it's because of that, let's say I'm now

1:33:27a company

1:33:28and I realize

1:33:30great, I love that that that previous

1:33:32owner built those two dwellings. Now, I

1:33:34can buy this property and I'll have two

1:33:36incomes.

1:33:37Um two revenue streams.

1:33:40That's

1:33:41to me the incentive that we're creating.

1:33:43The difference is that under affordable

1:33:46housing incentives, there's a um

1:33:49affordability requirement for the in the

1:33:51deed restriction and in the ADUs

1:33:55you I'm required to continue to live on

1:33:57the property.

1:33:59So,

1:34:01there is a conflict in my mind.

1:34:04>> With AHI though, there isn't a square

1:34:06footage limitation. So, with expand with

1:34:10the small lot dwellings, you know, it's

1:34:13just another tool in that toolbox.

1:34:15Right? Like they have inherently are

1:34:18smaller. We've tried to make them big

1:34:21enough that they would be

1:34:22family-friendly.

1:34:24But that construction of that unit,

1:34:28however a property owner decides to

1:34:31construct a unit or multiple units, that

1:34:34it's sized in such a way, and we've

1:34:36looked at other cities, that it is

1:34:38attainable in itself.

1:34:41There's There's no um size restrictions

1:34:44for AHI. So, a unit could

1:34:46much larger.

1:34:48>> I think your premise is basically,

1:34:51you know,

1:34:52just by allowing this,

1:34:55you know, this

1:34:57investor could buy things in the city

1:34:59and start making them taking them away

1:35:01from

1:35:03from the community, right? Like that

1:35:04really is a

1:35:06But it isn't that already sort of like a

1:35:09reality in the market? Um

1:35:12you know, there are still

1:35:14people individuals are buying property

1:35:16and using it as an investment.

1:35:18Corporations are doing that, too. So, I

1:35:21think that this I guess the fear is that

1:35:24it will remove this additional units of

1:35:26this law could potentially this

1:35:27ordinance could potentially allow

1:35:29from the market.

1:35:31Um and I'm trying to wrap my head about

1:35:33how is that different than

1:35:35um than what it [clears throat] really

1:35:36currently happens beyond,

1:35:39you know, these are new units that we

1:35:41are not we don't don't exist right now

1:35:43under a unit underutilizing land that no

1:35:46one is forcing anybody to build them.

1:35:49Uh right? But it's allowing this these

1:35:51use for some, but consume

1:35:53young.

1:35:55>> So, I guess and

1:35:58Councilmember Wooten, you can say if I

1:36:00am saying it differently than you

1:36:01intended.

1:36:02The

1:36:03The question that I continue to have is

1:36:06that by adding in this additional

1:36:10policy, does it make the first one

1:36:13obsolete?

1:36:15And so, it's it's not a question about

1:36:17like the current market space, but for

1:36:20me, it's like our and and is that is

1:36:24that what we're saying? Are are we

1:36:26saying like AHI didn't didn't do what we

1:36:30thought it would do?

1:36:33Or like I and that's that's the piece

1:36:35that I guess I'm struggling with, but

1:36:37maybe that's different than what you're

1:36:39saying.

1:36:41Um but I think it's it's a similar vein

1:36:43of question, where I I do I see the

1:36:46overlaps.

1:36:48I see ADU and I see how that one kind of

1:36:51stands differently, at least in my lens.

1:36:54And I guess I'm just wondering if

1:36:57by offering EHO,

1:37:01does that make AHI just not really hold

1:37:04the same value?

1:37:05>> I want to make a quick point and then

1:37:07pass it over to Michaela, but one thing

1:37:09to keep in mind is that affordable

1:37:10housing incentives are allowed in almost

1:37:14in every residential zone throughout the

1:37:15city. So, some of the affordable housing

1:37:17incentives projects that I have worked

1:37:19on are like 100-unit buildings

1:37:23or large multi-family developments.

1:37:25Those are really well suited to take

1:37:27advantage of these affordable housing

1:37:28incentives. And so, that is distinctly

1:37:31different. There may be there is

1:37:33definitely overlap in lower-density

1:37:36residential neighborhoods and some

1:37:37property owners, you know, they may have

1:37:39a choice where they could do either or

1:37:41and you know, depending on their

1:37:43situation, you know, it might take some

1:37:45of those units away from AHI and and

1:37:47build EHO housing instead, but

1:37:51um affordable housing incentives are

1:37:52allowed everywhere and they're really

1:37:55being taken advantage of at scales much

1:37:57larger than what would fit into these

1:37:59neighborhoods.

1:38:00>> And that's a key point, too. They're

1:38:02using generally bigger developers who

1:38:04have a design team, who have lawyers to

1:38:07work on the restrictive covenants and

1:38:10you know, the size of the these units

1:38:12um that that's unlimited, I suppose. Um

1:38:16but the restriction there is setting how

1:38:19many units at what AMI, whether it's

1:38:21rental or to own. This is a different

1:38:24tool um in this toolbox. We're thinking

1:38:27of like wealth building. This would

1:38:29allow some wealth building. You know,

1:38:31I'm hearing from some of our staff

1:38:33members who are, you know, still can't

1:38:35buy a house in Salt Lake City.

1:38:37Um and that's well, you know, that's a

1:38:39real thing. Um and how this

1:38:44this EHO tool

1:38:46you know, we're hitting let's not lose

1:38:48our block face, let's not lose our

1:38:50character, let's make sure that these

1:38:52are scaled um appropriately in historic

1:38:55districts, outside of historic

1:38:56districts. Um they're still smaller, but

1:39:00if you do have extra square footage,

1:39:02however you wish to use that.

1:39:05Um unfortunately, we can't control all

1:39:08the the market conditions out there. Um

1:39:11but we could come up with many scenarios

1:39:14where folks where it could be possibly I

1:39:16have 4,000 square feet in the back of my

1:39:18giant lot and I'm going to build, you

1:39:21know,

1:39:22Sally

1:39:23her first single family house to go to

1:39:25the U.

1:39:26Um and there's a wealth building there

1:39:28and it's and it and we've written the

1:39:30regulations so that

1:39:32these units should be

1:39:34um as impactful unimpactful um as

1:39:38possible, but it's just a different

1:39:40tool. And if said homeowner wants to

1:39:44sell this unit, they're it's not like

1:39:46AHI. This unit in itself, because it is

1:39:49small,

1:39:50um and based on what we've looked at in

1:39:53Durham,

1:39:54um

1:39:55it should be priced 100 to 150,000

1:39:59dollars less, if not more, depending on

1:40:01what happens in our economy, than other

1:40:04properties that are out there.

1:40:06>> That's true.

1:40:06>> Yeah.

1:40:07And I'll if that's helpful.

1:40:09>> If I can just

1:40:10>> I'll I'll conclude and then I'll

1:40:12>> Okay.

1:40:12>> pass back, wherever it's going. Um so,

1:40:14thank you. The clarification is helpful

1:40:17related to um kind of the size and

1:40:19scope. Um I will say I think that's

1:40:24still at least for me that the question

1:40:26of the overlap about the smaller

1:40:28projects and kind of like what are the

1:40:30trade-offs, you know, between

1:40:34AHI as it stands versus introducing EHO

1:40:37and kind of how how that policy factors

1:40:40out. I will say for what it's worth,

1:40:42your your reference to like I have a

1:40:45home and I want to build in my backyard.

1:40:47So, that's one that resonates really

1:40:49really deeply with me. I think my

1:40:52question is are there ways to um

1:40:57have the policy continue to support that

1:41:01vision, but maybe not necessarily across

1:41:05the entire lot. Cuz for me, you know,

1:41:07what you choose to to do in your

1:41:09backyard related to increasing the

1:41:11density, like I I will say like I have a

1:41:14lot of interest in those types of

1:41:16solutions. It's when we start having to

1:41:20then have a different conversation about

1:41:23what the front yard space and the

1:41:24setbacks look like, that is the one

1:41:27that's giving me pause and I can go into

1:41:29further detail when we get there on on

1:41:31the why behind that, but I just wanted

1:41:33to share it like your example resonates.

1:41:37I just wonder if the policy can be, you

1:41:40know, maybe modified such that we do

1:41:43allow for those opportunities, but are

1:41:45also thoughtful about some of the

1:41:46concerns we're hearing.

1:41:48>> I I have several council members on on

1:41:51that. I'd like I so

1:41:54Nipper Pierce and Dugan and then Carlson

1:41:57then Chris again.

1:41:59>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I Can we go back

1:42:01to the the teardown scenario? So, you

1:42:06said that there is a a density bonus.

1:42:09So,

1:42:11but you have these restrictions on the

1:42:14square footage. So, how does that work?

1:42:18On a on a site, maybe you can show me an

1:42:21example of what that would look like.

1:42:25>> Well, so the

1:42:26>> bonus room on top, you don't have to do

1:42:29a parking or like what?

1:42:32>> So, what's important about the

1:42:35density bonus for preservation. So, we

1:42:38acknowledge that existing homes might be

1:42:41bigger than the square footages that are

1:42:44required or might cover more lot

1:42:47coverage or something. And so,

1:42:49we've built in exemptions so that you

1:42:52don't run into trouble with conflicting

1:42:54regulations if you're keeping your home

1:42:57and still having it on with a small lot

1:43:00dwelling as well.

1:43:01Um but

1:43:03that it could be any configuration,

1:43:05right? So, you're you're asking whether

1:43:07it could be

1:43:08a new unit built as an addition to the

1:43:11home or internal or separately. And I

1:43:14think all of those options would be

1:43:16possible through through this bonus.

1:43:19>> And you know,

1:43:20assuming the lot is big enough, I can

1:43:22have three units and then potentially

1:43:25this

1:43:26>> Yeah.

1:43:26>> Okay.

1:43:27>> Or not. Maybe you won't be able to fit

1:43:29the bonus unit as well.

1:43:31And I just wanted to add, you know, to

1:43:33your question and to Andy's, like

1:43:36we've been doing a lot of work out in

1:43:38the community with all of these housing

1:43:39incentives like over the past couple

1:43:41years and one thing we repeatedly hear

1:43:43and you're hearing, too, is

1:43:45we want more neighbors. We want more

1:43:46density. We want it to be

1:43:49we don't want to lose our development

1:43:51pattern. We don't want to see the big

1:43:53giant apartment buildings, you know, in

1:43:55Central City anymore. We want to think

1:43:56see

1:43:57we want we welcome new neighbors. We

1:43:59welcome new housing.

1:44:01We want to see rents go down. We want to

1:44:03be able to have homes that we can buy.

1:44:06Um

1:44:08>> [clears throat]

1:44:08>> but at the same time, please don't tear

1:44:10down an entire street. Please don't

1:44:13incentivize

1:44:14um what's on the books right now, which

1:44:16is,

1:44:17you know, consolidating a couple lots,

1:44:19tearing down

1:44:21uh

1:44:22buildings that

1:44:24that are important in our community.

1:44:27>> Okay. Thank you.

1:44:29>> Go ahead, doing.

1:44:30>> Thank you very much. You may You may You

1:44:31might be covering my question in the

1:44:33flag lots, but so you have your your

1:44:35current primary uh residency and you

1:44:38have a driveway on the the left-hand

1:44:40side. Uh

1:44:43but you have a large

1:44:45part of your property is in the back and

1:44:46that's where you want to put your units.

1:44:48Uh

1:44:49you have to have access to the back.

1:44:52So, you'd have a shared driveway and

1:44:54there's that's 20 ft on top of the

1:44:58setback or is that uh is that is that

1:45:00the minimum distance now, 20 ft for for

1:45:02a driveway? I I think that's what I

1:45:03thought or read.

1:45:05>> Driveways are allowed in the setback

1:45:07area.

1:45:08Um

1:45:09>> And so, they could that could be a

1:45:10shared driveway to the back back units.

1:45:14Uh

1:45:16and

1:45:18on it's uh

1:45:20is there an easement for the front

1:45:21property owner to the back property

1:45:23owner?

1:45:24How How that work? Cuz if What if you

1:45:26were

1:45:27I'm thinking about also sorry I got to

1:45:29throw this twist in owner owner

1:45:31occupancy on these units.

1:45:33Who who owns that and the take care

1:45:35takes care of that driveway as it goes

1:45:37in the back?

1:45:38And that shared area.

1:45:41>> I I think in the flag lot standards

1:45:43>> Is that all part of the flag lot?

1:45:44>> have a requirement that

1:45:47the access can

1:45:49can be shared. I'll I'll have to pull it

1:45:51up.

1:45:51>> But that's part of the flag lot stuff?

1:45:53>> But right, you would either have the new

1:45:55units and everything would be on the

1:45:57same lot if you didn't subdivide.

1:46:00And so then that's just all on one

1:46:02property owner anyways. But if you go

1:46:04through a subdivision process, that's

1:46:06when we start checking

1:46:08do all the new lots have access? And if

1:46:10it's shared, then through that process

1:46:12we would require that that's noted on

1:46:15the on the subdivision.

1:46:16>> I live in a flag lot. I love talking

1:46:19about it. Yes. Yes. We all have an

1:46:22agreement, right? Who paves it every 5

1:46:25years. We all get to use it. We all get

1:46:27to use it for our friends. So definitely

1:46:30that would be depending on how something

1:46:32was built um

1:46:35uh monitored by the city.

1:46:37>> And in in that same case, if you have

1:46:39the primary residency

1:46:41uh and it's

1:46:42got only 4-ft setback on one side and

1:46:4410-ft setback on the other side, no

1:46:46matter how big of property you have in

1:46:47the back,

1:46:49you can't get back there unless you have

1:46:51to

1:46:51somehow re-modify the front house.

1:46:55Is that true?

1:46:57Right? I mean that's that's pretty seems

1:46:58like pretty obvious.

1:46:59>> be a scenario.

1:47:00>> Right? Yeah, you can't get back there.

1:47:02Unless you

1:47:03scrape it or somehow

1:47:05airlift it in.

1:47:08Okay.

1:47:08>> And I did just verify the flag lot code

1:47:10does have standards that say

1:47:13the access has to be either completely

1:47:15separate or if there is an easement that

1:47:18that has to be recorded granting access

1:47:21to the rear lot. So that's that's all

1:47:23spelled out in the code.

1:47:24>> Okay.

1:47:25Thank you.

1:47:26>> Of course.

1:47:29>> I'm going to pick up on the owner

1:47:31occupancy piece um where you talked

1:47:33about Council Member Duggan. And going

1:47:36back to the legislative action, a

1:47:38guiding principle of the legislative

1:47:40action was to increase home ownership

1:47:43opportunities um for families and

1:47:45include affordable missing middle

1:47:47options. Um for me, something that feels

1:47:50really important is as we looked at that

1:47:53graph or that chart illustrating the

1:47:56different options

1:47:58um that this presents, the ownership

1:48:00piece is critical for me because it

1:48:02speaks directly to

1:48:05what the legislative action was

1:48:06intending and the guiding principles of

1:48:09it. And so, I know you there are some

1:48:11slides and you'll likely get to the

1:48:12ownership ownership and owner occupancy

1:48:15pieces, but that's and even in the

1:48:17examples we've shared, that was the

1:48:19goal. We've done a great job of building

1:48:22more rental units, increasing supply

1:48:25throughout our city. Some ways we're

1:48:27seeing the benefits of of that in rent

1:48:29stabilization. Um but we're not seeing

1:48:32ownership opportunities. And so,

1:48:34something that's um I feel like critical

1:48:36to this is that owner occupancy piece to

1:48:39ensure that it is those neighbors and

1:48:41those families who benefit from these

1:48:43additional changes and not the haves who

1:48:45already have a lot to and then can

1:48:47purchase more to have some more. So, I

1:48:49just wanted to offer that and I know

1:48:51that we that'll be a substantive part of

1:48:53our discussion moving forward.

1:48:54>> So, supply is a piece of that, right?

1:48:56Supply is a piece of that.

1:48:58>> Supply is a piece of that?

1:49:00>> Adding a requirement of of owner

1:49:02occupancy.

1:49:02>> Owner occupancy.

1:49:03>> Okay.

1:49:04Council Member Wooten.

1:49:05>> Thank you. So,

1:49:07um

1:49:09Let me give a more, I guess, direct

1:49:11illustration of of what my concerns are.

1:49:14Um cuz I don't disagree with any of the

1:49:17scenarios that you talked about. Again,

1:49:19like Council member Young said, all of

1:49:21those resonate with me as well. But I

1:49:22feel like there is

1:49:25another scenario or or multiple others

1:49:28that we're not talking about

1:49:30where if I'm an institutional buyer and

1:49:33I purchase a house a single-family house

1:49:36and I build something in the the back

1:49:38and now I'm renting out both and I have

1:49:41those two streams of income and then

1:49:43after I've you know paid down the

1:49:45mortgage enough, I level both of them

1:49:49and I build a fourplex and now I have

1:49:51four

1:49:53um, types of income.

1:49:56Under existing law

1:49:59I would have to either have some

1:50:02um, of those be deed restricted

1:50:03affordable

1:50:05or I would have to come to the council

1:50:08and get some kind of zoning change,

1:50:10probably.

1:50:11Um,

1:50:14we're saying

1:50:16we are we as a body aren't get we're not

1:50:19going to make that decision anymore.

1:50:21We're going to let a developer make that

1:50:22decision. I'm not comfortable with that.

1:50:25Because if it was just an issue of like

1:50:29a free market

1:50:31scenario

1:50:32I mean, this is the most pro-development

1:50:34state in the country, I would argue. We

1:50:37don't have any tools

1:50:40to regulate rent. We don't have any

1:50:43uh, inclusionary zoning. We don't It's

1:50:46not comparable to a lot of these other

1:50:49examples. Um,

1:50:52and we're and that's why when I say

1:50:56we're giving another tool, but like are

1:50:58we giving the tool to the right person?

1:51:02Um, because in the scenarios you gave, I

1:51:05100% agree with that.

1:51:07But I can't ignore the reality that of

1:51:09the other example I gave where the

1:51:11renters are paying for their paying for

1:51:13their own displacement.

1:51:15And the fact that those that scenario

1:51:17that I described,

1:51:19yeah, it it might happen

1:51:21in the Avenues and in Marmalade, but

1:51:24it's going to happen the most

1:51:26in my district, in Guadalupe,

1:51:29and the the single-family

1:51:31um the small number of single-family

1:51:34lots that I have in Rose Park. Like

1:51:36those are going to go first.

1:51:40If I if that's wrong in my statement of

1:51:43what is legally required, then

1:51:46like I I want to be corrected.

1:51:48That's the concern, though.

1:51:49>> I think that's a fair concern, but

1:51:51wouldn't the solution that Council

1:51:52member

1:51:53Carlson just presented,

1:51:55you know,

1:51:56help on that?

1:51:57>> Yeah, definitely.

1:51:59>> So, but like So, I heard a lot of like

1:52:01good feedback and and and questions, and

1:52:04a lot of these questions are very

1:52:06important. Which one is the most

1:52:08important? Is this Is that some

1:52:09something that like could could

1:52:12potentially get you a little closer to

1:52:14to to this this debate?

1:52:17>> I mean, I think there's no question. I

1:52:19think that's huge.

1:52:20An owner-occupancy requirement to me is

1:52:22huge.

1:52:23>> I I just want to say one quick thing.

1:52:25Sorry, Council member Petro, and you're

1:52:28right next. I

1:52:30when I it was unfair to me how some of

1:52:33the things were covered, you know,

1:52:3512% of the land of the city is under the

1:52:37zones that we are we are trying to

1:52:39revise. And the the the conversation was

1:52:4112% of the city is going to

1:52:45you know, I'm glad that the

1:52:46administration was you know, updated

1:52:48that presentation and said 12% of the

1:52:50city is under the the the area we're

1:52:53studying, but 35% of those units

1:52:57of those parcels could potentially

1:52:59qualify for this, uh

1:53:02which is basically 4% of the city.

1:53:054% of the city of which

1:53:08on a high estimate, 1% of those

1:53:12will actually go through this. So, we're

1:53:15talking about like so not to minimize,

1:53:18not to minimize that even one of those

1:53:22done wrong next to you will be hell for

1:53:25the neighbor that lives around it,

1:53:26right? Like I I get right? So, I'm not

1:53:28minimizing the impact, but I'm saying I

1:53:31think context is is important, much like

1:53:34the conversations we had and you know,

1:53:36how we were you know, debating and let's

1:53:39you know, maybe disagreeing friendly

1:53:42about ADUs. The conversation was every

1:53:45house is going to have an ADU and every

1:53:47car every car in the world is going to

1:53:49be parked on the streets and and what do

1:53:51we see, right? We didn't see any of

1:53:53that. Um so, I just want to say

1:53:56again, not to minimize that the the

1:53:58questions everybody's has are very

1:54:00important ones and I'm hoping that we

1:54:02really get answers and and and movement

1:54:04on on how this proposal

1:54:06uh is in front of us, but if the actual

1:54:10impact to the city is disregarded and we

1:54:12think about the worst-case scenario and

1:54:15the experiences of other cities doesn't

1:54:17really apply to us because we're

1:54:18different and certainly we are, but like

1:54:20those experiences are only they happen

1:54:22in Durham. There is a dozen cities or or

1:54:24more that are comparable somehow to us.

1:54:27Um

1:54:28but and then the comparison to the other

1:54:30models and how they work or interact or

1:54:33not is not

1:54:35really that,

1:54:36you know, persuasive persuasive to to

1:54:39the discussion. Then what are we saying?

1:54:40Are we saying that we don't want any

1:54:42change and I that's the conversation

1:54:44that I hope that we are not having,

1:54:45right? Because

1:54:47no change is not an option for us.

1:54:51Um you know,

1:54:52no change [clears throat] and the growth

1:54:54of the city and the evolution of the

1:54:55city is a reality that we live in. Now,

1:54:58how do we make sure that the impact is

1:55:01balanced enough to make sure that, you

1:55:04know, we don't destroy what made Salt

1:55:07Lake City an amazing place to live in.

1:55:10Um is is the question. And no one is

1:55:12forcing any landowner to actually take

1:55:15advantage of these things.

1:55:17Um and

1:55:18these are tools. And I and I I I think

1:55:20that I'm hoping that we debate a

1:55:22specific pieces of this ordinance in a

1:55:24way that, you know, we shape, you know,

1:55:27the the ordinance. And in some of those

1:55:29we will disagree and some of them will

1:55:31will I will lose and you know,

1:55:33in in in but we're all losing some of

1:55:35the things that we take or or give. But

1:55:38I hope that the conversation is framed

1:55:40as like

1:55:41the premise of of this is the city is

1:55:43growing. The city we need to maximize

1:55:45our land and we really want to allow for

1:55:49some of that growth to be compatible

1:55:51with what is there, acknowledging that

1:55:53some of that might change.

1:55:55Uh and that fear is is great and I get

1:55:58it. Um I I was talking to some of my

1:56:00neighbors in in Glendale. They are They

1:56:02have a thousand signatures for against

1:56:04the rezone. And

1:56:07the concern is very great about what

1:56:09that street and the experience of that

1:56:11street

1:56:12uh meant for generations. And you know,

1:56:15changing that is is is

1:56:18uh is struggling for is a big struggle

1:56:20for some of those neighbors. So,

1:56:22what we're trying to find out right now

1:56:23is like mitigating factors that

1:56:26negotiate that. So, I um I

1:56:29I just wanted to like throw all of that

1:56:31there because to me

1:56:33the reality that we're talking about

1:56:35potentially 130 units in the next 4

1:56:37years across the whole city,

1:56:40um

1:56:41it's pretty strong to me. Uh not that

1:56:44again, I'm not trying to say that your

1:56:47feedback specifically specifically is

1:56:49not important, but context is important

1:56:52in this conversation. Council member uh

1:56:54Petro.

1:56:55>> I also

1:56:57think it we're being wildly inconsistent

1:57:00out of what we expect zoning to handle

1:57:02and what we expect it not to handle. A

1:57:04few moments ago I just joked with you

1:57:05that zoning was going to facilitate the

1:57:07social lives of people who live next to

1:57:09each other, or zoning now dictates who

1:57:13will or won't buy. In in Guadalupe and

1:57:15in Rose Park, we're not seeing an

1:57:18institutional buyout of houses. What

1:57:20we're seeing is people who have help

1:57:22from families to afford down payments on

1:57:25houses that are now outsized for the

1:57:28working class who has lived there being

1:57:29displaced. And I have to tell you, when

1:57:31you're being displaced and you can't buy

1:57:33the property next to your mom

1:57:36because someone came in with a bigger

1:57:37down payment, it doesn't matter if it's

1:57:39Blackrock or if it's just someone from

1:57:42Sandy who just happens to have more

1:57:44cash. So, for me, the whole conversation

1:57:48we we know in this city what the

1:57:51reaction is when we legislate based on a

1:57:55fear of developers. We have that thanks

1:57:59to the 19 late 1990s downzone.

1:58:03I'm not saying that any of the cautions

1:58:05are invalid, but I think every caution

1:58:07has to come with either If we're not

1:58:09willing to do really really really big

1:58:11demand-side work to help with down

1:58:13payments, home ownership is nonsensical

1:58:16because you're still displacing the same

1:58:18people. My neighbors who are teachers do

1:58:20not have money to save up for a down

1:58:22payment. It is not happening, especially

1:58:25at $5 and $6 a gallon.

1:58:27And I get that those things are outside

1:58:29of our control, but if we can want

1:58:30zoning to facilitate the social, then

1:58:32I'm going to ask for zoning to

1:58:33facilitate the ownership.

1:58:36Or

1:58:37we can be rational about what zoning

1:58:39does and look at the ancillary programs

1:58:41that have to go in with it.

1:58:43Understanding the owner occupancy thing

1:58:45fit to me feels like fine. I think it

1:58:47really hamstrings us because owners of

1:58:50properties do not have the margins,

1:58:51especially in our neighborhood, to move

1:58:54it. But, if that's what we need to do to

1:58:56make sure that we've set parameters, and

1:58:58then in the future we look at expanding,

1:58:59fine. That to me feels like good

1:59:02incremental development. But, I want us

1:59:05to just be consistent about which of the

1:59:07social maladies we're going to put on a

1:59:10zone, and be honest about what needs

1:59:13ancillary investment partnership,

1:59:16you know, regulation, enforcement, and

1:59:19be real consistent about that, because I

1:59:21do think this disproportionately hurts,

1:59:24especially young people from

1:59:26working-class families. If your parents

1:59:27didn't own a house, the likelihood of

1:59:29you owning a house diminishes. And I do

1:59:31have to tell you, as someone who was the

1:59:33only Spanish-speaking case manager for

1:59:35mental health in Durham, North Carolina

1:59:37in the early 2000s, I will take every

1:59:39lesson they have to learn, because

1:59:41Raleigh-Durham is set up because it is

1:59:43the living remnant of separate but

1:59:46equal, with Durham having been what was

1:59:48allocated to black and poorer

1:59:51populations. Their fight against

1:59:53gentrification, their fight to restore

1:59:56dignity and preserve themselves, really

1:59:58mirrors a lot of what we face in the

2:00:00thriving in place. So, when they bring

2:00:02Durham, North Carolina to me, yes.

2:00:05Yes, let's learn every mistake they

2:00:07didn't, because the Durham I go back and

2:00:08visit is not the Durham where people

2:00:11used to like give me Kevlar to go visit

2:00:13my clients. It is a completely

2:00:15gentrified, changed experience, and

2:00:18let's learn from their experiences and

2:00:20figure out how to emulate what was good

2:00:23while leaving behind what was bad. But,

2:00:25please let's not make this as myopically

2:00:27simple as investors will come in,

2:00:30especially when the displacement in my

2:00:31neighborhood isn't happening by

2:00:32investors. It's happening by young young

2:00:35families with more down payment than a

2:00:37teacher can to get.

2:00:38>> What?

2:00:39Go on. Go on. Go on, Councilman Carson,

2:00:40then Councilman Ward, or or

2:00:43Do you want to

2:00:44>> What?

2:00:45>> I think something that would be helpful

2:00:47us as we are looking at these existing

2:00:50policies and this proposed policy is

2:00:53that I feel like the best policy happens

2:00:55over time.

2:00:56Often times we don't get it right in a

2:00:58single shot. And I think there is a to

2:01:01your point Council member Petro, there

2:01:03is an incrementalness

2:01:05to this policy that I think can allow

2:01:07for us to tweak some things and then see

2:01:10how the market responds. Do we get the

2:01:12outcomes that we're seeking? And if we

2:01:14don't, we still have enough in place or

2:01:17enough um

2:01:19options to tweak to get those outcomes

2:01:21that we're seeking which is

2:01:23affordability and home ownership for the

2:01:25families so that they're not pushed out

2:01:27of the communities. So that's I just

2:01:29want to encourage us to think about that

2:01:31incremental approach. Second thing I

2:01:34want to offer that is really central to

2:01:36how I'm considering this and who will

2:01:39take advantage.

2:01:40I was thinking about the genius and

2:01:43maybe it was the genius of this council

2:01:45council and and obviously the planning

2:01:46department, but with the ADUs, I love

2:01:49that there was capital assistance that

2:01:51was provided as part of that program. I

2:01:54love that there were pre-approved plans

2:01:56that were provided um as part of that

2:01:58program. And what I appreciate about

2:02:00that is that it's it means that it

2:02:02unlocks a wealth that for someone who

2:02:05maybe doesn't have the technical

2:02:06assistance or the capital assistance to

2:02:08do this, it provides a road map for

2:02:10them. But I think absent of a road map

2:02:13of what we've proposed here, I think we

2:02:15can reasonably expect the folks who know

2:02:18how to do this will do more of it. And I

2:02:20think that's one of my principal

2:02:21concerns.

2:02:23>> Two things.

2:02:25Um

2:02:27we don't know how many institutional

2:02:30owners are buying up homes. We don't

2:02:33know that. There's no way to track it.

2:02:35And uh we do know that it's higher in

2:02:38Utah than it is in other states, but we

2:02:40have no idea what the number is.

2:02:42Second of all,

2:02:45what

2:02:47I understand what both my my colleagues

2:02:49have said, and I don't think that we

2:02:52should be governed by fear, either.

2:02:56In

2:02:57the last 6 years, what

2:03:01uh

2:03:02density proposals have we voted down?

2:03:07I can't think of

2:03:08>> good for you, because you

2:03:10>> No, uh in the last 6 years

2:03:11>> but I think as a as a body

2:03:12>> As a body.

2:03:13>> Okay.

2:03:14>> None.

2:03:14>> I mean, can we add though which ones

2:03:16have we modified significantly to be

2:03:18responsive to community concerns?

2:03:21>> Um yeah, we can add that. But I'm saying

2:03:24like I was

2:03:26happy to vote for affordable housing

2:03:28incentives. I would do it again. I was

2:03:29happy to vote for ADUs. I would do it

2:03:31again.

2:03:33But that is because I felt confident on

2:03:36each of those that when we were going to

2:03:38the community and saying, "We're doing

2:03:40this to add it to add it, and we're

2:03:42doing this to make it more affordable,

2:03:44and I can explain to you how we are

2:03:47making it uh we're creating guardrails

2:03:51so that that's not abused." And in this

2:03:53one, I don't see how

2:03:56I can have I can say that same thing.

2:03:59And that's why I am where I am. And I

2:04:02can also say in my time on the council,

2:04:05since you asked, in the 9 years, I can

2:04:07only think

2:04:09of three

2:04:10zoning increases that I have voted

2:04:13against,

2:04:14but none that the council has voted

2:04:16down.

2:04:18And I'm I'm I'm still I'm proud of that

2:04:20record, but

2:04:22it it's not about a fear of density,

2:04:25it's not about a fear of

2:04:28um

2:04:29of the unknown. We've taken risks, and I

2:04:31but I think that we've been smart about

2:04:34the the risks that we've taken, and this

2:04:36one I to me doesn't have the same

2:04:38guardrails.

2:04:39>> Even with

2:04:40>> the owner occupancy?

2:04:41>> No, if it but it if it doesn't

2:04:45No, I think I I've already said the

2:04:48owner occupancy piece is huge. I don't

2:04:50know that it ultimately changes my vote,

2:04:52but I think it changes the entire

2:04:53conversation from this point forward.

2:04:55So, if we are if there's a a majority

2:04:57that want to add an owner occupancy

2:04:59requirement, I think we can eliminate a

2:05:01lot of debate.

2:05:02>> Yeah. So, this is what I I mean our

2:05:03recollection of your votes on the

2:05:05previous ordinances is a little

2:05:06different and I'm glad that you

2:05:08romanticize this debate because it was

2:05:11not as pretty as I would remember it,

2:05:13but I I I didn't say it was pretty.

2:05:14>> I I didn't say it was pretty.

2:05:16>> I but I I will say we we we

2:05:20we got to a compromise and we moved the

2:05:23needle forward on on the a solution. And

2:05:27was it as far as I wish? No. Was it as

2:05:29protected as

2:05:30as you wished? No, probably, but we I

2:05:33think we have data and we have a a way

2:05:35forward. I will

2:05:37be amicable and I would like to propose

2:05:40that we

2:05:41we discuss this this ordinance with a

2:05:46home ownership requirement as part of

2:05:48this. I think incremental change is the

2:05:51way of doing these things, especially

2:05:53when there are so many questions and

2:05:56concerns and limitations on what we can

2:05:58regulate and what we cannot regulate,

2:06:00but I what I don't want is to deem

2:06:03these tools worthless.

2:06:07And I think in some ways

2:06:09not to say that, you know, ADU isn't

2:06:11worthless ordinance because some people

2:06:12are taking advantage of it. I think at

2:06:15some point we have to and I think this

2:06:17is what I'm agreeing to is readdress

2:06:20those things and say like should we

2:06:23eventually with data and information and

2:06:26hopefully with protections

2:06:28rethink about this this uh

2:06:31this this additional

2:06:33additional um

2:06:35requirements that we're setting.

2:06:37I'm hoping that this conversation is not

2:06:39like I

2:06:41going to put this to bed for forever.

2:06:42Maybe the data shows that it's the best

2:06:44way is is the way the best way to go

2:06:46about it.

2:06:48But I don't want us to

2:06:49just bury our you know this discussion

2:06:52and not touch it again. I

2:06:54would love to propose that

2:06:57and to to the council and see and if if

2:07:00if we are amenable to that

2:07:02to be maybe I should call for a

2:07:06for a straw poll.

2:07:07>> I'm happy to suggest a straw poll

2:07:10that we add the owner occupancy

2:07:13requirement

2:07:15to this ordinance.

2:07:17>> Let's show your feelings.

2:07:19>> Wait a minute. Just clarification. So

2:07:22say

2:07:24I'm going to build four.

2:07:26>> One of those will have to be

2:07:27>> One of them has to be. Just one.

2:07:29>> At least.

2:07:30>> Yes, I mean

2:07:31>> Okay, I can do that.

2:07:34>> Okay.

2:07:34>> All right, great.

2:07:36>> Look, that helps a lot. Thank you.

2:07:40>> I've been

2:07:41a proponent of that. My

2:07:44but I do want to keep eyes open and

2:07:46maybe look at the pros and cons of that.

2:07:49But I am a proponent of that. This is

2:07:50straw poll. But I wanted to say also

2:07:55easy not easy is this the right way to

2:07:57go. But I I am a proponent of it.

2:07:59>> Well

2:07:59>> I think we'll also need to follow up

2:08:01with planning about how they administer

2:08:02that and how we kind of guarantee that.

2:08:04That'd be great.

2:08:05>> I I certainly there's a lot of questions

2:08:07that have got triggered from your side

2:08:08now. But but I think this council feels

2:08:12that we want to have that protection as

2:08:14we discussed for for this. I will say

2:08:18you know now the fear of this ordinance

2:08:20that was 130 is probably going to be 20

2:08:2430 50. I mean like we're we're

2:08:26minimizing the amount of the impact. So,

2:08:29we're talking about potentially very few

2:08:31units across the whole city that could

2:08:33potentially be triggered by this.

2:08:36Uh but again, this is about like doing

2:08:38it right and getting

2:08:40the community to actually also see it

2:08:43potentially.

2:08:44I think that

2:08:45that to me

2:08:47has been very important to discuss

2:08:49development when you actually see it

2:08:51versus when you are debating it.

2:08:54Many of of my neighbors and many of

2:08:56those happening in my own neighborhood,

2:08:58in paper they look kind of scary.

2:09:01But then when I saw them, I was like,

2:09:03"Okay, I you know, it wasn't as scary as

2:09:05I thought it was going to be and the

2:09:06impact wasn't as

2:09:08as great."

2:09:10And I can see people and the livelihood

2:09:12that that brings to a neighborhood was

2:09:14was huge. So, this is a a good step in

2:09:17the right direction. I think that's why

2:09:18I'm voting. Uh Carlson has a

2:09:21a Carlson.

2:09:22>> just I was just going to say, you know,

2:09:23we did this with the ADUs and that that

2:09:25was a big

2:09:26plus for the ADUs to make sure that

2:09:29there was homeowner occupancy in one of

2:09:30the two units.

2:09:32And that was I think it's also the

2:09:34stabilizing of those units.

2:09:36And I just have one other

2:09:38thought that I'd like to throw out

2:09:39unless

2:09:41I was just the size.

2:09:42>> I

2:09:42It's It's a different topic.

2:09:44>> Yeah.

2:09:45>> I mean, it's the same topic, but it's a

2:09:47different

2:09:47>> Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

2:09:48>> We can give you 1 minute. Councilmember

2:09:50Carlson.

2:09:51>> Um just to well, just to express my

2:09:54appreciation of this council to be

2:09:56willing to grapple with these with these

2:09:58issues and to say how where we give and

2:10:00take. One thing as I've been thinking

2:10:03about this proposed policy, just to make

2:10:05my thinking visible to all of you is

2:10:07that

2:10:08it's a lot easier to begin more

2:10:10restrictive and then open up as time

2:10:13goes by and as we have data around the

2:10:15impact of these proposed changes in the

2:10:17same ways we're seeing getting reports

2:10:20on affordable housing incentives or

2:10:22ADUs. And so, that's generally

2:10:24reflective of how I'm thinking about

2:10:26this proposed ordinance is that we can

2:10:28be more restrictive with more strings

2:10:30attached, so to speak, and then see the

2:10:32results. See the See the data about what

2:10:35Are we getting the outcomes that we're

2:10:36seeking?

2:10:37>> Well, we are not going to get the

2:10:38outcomes we're seeking if we are limited

2:10:40so much, right? So, this is what like I

2:10:41said, trade-off,

2:10:42>> to But to just illustrate and finish my

2:10:45my comment,

2:10:46to illustrate, we're talking about in

2:10:48this estimation, 130 units across the

2:10:52city.

2:10:53That could be accomplished right now

2:10:55with one multi-family housing unit. So,

2:10:57no, we're not going to solve the housing

2:10:59challenges with just this alone.

2:11:01>> Yeah.

2:11:02>> But it doesn't mean we don't try

2:11:03multiple approaches across multiple

2:11:05avenues to get there, and then tweak and

2:11:07adjust course as need be.

2:11:08>> Yeah.

2:11:09>> Thank you.

2:11:09>> I I I will say I agree with that. I What

2:11:12I don't want us is to be,

2:11:14you know, tell the other side and say,

2:11:15"We wave this the way the flag of I'm

2:11:18I'm I'm for housing. I want housing for

2:11:20everybody." But then when the ordinance

2:11:22comes in front of me, I'm going to

2:11:23restrict it to a place that it is deemed

2:11:26ineffective. So, that is I don't think

2:11:29that's what we want to do.

2:11:31Um but but just That's the balance,

2:11:34because I think that there is a public

2:11:36persona that sometimes we we we like to

2:11:40We really recognize that we need more

2:11:41housing. We really like We know that we

2:11:43want housing for families. We want uh

2:11:46home ownership opportunities.

2:11:48We do have an ordinance in front of us

2:11:50that

2:11:51somehow offers that opportunity.

2:11:54Um So, I I will say that that is

2:11:56correct. Uh I agree to the to the

2:11:58restriction because I think that is a

2:12:01step is a necessary step in this process

2:12:03to buy trust with the community. I think

2:12:05that's key. No ordinance

2:12:07is effective if there is no trust.

2:12:10Um and I think that that is the piece

2:12:12that may be needed in this process. So,

2:12:15I just want to make sure that we are not

2:12:17that we're not going to solve the the

2:12:19problem. We're not going to see the

2:12:20outcomes intended with this ordinance as

2:12:23we just grapple a restriction, but I

2:12:25think it is a is a key element to to

2:12:28move forward in this move the needle.

2:12:31I saw a hand somewhere in there.

2:12:34Got comes somewhere doing it. Yes.

2:12:36I I go.

2:12:37>> So, I also appreciate the conversation

2:12:39on

2:12:40uh 1,700 square feet

2:12:44for uh a house

2:12:46under 17 feet shorter or

2:12:49and and 1,200 square feet for anything

2:12:52up to 30 feet.

2:12:54Um

2:12:56And you know, at first I thought it was

2:12:58just 1,200 across the board. So, I'm

2:13:00I appreciate the 17 cuz I look at the

2:13:031,200 going is that

2:13:05I lived in a uh probably 1,000 square

2:13:08with the two little girls and one

2:13:09bathroom and it was it it got tight

2:13:11after they it was going to get tight

2:13:13after they probably got out of

2:13:15kindergarten first grade.

2:13:17Uh

2:13:17so, I look at that

2:13:19and go do I need is

2:13:221,400 square feet a better size? But

2:13:25this gives us the flexibility of 17 and

2:13:2712. I'm just looking at the council

2:13:29going

2:13:31if you made it

2:13:33the minimum at 1,500 or

2:13:35are we just kind of like uh

2:13:38making really dime changes for and

2:13:41taking a lot of time up on that one? And

2:13:43did you guys look at making that minimum

2:13:44from 12 up up to 15 or the 17 to 2,000

2:13:47or is there that nature did it how that

2:13:49pencil out as far as

2:13:51the numbers?

2:13:52>> Uh it's a fine balancing act um weighing

2:13:56size of home with cost. Um looking at

2:13:59Durham they they did the 1,200.

2:14:00>> Right. Yeah.

2:14:01>> And they saw a 48% decrease in price.

2:14:06And when we talked to planners from from

2:14:08Durham, they said

2:14:09every home that was built as far as

2:14:11they're aware, was three bedrooms, two

2:14:13bathrooms. Um and so

2:14:15as you start increasing that size, you

2:14:18definitely start increasing that price.

2:14:20And so we

2:14:22>> Yeah, it's a fine And they didn't do the

2:14:231,700. They were They were so strictly

2:14:2512, right?

2:14:25>> Correct.

2:14:26>> That's what I thought it was. Okay.

2:14:31>> I would like

2:14:32I'd like a similar analysis of the

2:14:34setback.

2:14:35So you've settled on 10.

2:14:38Why not have it variable depending on

2:14:40the block face? You know, the average of

2:14:42whatever

2:14:44that block face is.

2:14:46>> Maybe we should advance the slides and I

2:14:49>> So we we have one that that will touch

2:14:51on that.

2:14:52>> This is my fault. No one else to blame.

2:14:55I There are There are more slides to

2:14:57this conversation. I also think we are

2:14:59overtime.

2:15:01So

2:15:03we

2:15:04we have another briefing on this. I also

2:15:06think Is there a logging fruit? No, that

2:15:09I think Do you want Should we go to this

2:15:11this topic? Is that Is that appropriate?

2:15:13Let's do that. Let's do this and then

2:15:15let's close that conversation as put a

2:15:17pause, pin.

2:15:19I hope Yes.

2:15:21>> Okay. So the risk of no support from

2:15:25anyone else.

2:15:26It is important to me to have these

2:15:28conversations

2:15:30ahead of the public comment periods and

2:15:33ahead of when the vote is. Because if we

2:15:36close this conversation and or delay it,

2:15:40folks don't necessarily have that same

2:15:43ability to respond to our requests for

2:15:46changes. So I don't know what that means

2:15:49from a scheduling standpoint, but I will

2:15:51say I did note that it was very publicly

2:15:54shared across multiple channels what our

2:15:57timeline was.

2:15:58And that that would be my concern

2:16:01when it comes to like concluding today's

2:16:03discussion

2:16:06without, like I said, a plan to then

2:16:09adjust that timeline.

2:16:12>> So, let me do this. Um

2:16:14I I appreciate that feedback. So, let me

2:16:18I'm going to make some changes on the

2:16:20agenda right now.

2:16:21Um

2:16:22I

2:16:24I I would love to pull item number six

2:16:27from the agenda

2:16:30and potentially another item, but let's

2:16:32let's go through that. Let's keep on

2:16:34going. Let's try to I'm talking to

2:16:37myself.

2:16:38Let me, Alejandro, try to keep it to

2:16:41yourself.

2:16:43And let's see if we can get through the

2:16:44agenda. It doesn't mean that we couldn't

2:16:46have good feedback. Let's try to get

2:16:49as much as the conversation done,

2:16:51hopefully all all of it at the

2:16:52presentation at least today.

2:16:54Thank you, Council Member Young.

2:16:56No.

2:16:56>> Great. Rock and roll.

2:16:57>> Yes, next slide.

2:16:58>> Cool.

2:16:59Um I don't know how many forward we need

2:17:01to go. Oh, just one. There we go.

2:17:02Perfect. All right. So, the base zoning

2:17:05uh in

2:17:05amendments here, we're going to start

2:17:07with the R1 district. Um most notable

2:17:09change is the increase in height from 28

2:17:1228 ft for a pitched roof to 30 ft and 20

2:17:15ft for a flat roof to 24 ft. Um as this

2:17:19has come up um a little bit in

2:17:21discussion here right now, uh we are

2:17:24removing the block face averaging um

2:17:26from the front yards. Uh we're setting

2:17:28that at a strict 20 ft or equal to the

2:17:31budding uh front yard on the same block

2:17:33face as you.

2:17:34We are also standardizing the side yard

2:17:37setbacks at 4 ft and 10 ft. And then the

2:17:40lot coverages are increased across the

2:17:43board from 35 or 40% to 50% uh to

2:17:47potentially allow folks to expand their

2:17:50home.

2:17:51Um not shown in the chart here is the

2:17:53removal of lot width. If you couple the

2:17:56side yard setbacks with the width of a

2:17:57house, that kind of becomes a

2:17:58self-regulating

2:18:00um requirement. Next slide, please.

2:18:04The R2 amendments, um,

2:18:06almost identical. I'm not going to spend

2:18:08a ton of time on these here,

2:18:09um, but most notably is one of the

2:18:11bullets at the bottom. The land use

2:18:14tables for the R2 district includes a

2:18:17restriction on how many duplexes can be

2:18:19on a block face. Um, in the district

2:18:21that is supposed to support duplexes and

2:18:24twin homes, having a restriction on

2:18:26those, um, is not a productive way at

2:18:29actually getting those built. Um, so

2:18:31that is, uh, proposed to be removed.

2:18:33Next slide, please.

2:18:37And then the SR1 and 1A amendments, um,

2:18:39notably here again, kind of all the same

2:18:42as the R1 districts, but the SR1A

2:18:45building heights,

2:18:46um, the flat roofs in particular is

2:18:48currently at 16 ft, which is almost,

2:18:51um, impossible to build a full two

2:18:54stories,

2:18:55um, with with building codes and things

2:18:57like that. Um, so that is increased from

2:18:5916 to 20 ft to encourage or allow people

2:19:02to build flat roofs if they if they

2:19:04choose to do so.

2:19:05Um,

2:19:06next slide, please.

2:19:09And then finally, flag lot

2:19:10modifications. Right now, flag lots are

2:19:12a conditional use, which requires a

2:19:14public process. Um, we haven't had a ton

2:19:17of them in the past couple of years.

2:19:19Uh, they also come with some more

2:19:20stringent standards.

2:19:22Um, so this is changed to be a permitted

2:19:24use by right, and it reduces those more

2:19:27stringent standards, such as driveway

2:19:28width, from 24 ft to 20 ft. Um, that was

2:19:32done in consultation with the fire

2:19:33department, and they said 20 ft is what

2:19:35they would approve, so we we set it at

2:19:3720. Um, minimum lot area is currently at

2:19:41150%. We've reduced that to 100% of the

2:19:44base zoning district. Uh, so you don't

2:19:46need a mega lot to then do a a flag lot.

2:19:49And then finally, right now, flag lots

2:19:51are only permitted for single family

2:19:54dwellings, um, to encourage potential

2:19:57small lot dwellings or affordable

2:19:58housing incentives or anything like that

2:20:00in the back on a flag lot

2:20:03that is removed and you can do all

2:20:06permitted or conditional uses in the

2:20:08base zoning district.

2:20:10Next slide, please.

2:20:11>> Mr. Chair, can I just make a quick straw

2:20:13poll that

2:20:14that we support all of the flag lot

2:20:17recommendations?

2:20:19So that we can tell everyone. Council

2:20:21member

2:20:22>> to the motion.

2:20:23>> [laughter]

2:20:25>> So, one one of my questions um goes back

2:20:29to the fire access component.

2:20:33Um so, I appreciate that based on the

2:20:37width of the trucks straight on

2:20:40the 20 ft should make should make it

2:20:42work. However, I have learned very

2:20:45recently about turning radius

2:20:48um and the need for turning radius on

2:20:50small constrained streets in terms of

2:20:53how large apparatuses often need a

2:20:56slightly larger window to be able to

2:20:59then make that turn successfully.

2:21:03And that's I guess my concern with the

2:21:06shifting of the width related to from

2:21:09where it is to where we're going. Um I

2:21:11just know from driving Salt Lake City

2:21:14streets, we we have some streets that

2:21:16are very wide and lovely. We have other

2:21:18streets that are just a little more

2:21:19narrow and I I have that concern related

2:21:23to making that change.

2:21:25Any feedback or

2:21:27>> I guess just one thing is that we did

2:21:31want to be very very clear in these

2:21:33standards that the fire department would

2:21:35have the final say. So, we actually

2:21:37added specific language that says access

2:21:40to the flag lot is subject to approval

2:21:42by the fire official. So,

2:21:45be very clear that we make sure that all

2:21:47of those standards are always met.

2:21:49>> Yeah, and depending on you know, how

2:21:51many units there are, it could be, you

2:21:53know, 20 ft that the fire department

2:21:55needs. It could be 24, like on my flag

2:21:58lot situation, where there's eight Just

2:21:59kidding. I'm not going to talk about my

2:22:00flag lot again, but like the more units,

2:22:03the wider it needs to be. No parking

2:22:05signs, like we would definitely

2:22:07run any sort of configuration by fire to

2:22:10make sure

2:22:11that it was safe.

2:22:12>> Fire does also have some alternative

2:22:14means and methods that um

2:22:16a developer builder could apply for,

2:22:19such as sprinkling or higher fire

2:22:21ratings or things like that.

2:22:23>> And they have done that before.

2:22:25Okay. So, I guess I'm just trying to

2:22:27then

2:22:29understand

2:22:31the benefit of going smaller

2:22:35than we currently are now. Like why why

2:22:37is that a necessary action?

2:22:41>> Uh just another barrier um to those flag

2:22:43lot developments. Um if we require 24

2:22:46ft, but fire says they would approve

2:22:4920 ft, we're our hands are tied and we

2:22:51have to hold them to that 24 ft. If

2:22:53fire's going to approve

2:22:5520 ft to help encourage more lots and

2:22:58housing in the backyard, then

2:23:00we've reduced it per their direction

2:23:02that that's what they would minimum

2:23:04require.

2:23:06>> Okay.

2:23:06>> So, is the concern fire is the concern,

2:23:09but the but the ordinance says fire

2:23:10needs to approve it. Is that Is that

2:23:13still a concern if

2:23:15>> Yeah, because I guess for me, it's kind

2:23:17of like whatever is stated is the

2:23:19default, you know, and so you're looking

2:23:21at that in terms of the Oh, I meet that

2:23:24requirement. Like I understand you still

2:23:26have to go through like a review and an

2:23:27approval process, but you're going to

2:23:29start that process based on like here's

2:23:32what I think is possible. And I guess my

2:23:34concern is just related to again some of

2:23:36the smaller like

2:23:39streets that we've had and some of the

2:23:41conversations we've had about other

2:23:43developments um with turning radii and

2:23:45like what's necessary within that space.

2:23:48It just It gives me pause to make that

2:23:51change.

2:23:52Um when again, I think that the safety

2:23:55piece is like obviously very important

2:23:58to I know everyone who's sitting here.

2:24:00So.

2:24:02>> So,

2:24:03I I feel comfortable with the language

2:24:06that the fire department has to review

2:24:08and approved. I think that's

2:24:10>> Yeah.

2:24:10>> That's to me

2:24:12it's not saying that that is the rule,

2:24:15but it's saying

2:24:16it's the hope and the fire department

2:24:18got to have to say, but we have a

2:24:21I think maybe additional information

2:24:23will be useful for how will that process

2:24:25work. Um

2:24:27But we do also do have a a straw poll on

2:24:29the table. So, what do you want to do

2:24:31with a straw poll?

2:24:32>> I

2:24:34vote on it.

2:24:35>> Okay.

2:24:37So, repeat the straw poll that we

2:24:38support the flood lot

2:24:40recommendations as stated.

2:24:42>> Yeah, support all of the flood lot

2:24:44recommendations as as stated.

2:24:47>> I I think that we have a a question. So,

2:24:49I'll show your feelings.

2:24:54>> I don't have strong feelings about that.

2:24:57>> Okay.

2:24:58>> Right.

2:24:58>> So, uh the Yeah.

2:25:01The You should You see in the Yeah, move

2:25:03ahead.

2:25:04Um I

2:25:05>> trying to to streamline

2:25:07where the conversation is so that when

2:25:09people come to give comment, they can

2:25:11focus kind of on what we're looking at.

2:25:15>> We have learned so much about it.

2:25:17>> [laughter]

2:25:18>> Um

2:25:19So, okay.

2:25:20Next.

2:25:21>> May- And maybe one quick note on that is

2:25:25I'm looking at the old code and it was

2:25:2824 ft, but the requirement was 16 ft of

2:25:33a surface driveway with 4 ft of

2:25:35landscape on either side.

2:25:38Now we've erased that and just said you

2:25:41must have an access of 20 ft. So, in a

2:25:44way we're actually increasing the

2:25:46requirement.

2:25:47>> Thank you. That's helpful. Yeah.

2:25:49>> increasing the space overall on the site

2:25:51that's needed.

2:25:53>> Thank you.

2:25:54>> Um we we can move forward. Honestly, I

2:25:57think we could probably skip the public

2:25:59engagement slide. We did extensive

2:26:01engagement and additionally,

2:26:03the mailer was sent out by the council

2:26:05to ensure that everybody was notified.

2:26:08Next slide.

2:26:09>> Can I Sorry. Can I jump in?

2:26:10>> Real quick. Yes, go ahead.

2:26:12>> I just want to say, "Duh,

2:26:13I got mine." And I brought it.

2:26:16Um so, I I did. I just wanted to thank

2:26:19um both Council Member Wooten for

2:26:22sponsoring the straw poll, um as well as

2:26:24all the other council members. Um like I

2:26:26said, these these are in your mailbox. I

2:26:28know there's a lot of exciting things

2:26:30going on in your mailbox right now. Um

2:26:32but it does and I I checked the links,

2:26:35they work, the QR code works. So, thank

2:26:37you for all of the efforts that went

2:26:39went into that. Very grateful.

2:26:41>> This the council our council staff. So,

2:26:44thank you. Um

2:26:46yes, continue now.

2:26:50>> Okay, uh this is the last section of our

2:26:52presentation and we wanted to discuss uh

2:26:54potential policy questions. These are

2:26:56things that came up in conversations

2:26:57with council staff. Um

2:26:59we can go through it quickly. We've

2:27:01already had a lot of these

2:27:02conversations, um but just to add from

2:27:05planning's perspective why things were

2:27:07set up the way they were um and then

2:27:09seek additional feedback. Next slide.

2:27:14So, owner occupancy, we've already um

2:27:16had a conversation about.

2:27:18Um

2:27:19so,

2:27:20Yeah, we've we've heard there's

2:27:21overwhelming support for this and we

2:27:23will follow up on

2:27:25um

2:27:26how that will be administered. Next

2:27:27slide.

2:27:29Um off-street parking is one that we

2:27:32have not talked about yet. So, the

2:27:33proposed parking requirement um mirrors

2:27:36that of the HI requirements and ADUs

2:27:39with some exceptions in that it would be

2:27:41one space required per dwelling unit.

2:27:43Um, the

2:27:45reason for this more than anything is

2:27:47that parking takes up a significant

2:27:49amount of space, at least 150 square

2:27:52feet for a parking space plus whatever

2:27:53area is needed to maneuver back out of

2:27:56that space.

2:27:57Um, and so when we are talking about

2:27:59incentivizing smaller homes on smaller

2:28:02lots, that does significantly cut into

2:28:04the buildable area of more housing, more

2:28:07bedrooms, or just more yard and

2:28:08landscape space.

2:28:10Um, and then the cost of parking is not

2:28:13free to provide. And so the cost of

2:28:16building that parking is passed on to

2:28:18whoever then buys or rents the unit. Um,

2:28:22and these, yeah, again, the requirements

2:28:24are identical to what we require in the

2:28:26affordable housing incentive

2:28:28developments and accessory dwelling

2:28:30units with some exceptions.

2:28:33Next slide unless there's

2:28:35discussion.

2:28:35>> Is there any feedback on this?

2:28:39You can keep going.

2:28:42>> Okay. Front yard setbacks, um, again,

2:28:44something that we have heard a lot

2:28:47about. Um, so the proposal right now is

2:28:49that the base for the base zoning

2:28:51districts, um, the front yard setback

2:28:54will be 20 feet or equal to an abutting

2:28:57front yard. Um, and then for small lot

2:29:00dwellings, it will be a minimum of 10

2:29:03feet. Um, this is for a few reasons. So

2:29:06this proposal again is aimed at smaller

2:29:08homes on smaller lots. And so when you

2:29:10take a small lot a small lot and, um,

2:29:14apply a relatively large setback

2:29:17relative to the lot size, that does

2:29:19again cut into the buildable area.

2:29:23Um, on our example lot here on a 2,000

2:29:25square foot lot, an additional 10 foot

2:29:27setback is equal to 20% of the entire

2:29:31lot area. Um

2:29:34But again, we welcome the feedback and

2:29:36discussion on this. But that was why the

2:29:39proposal was written the way it was.

2:29:43>> I was I had thoughts about this one. I

2:29:46think I shared with some of you. I think

2:29:48I mentioned it in the meeting.

2:29:51I wish we could allow for encroachment

2:29:55on the setback only from four four

2:29:58porches.

2:29:59Um and it's

2:30:01um it is

2:30:03uh the hope that we have houses that

2:30:05have porches. I think that is one of the

2:30:07amazing things that you talked about

2:30:09talking to neighbors.

2:30:10Um

2:30:11what the market usually doesn't do is

2:30:14build them because you cannot really

2:30:16count them as livable space. So, the new

2:30:19way of building houses doesn't

2:30:21doesn't doesn't do them. I think that's

2:30:23a horrible thing. I I love my little

2:30:25porch. I uh so, I I wish we have more

2:30:28houses with porches.

2:30:30Um by allowing a little encroachment

2:30:33onto the front uh setback uh for a

2:30:36porch,

2:30:38uh I think that we are solving some of

2:30:41the things that many members of our

2:30:43community uh

2:30:44have concerns with this is that we are

2:30:47we are building these things that are

2:30:49disconnected from the neighborhood. Um

2:30:51so, I wanted to see if there is any

2:30:53appetite for

2:30:55uh exploring some of that. Um

2:30:57yeah.

2:30:57>> Mr.

2:30:59>> Councilman Maddugan.

2:31:00So,

2:31:01in the case of the

2:31:0210 ft, you would say like

2:31:05uh 5-ft porch or 10-ft porch is allowed?

2:31:10>> No no not taking the whole thing. Uh

2:31:12you know, I

2:31:13>> Something of that.

2:31:14>> Yes, I think there are some examples of

2:31:16some cities

2:31:16>> door the front door would have to be at

2:31:1920 ft or so, but the porch could be up

2:31:21to 10 ft. I mean, I'm just using those

2:31:23numbers here. Is that what you're

2:31:24thinking of?

2:31:25>> Yes, it's basically allowing it for like

2:31:27a house to

2:31:29to make that front

2:31:31setback a little smaller just for the

2:31:33porch. So,

2:31:36uh I

2:31:36>> Not being an enclosed porch, but an open

2:31:38porch.

2:31:38>> porch, yeah. And that is what some

2:31:41cities have been exploring to

2:31:43incentivize the porch creation.

2:31:46>> Right, right, yeah.

2:31:47>> I will That's something that I will

2:31:49prefer.

2:31:50Again, it's maxim- it's a little bit of

2:31:52maximizing the land. I think maybe not

2:31:56so much on like the living space, but I

2:31:58think it is one of the goals of our city

2:32:00up.

2:32:01>> I'm

2:32:01>> Customer Napier.

2:32:03>> So, I'm fully in support of that. Um and

2:32:05if you want to separate this out, I

2:32:06would also like to look at carports. I

2:32:08will admit my own personal trauma over

2:32:10this. I have a gorgeous 1949 little Rose

2:32:14Park Bungalow, and it's absolutely

2:32:17beautiful, but because we are the

2:32:18average of block face and I'm on a

2:32:20curve, I have a functional 30-ft

2:32:22setback. And which means like I have

2:32:25room to do stuff, but it's mostly just

2:32:28put grass in at this point. Um and so,

2:32:31the my backyard has no functional space

2:32:34left. So, for me, I have a teeny tiny

2:32:36little garage that was built like I

2:32:39don't know, before cars were

2:32:41the size they are. So, having to like

2:32:44track three kids across town, like my

2:32:46car doesn't fit in there. So, I have

2:32:48been dying to put a carport on just to

2:32:51keep it myself from having to shovel

2:32:53snow because I do pray that I will have

2:32:55to shovel snow at some point in the

2:32:56future. Um and so, I would like to

2:32:59consider also like I get it if we don't

2:33:01want the world to be wall-to-wall, just

2:33:04windows and not no community building,

2:33:07but the porch and then the carport not

2:33:09being enclosed also feels like it can it

2:33:11doesn't stifle the facilitation of

2:33:13neighborhood building and actually

2:33:15affords some protections to neighbors

2:33:17that might offer convenience.

2:33:20>> Customer Napier Pierce.

2:33:22>> I just feel like um

2:33:25yes, we want to make this as easy as

2:33:27possible, but we also want

2:33:28compatibility.

2:33:30And I

2:33:31I think there's something about having

2:33:33like one house up here and one house

2:33:36back here. I I just think that there

2:33:38should be a standard where you're

2:33:40looking at at your neighbors.

2:33:42To me, that just makes a lot more sense

2:33:45for um neighborhood cohesion.

2:33:49>> Councilmember Wergeland.

2:33:51>> Yeah, so I feel similarly to

2:33:54Councilmember Napier-Pearce um about

2:33:56that. I think one of the pieces draws

2:33:58back to Councilmember Carlson's earlier

2:34:01statement about like the progression

2:34:03over time. I think this is one of the

2:34:05areas where we have received the most

2:34:07public comment and feedback um related

2:34:11to those concerns. And I think I also

2:34:14look at it through the lens of once you

2:34:17grant a property right, there's really

2:34:20difficult challenges in terms of taking

2:34:23that away. Um and so this one feels very

2:34:26like if you take that step forward,

2:34:29there isn't going to be necessarily a

2:34:32clear mechanism to take it back

2:34:35um in regards to that. And that's I

2:34:37guess one of the lenses that I'm coming

2:34:39at it from. I will say though compelling

2:34:42related to these two use cases, I would

2:34:45be interested in seeing like what's that

2:34:48solution in terms of equal to the

2:34:51abutting front yard with like some of

2:34:54those exceptions related to a front

2:34:56porch or need for you know, a carport

2:34:58access.

2:34:59>> Councilman Napier-Pearce.

2:35:00>> Just a a follow-up question.

2:35:03Of the small lots that you've surveyed,

2:35:07like what proportion would fit this

2:35:09scenario

2:35:11of the available lots to actually build

2:35:13on? Cuz maybe you know, we're talking

2:35:14about five lots in the city. I don't

2:35:16know.

2:35:20>> So, um I will say I've spent a lot of

2:35:22time looking at these capacity maps um

2:35:24and looking at where

2:35:26um principal buildings already are, and

2:35:29it's very rare that a property has space

2:35:34in the front yard to put a small lot

2:35:36dwelling. They're almost exclusively in

2:35:38the rear, sometimes side yards. Um so,

2:35:42without demolition of a primary

2:35:44structure, we wouldn't anticipate that

2:35:46would be common to have a small lot

2:35:49dwelling in a front yard.

2:35:52But, that's just

2:35:53looking at the capacity maps. Obviously,

2:35:55we can't predict what people are going

2:35:57to choose to do.

2:35:58Um

2:36:00But, based on capacity, that's what we

2:36:01found.

2:36:02>> Well, I don't want to have an incentive

2:36:03for people to tear down a primary

2:36:05structure so that they can build more on

2:36:07their lot.

2:36:09Um

2:36:11yeah.

2:36:14>> So, um

2:36:16is any kind of Carson?

2:36:19Oh.

2:36:20What War is in Portland? You guys War is

2:36:23in War is in

2:36:25War is in Um I agree with um with

2:36:30Council Member Napier Pierce and with

2:36:32Council Member Pui. Is there another way

2:36:34to like

2:36:36um

2:36:40I I don't know the math term. Um like is

2:36:43there another way to do like an either

2:36:46or type of average so that if there's

2:36:48one structure that's like really

2:36:50throwing everything off

2:36:52um

2:36:54that

2:36:55they could say

2:36:57um

2:36:59basically wouldn't allow that to to um

2:37:03be counted, I guess, towards um cuz I I

2:37:07I can understand that

2:37:09you know, having one, especially in a in

2:37:11a shorter block face, like the avenues

2:37:13if you have one that's really far back

2:37:14and I can actually think of a couple

2:37:15houses where it probably is 30 or 40 ft

2:37:18from the road.

2:37:19Um and we

2:37:22like something halfway up is still too

2:37:24far back

2:37:26for the other houses.

2:37:28So I don't know if there's a way to do

2:37:29like an either or

2:37:32or like

2:37:34you're allowed to like take one of them

2:37:35out.

2:37:36>> [laughter]

2:37:37>> I I I think that was our idea with

2:37:40adding the equal to the abutting front

2:37:41yard, right? So you get a set number

2:37:44then

2:37:45we are trying to avoid the complication

2:37:47that comes with the averaging, which is

2:37:49why that's being removed, but we did

2:37:51want to

2:37:52realize that not every neighborhood is

2:37:54the same and you might have a neighbor

2:37:56with a really weird front yard and

2:37:59it might not feel fair to you if you're

2:38:02more limited. So that that's what that

2:38:03was intended to do.

2:38:05>> To add on to that, the SR1A district

2:38:08does already include um

2:38:11when you average it if it

2:38:13if there's four more properties, you

2:38:14remove

2:38:16the biggest front yard and the smallest

2:38:18front yard from that average and then

2:38:19you take the average.

2:38:20>> Okay.

2:38:22Does I wonder if that helps

2:38:24>> Very involved.

2:38:24>> Council member Napier Pierce's concern?

2:38:29Cuz she maybe didn't hear it. Um just

2:38:31that

2:38:32um you can

2:38:33they they can in determining the block

2:38:36size, they can take out the

2:38:38two outliers, the one with the smallest

2:38:40front yard and the one with the biggest

2:38:42front yard.

2:38:43And I was wondering if that addresses

2:38:45your concern.

2:38:47>> Yeah. Again, I just I just want it to

2:38:49look like one neighborhood. And um

2:38:53that's my goal.

2:38:57>> Okay, Council member Carson, yes. Sorry.

2:38:59>> Um

2:39:00appreciate this spirited conversation

2:39:02about setbacks.

2:39:04Um

2:39:04>> Can we

2:39:05>> I think my question is about

2:39:07uh

2:39:08uh the impact to vegetation in the front

2:39:10of the house and particularly as we

2:39:13think about um rising heat and the

2:39:16reality that some folks have maybe a

2:39:18tree in their park strip and we've

2:39:20encouraged that development. How are you

2:39:22thinking about

2:39:24um

2:39:25how this may impact or decrease the

2:39:27likelihood of people planning more trees

2:39:29on on their actual lots?

2:39:33>> It It It's a trade-off, right? The the

2:39:37setback choice is is ultimately going to

2:39:40boil down to that, right? Um there is

2:39:43value in having yard space and we we

2:39:46have made an attempt to structure this

2:39:48code so that it will still require yard

2:39:51space for these.

2:39:52Um

2:39:54but

2:39:55you have to balance that with making

2:39:57this more functional to add more housing

2:40:00and

2:40:01that's ultimately a decision and call

2:40:03that you'll have to make.

2:40:07I don't know if you have anything to add

2:40:08to that. I I think you're um There was

2:40:11something on the agenda about tree

2:40:12preservation later.

2:40:14>> I may care about them a little bit. Um

2:40:17no, I think it's I think just

2:40:18acknowledging that that might is a

2:40:20trade-off that um we are willing to

2:40:23accept as part of this proposal is is

2:40:26important for me that we we name it, we

2:40:28acknowledge it, um

2:40:30and then go from there. Thank you.

2:40:33>> So my uh my exploring of

2:40:36of encroachment on the on the front yard

2:40:38seems dead, right?

2:40:41No?

2:40:41>> Mhm.

2:40:41>> Okay. So potentially let's explore

2:40:43>> Yeah.

2:40:44>> Okay.

2:40:45So I just I wasn't clear, so I thought

2:40:47maybe you were unclear. Um but it's

2:40:49probably me the only one who wasn't

2:40:51clear. So let's see if we can figure

2:40:53something out there that makes sense.

2:40:54>> May I ask a question on that? Is that

2:40:56specific to the small lot dwellings with

2:40:58a 10-ft front yard or the 20-ft front

2:41:01yard standard single family or both?

2:41:04>> I I think that like exploring all of it

2:41:06and then we get to the side.

2:41:08If there's a way of like proposing

2:41:10something to us.

2:41:11>> Okay.

2:41:12Thanks.

2:41:14>> Thank you. Sorry, more work.

2:41:19Next.

2:41:22>> Yeah, um

2:41:23if that's the end of the discussion for

2:41:25this, we can move on to the next slide.

2:41:27>> Yes.

2:41:30>> Okay, um I believe this is the last uh

2:41:33policy question that came up with

2:41:35council staff. Um

2:41:37the question has been raised what would

2:41:39be the impact on the project if the

2:41:41minimum lot size was raised from 2,000

2:41:43sq ft per unit to 3,000 sq ft per unit.

2:41:47Um and so basically

2:41:49we re-ran the capacity model um

2:41:52inputting a 3,000 sq ft per unit minimum

2:41:55and it basically came up that

2:41:57of the eligible properties, it's about

2:42:00half. So it it cuts that in half again

2:42:03if we raise it to 3,000 sq ft per unit.

2:42:06Um and it's not only fewer properties

2:42:09that could build small lot dwellings,

2:42:11but fewer small lot dwellings per

2:42:13property. So where a larger property

2:42:16could maybe fit four small lot dwellings

2:42:18under 2,000 sq ft, they may only be able

2:42:20to fit two at 3,000 sq ft. And so

2:42:24overall is a potential loss of up to

2:42:2610,000 spaces, opportunities to add a

2:42:30housing unit when we move from 2,000 to

2:42:323,000 sq ft. Um again, if we apply that

2:42:351% um utilization rate, 131 properties

2:42:39that could develop goes down to 63

2:42:43properties.

2:42:44Um

2:42:44we also have a concern as staff that

2:42:49um

2:42:51raising that minimum lot size increases

2:42:54demolition pressure. If you're able to

2:42:56fit fewer lots without demolishing the

2:42:59existing home

2:43:01and the goals of the project would be

2:43:03compromised.

2:43:05>> Councilmember Wooten

2:43:06>> Uh

2:43:07question

2:43:08is along those lines. So to me

2:43:11um

2:43:14I

2:43:15would like to be able to add more units

2:43:19in the event of a

2:43:21a rebuild.

2:43:23Um

2:43:25is there a way to say that

2:43:29that the size requirement is

2:43:32um

2:43:35lower for

2:43:37if you're going to build if you're going

2:43:38to rebuild like a a triplex or a

2:43:40fourplex but

2:43:43not if you're going to build

2:43:46um like a detached unit in the back.

2:43:49Does that make sense? And does if we do

2:43:52allow that, does it

2:43:54incentivize

2:43:56um demolition?

2:43:59So maybe the first part I should go over

2:44:00that again. Okay.

2:44:02Um what if we said oh okay, so it's

2:44:04three or it's 2,000 right now. What if

2:44:06we said, okay, you you got 2,000.

2:44:10Um you can you can go forward with the

2:44:13maximum number of units allowed under

2:44:17uh

2:44:18EHI

2:44:20O EHO, sorry.

2:44:22Um

2:44:24if you're building

2:44:26a new structure.

2:44:28So a triplex or a fourplex.

2:44:32But if you're building just a second

2:44:35detached unit in the backyard

2:44:38it needs to be a 3,000 ft lot minimum.

2:44:41Does that make sense?

2:44:43>> Certainly could do that. That almost

2:44:46might act as a disincentive to build

2:44:49the single family dwellings.

2:44:51>> Okay.

2:44:51>> Um

2:44:52would just make it harder or fewer

2:44:54options where that might work.

2:44:57>> Okay.

2:44:58Um, yeah, I I I don't want to

2:45:00incentivize demolition.

2:45:03Um,

2:45:04I think what what I'm trying to respond

2:45:07to is with some constituents how

2:45:10um,

2:45:12close

2:45:14uh, if you have a let's say a reduced

2:45:15setback, you know, to 4 or 5 ft.

2:45:19Um,

2:45:20but in my neighborhood where

2:45:23I've talked before about my neighbor's

2:45:24house, it's being 4 ft 3 in from my

2:45:28house, and their house is actually built

2:45:30over the property line, so their house

2:45:32is partially on my property. So,

2:45:36if I were to

2:45:38build

2:45:40uh, if there's a structure that's

2:45:41pre-existing that would not be allowed

2:45:43under

2:45:45existing zoning that is over the line or

2:45:49right on the line,

2:45:51I think sometimes we're looking at like

2:45:534 ft and saying, "Oh, well, there's

2:45:54going to be 4 ft on my side. There's

2:45:55going to be at least 4 ft on your side,

2:45:57so we got 8 ft." Or we got 10 ft with

2:46:00five on both sides. But,

2:46:02that doesn't account for situations like

2:46:04mine where

2:46:06you have a house that's over the line

2:46:08already. Does that make sense?

2:46:10So, I'm trying to think if you're

2:46:12building a second

2:46:14structure,

2:46:17having a little bit more of a buffer

2:46:19around that for your neighbors.

2:46:21Um, so that, you know, if they have

2:46:23solar panels,

2:46:26uh, construction isn't going to make

2:46:28those solar panels useless and leave

2:46:30them with, you know, paying still paying

2:46:32their loan on their solar panels with

2:46:33solar panels that they can't use. Or

2:46:36they thought they were purchasing a

2:46:37house with a backyard,

2:46:39this structure's been built, now they

2:46:42have no sunlight.

2:46:44Uh,

2:46:44I think that that's

2:46:46to me is a meaningful difference. It's

2:46:48not just a property

2:46:50values thing. It's a you know, you you

2:46:54thought that you were going to get

2:46:55sunlight in your life and then maybe

2:46:56you're not going to get as much.

2:46:59Um so that's kind of what I'm trying to

2:47:02to do here.

2:47:04Does that make sense?

2:47:06>> It sounds to me like it's more of a

2:47:09setback concern. Okay.

2:47:12For instance, I think in our accessory

2:47:14structure code with there is a setback

2:47:17from buildings on adjacent properties

2:47:20and it sounds like maybe that's kind of

2:47:22what you're getting at.

2:47:23>> Yes, thank you.

2:47:24>> Um so we we haven't proposed something

2:47:27like that, but

2:47:28as we do for accessory structures, it is

2:47:31possible. So it

2:47:34>> I would have to review it too. Like

2:47:36maybe there would be they'd have to fire

2:47:37rate the walls or

2:47:39there'd be less openings. I mean,

2:47:41it just kind of depends.

2:47:43>> Okay.

2:47:45>> So would you be okay

2:47:47you know,

2:47:48you know, not touching this lot size

2:47:51minimum, but then exploring some of it

2:47:54because I I I worry that

2:47:56making a change like this across the

2:47:58city for those very unique complex

2:48:00situations is maybe not the right tool

2:48:03for the for the problem.

2:48:05>> Yes.

2:48:05>> Um so if we put this one to we just

2:48:07leave this one out, but then I am I'm

2:48:10interested on that too because there is

2:48:11a lot of non-compliant structures all

2:48:14over the city.

2:48:16Lots of them in your district, lots you

2:48:19know, in in older neighborhoods in the

2:48:20city.

2:48:21Um that adds complexity to any zone

2:48:24changes.

2:48:26Um and I think trying to mitigate the

2:48:27impact to some of those very

2:48:30unique situations is concerning to it

2:48:33it's hard to solve them. So I wonder if

2:48:36there is a way of a

2:48:37uh triggering something

2:48:40uh a different review process or

2:48:42something that my which is the opposite

2:48:44of what we would try to do right now.

2:48:46We're trying to simplify, but if

2:48:48something is

2:48:49quite

2:48:50clearly non-compliant and the structure

2:48:53will,

2:48:54you know, potentially be close too close

2:48:57than

2:48:58then what would otherwise be that there

2:49:00is a different process or a different

2:49:02questions being asked. I don't know if

2:49:03that made sense at all, but

2:49:05>> Well, yeah, I'm open to that. I think

2:49:07saying it as a

2:49:09distance from

2:49:11adjacent structures is is probably a

2:49:13better way of like

2:49:17mitigating what I'm concerned about.

2:49:20>> Concerned about

2:49:23the space between different structures

2:49:25if you have

2:49:27a neighboring structure that's on the

2:49:28lot line. I'm trying to understand exact

2:49:31like that like space and that.

2:49:32>> an exhibit, but I don't want to take the

2:49:35So, I will show it to you offline.

2:49:37>> yeah.

2:49:39Um, or concerned about the lot line or

2:49:41okay.

2:49:42Yes.

2:49:43>> So, there is a specific examples that he

2:49:45showed us too. So, I

2:49:47So, I think that maybe the the

2:49:49conversation is not to to at least right

2:49:51now through this conversation is not to

2:49:53touch minimal lot size

2:49:56uh, and leave it as proposed and then

2:49:58exploring this and I am volunteering

2:50:01Consuelo Warren and he will take you to

2:50:03this beautiful road trip too. Uh,

2:50:07>> Come with me on a journey.

2:50:10>> Uh, but I think that's an interesting

2:50:12uh, there's a lot of historic

2:50:14you know, structures out there and maybe

2:50:16also non-historic structures out there

2:50:18that are conflict with our standards

2:50:21that throw everything a little off. So,

2:50:23we'll love to see if there's a way of

2:50:26creating a

2:50:27addressing a way to address those

2:50:29concerns.

2:50:30>> Definitely within the local historic

2:50:31district there's

2:50:33authority with the landmark commission

2:50:35to make, you know, move around knowing

2:50:38that many of the structures council

2:50:40member in your district were built

2:50:42before zoning. So, they're obviously

2:50:44non-complying, but absolutely we'll take

2:50:46a look. Thanks. Thanks.

2:50:49>> Are we ready to

2:50:50We got one more slide. So, next slide,

2:50:52please.

2:50:53It just won't end.

2:50:55There are a couple of issues that staff

2:50:56does want to clarify in the ordinance

2:50:59that was transmitted to you. First is

2:51:03ADUs. Currently, the small lot dwelling

2:51:05code

2:51:06you could build a small lot dwelling and

2:51:08an ADU. That is unintentional. Staff

2:51:11would like council's feedback on whether

2:51:14we should clarify that

2:51:17small lot dwelling lots should not be

2:51:19able to build an ADU.

2:51:21>> And you're talking exclusively about

2:51:23external ADUs. They can't you would be

2:51:26careful to remodel the inside of their

2:51:28house or you speak about all ADUs.

2:51:30>> Right now, we're just asking about all

2:51:31ADUs. If you would like to encourage or

2:51:34allow internal ADUs,

2:51:36that's [clears throat] up for

2:51:38discussion.

2:51:43>> But wouldn't you

2:51:45going back

2:51:47way way back when we first had this

2:51:49discussion earlier today

2:51:51and I was asking about, you know, if

2:51:53you're building a an internal basically

2:51:56secondary unit, like how would you

2:52:00um

2:52:01>> Basically, they'd have two ADUs.

2:52:02>> Wouldn't

2:52:04>> Yeah.

2:52:04>> The I guess I guess if you build them at

2:52:06different times, you could get away with

2:52:08it, right? If you don't submit the plans

2:52:10at the same time. Okay.

2:52:11I answered my own question. Thanks.

2:52:16>> I'm not

2:52:19>> I I personally

2:52:22would not want a detached ADU and

2:52:25a small home like that sounds pretty

2:52:27crazy. But I think if you can build an

2:52:31external internal or attached ADU and

2:52:34still meet the requirements of the the

2:52:37smaller house, I don't know that I have

2:52:40a problem with that and the parking

2:52:42requirements on top of it.

2:52:43>> do you do with that parking?

2:52:44>> Um then I'm like go for it.

2:52:48>> I do want to clarify that this is small

2:52:50lot dwellings only um and so with those

2:52:52footprint regulations and and floor area

2:52:55regulations like on the 1,200 square

2:52:57foot um unit don't really have internal

2:53:01space unless you take space away from

2:53:02that one. So.

2:53:04>> Right and I don't have a problem if they

2:53:06wanted to do that and as long as they

2:53:08can meet the parking requirement.

2:53:10>> Cool.

2:53:11>> I

2:53:12I think that that basically yeah, I

2:53:15agree eliminates the external ADUs

2:53:18uh in all the situation where it could

2:53:20happen

2:53:21um but potentially could allow for an

2:53:24internal ADU but I don't know how it

2:53:26will.

2:53:27Um but I don't know consumer more.

2:53:28>> I'm just thinking that you already now

2:53:30you have two small ADUs and one little

2:53:32small lot because 1,200 square feet you

2:53:34got two 600 square foot ADUs. You're

2:53:36asking for again the internal the

2:53:39internal ADUs are already hard to uh

2:53:41regulate. So now you have probably two

2:53:44units and maybe only one spot. So you're

2:53:47uh I I

2:53:50I don't know how you regulate it but uh

2:53:52uh so I would be against it but I'm also

2:53:56it's hard to regulate but I'm I'm

2:53:57against definitely against an external

2:53:58ADU.

2:54:01>> I think it's such a hard already it's

2:54:03already such a hard thing to meet so it

2:54:05sort of regulates itself but I um

2:54:08I I think that seems any other thoughts,

2:54:11feelings about that?

2:54:12>> Mhm.

2:54:13>> Okay, I think that's your direction so

2:54:14far.

2:54:15>> Just to clarify the direction internal

2:54:17okay

2:54:19external not okay.

2:54:20>> it complies with you know

2:54:22what consumer ordinance said with the

2:54:24parking requirements, all the ADU

2:54:26requirements only for internal ones, but

2:54:29I I still would would struggle to

2:54:32envision how it will work, but yeah,

2:54:34that's the only

2:54:35allowable.

2:54:37>> Um the second one is regarding

2:54:41uh floor area, gross floor area, and

2:54:43building height. Um so currently, as we

2:54:45discussed earlier, if your building is

2:54:4717 ft tall or less, you can have uh

2:54:501,700 sq ft. Um this was written with

2:54:54the intention that

2:54:56uh that would be 700 sq ft or so in a

2:54:59basement that's fully submerged. Um

2:55:01however, with 17 ft of building height,

2:55:03you could potentially do a a semi um

2:55:07exposed basement um and have uh 1 and

2:55:111/2 stories exposed. Um that was not

2:55:14intentional. Um however, if council

2:55:17wants us to clarify that the 1,700 sq ft

2:55:20should be

2:55:21one story only, we are happy to clarify

2:55:24that in the in the ordinance.

2:55:27>> So basically, they get to

2:55:30According to this,

2:55:32uh as it is

2:55:33proposed, they were able to excavate

2:55:37half of a basement and build, and then

2:55:40take advantage of that half of basement

2:55:41to for livable space. Um

2:55:44the the

2:55:45Does anybody feel strongly against that

2:55:48or other thoughts?

2:55:49>> Can I ask about the economic likelihood?

2:55:51That feels like it would add a lot of

2:55:53expense to building.

2:55:57>> I I'm just quite But our max lot is 50%,

2:56:01so the footprint it has to be I thought

2:56:04the footprint was 1,000 sq ft still.

2:56:07>> Uh in order to achieve the 1,700 sq ft,

2:56:10you could do 1,000 and 700 or 850 850 or

2:56:15whatever however you

2:56:16uh want to disperse that.

2:56:19>> Right, but then on the 2,000 sq ft lot,

2:56:21still have the uh max coverage of 1,000

2:56:25square feet.

2:56:26>> Mhm.

2:56:27>> So,

2:56:28that still is at 1,000 feet, whether

2:56:30they have two floors or one floor, 1,700

2:56:32still the max.

2:56:34But, it can't be higher than the 1,700,

2:56:36so

2:56:39I'm okay with I think I'm okay with that

2:56:40then.

2:56:41>> I would add my opinion as well. Like, if

2:56:43they are able to find an efficiency

2:56:45somehow and and make it work,

2:56:48that's my position on that.

2:56:50>> I don't know what I think yet. I need a

2:56:52picture.

2:56:53>> You need a picture?

2:56:54>> Someone can draw it for me and we can

2:56:55talk through it then I can tell you.

2:56:58Thanks.

2:57:01>> Okay.

2:57:02>> Good.

2:57:02>> Okay.

2:57:03Um the last one is just a wording

2:57:05mistake on staff's part. Um in the

2:57:07building preservation portion of the

2:57:10small lot dwelling, we say that the

2:57:12retained uh principal dwelling is exempt

2:57:16from a few different standards of the

2:57:18small lot dwelling ordinance.

2:57:20Um they should be exempt from a few

2:57:23standards of the base zoning standards

2:57:25instead.

2:57:26Um is council okay with us clarifying

2:57:30that um in the ordinance?

2:57:32>> Elaborate a little more for my my own

2:57:34sake.

2:57:35>> Yeah, so so we have the the building

2:57:38preservation incentive. Uh you can waive

2:57:41lot coverage

2:57:42um and lot area for the retained

2:57:45principal dwelling.

2:57:46Um but, we have it accidentally written

2:57:49as we're waiving the small [snorts] lot

2:57:51dwelling standards applied to the

2:57:54principal dwelling that's retained.

2:57:56If that makes sense.

2:57:58>> Okay.

2:57:59>> Um the the principal dwelling is not

2:58:01changing. It's not becoming a small lot

2:58:03dwelling. So, we can't waive the

2:58:05principal dwelling from the small lot

2:58:07dwelling standards.

2:58:11>> So,

2:58:12if we clarify, what do we what are we

2:58:15doing?

2:58:16What are we

2:58:17>> So, basically may maybe an easy way to

2:58:19just say is like the lot area, right? Is

2:58:222,000.

2:58:24Where normally in R1-5, it should be

2:58:265,000. If you want to keep your house,

2:58:29it's not a small lot dwelling cuz it's

2:58:31bigger than 1,200 square feet, right?

2:58:33It's a large building.

2:58:35But, you may need to exempt from some of

2:58:37the base zoning like the larger lot size

2:58:40or something in order to make it work so

2:58:42you can allow the other small lots and

2:58:45say your backyard or something.

2:58:47So, we just wanted

2:58:49We had is more of a technical thing, but

2:58:51just to make sure it's pointing to the

2:58:53right place. Like we want you exempt

2:58:55from those so you don't have any issues

2:58:57with that.

2:58:58>> I don't know if you're going to receive

2:59:00direction

2:59:01on this item from us. So, you Yeah.

2:59:07>> We we wanted to make sure it was on the

2:59:09record that we we're looking at and just

2:59:11cleaning up.

2:59:16>> Um next slide, please.

2:59:20Uh Planning Commission recommended a

2:59:21positive uh for a positive

2:59:23recommendation unanimously. Uh next

2:59:25slide, please.

2:59:28We're done.

2:59:29Thanks, y'all.

2:59:30>> Any

2:59:30>> Oh my gosh, thank you.

2:59:34>> [applause]

2:59:34>> Okay.

2:59:35Uh

2:59:36if that's it, no more? At least for now.

2:59:39Okay. Thank you. Thank you for the work.

2:59:42That was amazing. I appreciate the

2:59:43patience for everybody.

2:59:45>> I had to wait cuz the members I had to

2:59:47make some Thank you.

2:59:49I had to make some movements to the

2:59:50agenda. I removed number three from the

2:59:53agenda. I also removed number four from

2:59:56the agenda so you don't get a break.

2:59:58I also removed number five from the

3:00:00agenda. Um

3:00:02or

3:00:03No, no, no. Five, no.

3:00:05It's six.

3:00:06It's the bicycle one. So, we're going to

3:00:09hear right now

3:00:11Salt Lake County

3:00:14uh hazard Mitigation Plan Update and I'm

3:00:15going to welcome Michael Sanders,

3:00:17Council Policy Analyst, Chief Karl Lieb

3:00:20or their designee,

3:00:21and Tyler Shepherd, Battalion Chief for

3:00:24the Fire Department. I

3:00:26um

3:00:29Oh, yes. And I also removed, sorry, for

3:00:31the the updates on the agenda, I removed

3:00:34item number eight from the agenda. All

3:00:37are going to be heard in a different um

3:00:40Uh

3:00:41whomever needs to use the restroom, this

3:00:43is why we trade it off. If you need

3:00:45water, break, food, as long as we have

3:00:47four present here,

3:00:50let's keep on going through the agenda.

3:00:52So, Council Yes, go ahead, Michael.

3:00:54>> So, thank you, Council. Wow, that was a

3:00:56fun item we just did. So, this item

3:00:59here, the transmittal was 2,000 pages

3:01:02long. So, I hope you all read it cuz

3:01:03there's going to be a quiz

3:01:05at the end.

3:01:06Um so, in on October 21st of last year,

3:01:10the Council approved the Salt Lake

3:01:12County Hazard Mitigation Plan. There are

3:01:14two components to the plan, Volume 1,

3:01:16which is the county base plan on pages

3:01:1980 through 537,

3:01:21and Volume 2, which are the individual

3:01:23city

3:01:24um annexes, which are page 539 through

3:01:281,998.

3:01:30Salt Lake City's part of the plan is

3:01:32found on pages 1,494

3:01:35through 1,571.

3:01:38And since the Council approved the plan

3:01:40last year, several other cities have

3:01:42updated their parts of the plan. There

3:01:45have been no changes to Volume 1 or the

3:01:47Salt Lake City part of the plan, and

3:01:49Salt Lake County has requested that

3:01:51because there were updates that the city

3:01:54adopt the updated plan.

3:01:57Anything else to add, Chief?

3:01:59>> We got about 45 slides. If you want to

3:02:01I'm just kidding.

3:02:02>> All right, sounds good.

3:02:05Too soon.

3:02:06>> Sorry, sorry.

3:02:07>> Too soon.

3:02:11>> Like

3:02:12We just need to re-adopt the plan. So, a

3:02:14few language changes happened to get it

3:02:16approved by FEMA. And again, this makes

3:02:18us eligible for FEMA grants and public

3:02:20assistance for recovery. And so, we just

3:02:22need to re-adopt it.

3:02:23>> Perfect.

3:02:24Chair, can I ask

3:02:26when you see like the changes that the

3:02:29other municipalities under the county

3:02:32are making, do you feel like we're

3:02:33moving towards more coherence?

3:02:36Um, I'm just curious like your sense of

3:02:38the the greater landscape because I have

3:02:41nothing but absolute assurance and

3:02:44support for the amazing work you guys

3:02:45have done to prepare us as a city. Just

3:02:48curious what you see from from some of

3:02:50the others.

3:02:50>> Yeah, I think a lot of clarification was

3:02:52missing components such as vulnerable

3:02:54populations, those kind of items. And

3:02:56we're pretty good in Salt Lake City

3:02:58about addressing all those. So, I think

3:03:00as a county, it's a it's a really robust

3:03:02plan and I think we're all on the same

3:03:03page, yeah.

3:03:04>> Great. Thank you.

3:03:06>> Thank you.

3:03:07I we have a schedule taking action on

3:03:11this item on November 10th.

3:03:14Um, so that's that's part of the

3:03:16process. Thank you for the update. I

3:03:17appreciate so much. That document is

3:03:20ginormous.

3:03:21I I appreciate the work that goes into

3:03:23it to to keep it keeping us safe. Um

3:03:26>> Also super excited to hear FEMA still

3:03:28exists. Love that.

3:03:30>> Too soon as well.

3:03:31Too soon as well.

3:03:34So, thank you. Thank you for the update.

3:03:35Appreciate it. Thank you.

3:03:38Um

3:03:41Okay, I moving on through the agenda, I

3:03:44pull number six from the

3:03:47from the update. I'm moving on to action

3:03:51item number seven. And this is a Sure

3:03:53House special assessment area

3:03:54designation and appointment of the Board

3:03:56of Equalization. This is a resolution

3:03:58and we're going to receive a quick

3:03:59update from Austin Kimmel, Council

3:04:01Policy Analyst, Colin Gibbs, Business

3:04:03Development Division Director, and

3:04:05Lorena Riffo Jensen, Director of

3:04:07Economic Development. Welcome.

3:04:11>> Thanks, Council members.

3:04:13This is intended just to be a a quick

3:04:15update on the Sugar House Special

3:04:18Assessment Area.

3:04:20Last week on October 14th, Salt Lake

3:04:23City received a letter from the Sugar

3:04:25House Community Council and Sugar House

3:04:27Chamber and Community Alliance

3:04:29requesting that the process to establish

3:04:31an SAA SAA

3:04:34be ended and that it's June 2021 letter

3:04:37requesting that the city explore the

3:04:39creation of the SAA be rescinded.

3:04:42The letter from the community group is

3:04:44included in your packets.

3:04:46Since that letter was received before

3:04:48the end of the 60-day period for

3:04:49property owners to file written protests

3:04:52over the creation of the Special

3:04:54Assessment Area,

3:04:56which would have ended yesterday,

3:04:58Salt Lake City ended the intake of those

3:05:00protests.

3:05:02Otherwise, today's briefing would have

3:05:03been to announce the final protest

3:05:05tally.

3:05:06Instead, we're here to announce the end

3:05:08of the process for you and the public's

3:05:10awareness.

3:05:11Tonight, there are two resolutions

3:05:14related to the special assessment on

3:05:16your agenda. The first is a resolution

3:05:19to designate the assessment area

3:05:23and a resolution to appoint a Board of

3:05:25Equalization.

3:05:26While there's no legal requirement for

3:05:29the council to formally end that

3:05:31process, in coordination with the

3:05:33attorneys, it was decided to keep those

3:05:35resolutions on your agenda just to

3:05:38maintain a clear record.

3:05:40In my staff report, I initially

3:05:42recommended that the council deny those

3:05:44resolutions. However, after consulting

3:05:46with the attorney's office, it was

3:05:47determined that postponing that action

3:05:49would be best. That still maintains the

3:05:53public record,

3:05:54but I'll turn it over to Lorena

3:05:57if she has anything to add.

3:05:59>> Well, good afternoon. Thank you so much

3:06:01for your time today. We'll be very

3:06:03brief. As you know, this is a process

3:06:06that's run by the

3:06:08and our department, economic

3:06:10development. And we worked very hard

3:06:14with the Shoreline Chamber as well as

3:06:17the Community Alliance.

3:06:19And this was actually done at the

3:06:21request of these two groups.

3:06:25Um we started the process in 2021

3:06:28and

3:06:29because of the construction, the fire,

3:06:31and several issues that were happening,

3:06:34we were asked to basically

3:06:37uh put the process aside until the

3:06:40construction ended, which we did.

3:06:43And we restarted the process last year

3:06:46in the summer of 2025.

3:06:49Um I have to say I have to say that this

3:06:51process is very unique

3:06:54in terms of how many departments are

3:06:56actually involved in in the process. And

3:06:59I want to thank those departments

3:07:00because it's not just economic

3:07:02development. Uh we started the protest

3:07:05process on August 18th.

3:07:08And we were supposed to have uh the

3:07:11process run until October 19th, which

3:07:15was last night. And of course we

3:07:17received a correspondence from the

3:07:19chamber and the alliance

3:07:21on October 14th.

3:07:23Um with that, I would have to say that

3:07:28the process of a special assessment area

3:07:31is a process that is driven by the

3:07:33community.

3:07:34And it's driven by property owners

3:07:37because it really is an assessment that

3:07:39they determine whether they want to be

3:07:42assessed to

3:07:44basically perform certain actions

3:07:47in their respective district.

3:07:49Consequently,

3:07:51um

3:07:52I strongly believe that this process did

3:07:54work in this situation.

3:07:56Um the sentiments from the community

3:07:59change. Uh we were we have been told

3:08:02that

3:08:04basically there's so many things

3:08:05happening with the economy, additional

3:08:08charges happening to businesses at this

3:08:11time that they feel that they just

3:08:12couldn't uh basically face an assessment

3:08:16at this time.

3:08:17Therefore, even though it's not what we

3:08:20had hoped for,

3:08:22um our team has to say that we

3:08:25appreciate the work that

3:08:27all the departments have done, the

3:08:29mayor's office, council office,

3:08:30recorder, the attorney's office,

3:08:33finance, engineering, and IMS. And with

3:08:36that, we're here to tell you that the

3:08:39process has basically been

3:08:42um abandoned or detracted, and I will

3:08:46give my time to Colin so he can talk

3:08:48about what we're going to do to inform

3:08:51our stakeholders.

3:08:54>> Thank you, Lorena.

3:08:55Uh yes, so to uh close out the process

3:08:59and inform property owners, uh

3:09:02on October 15th,

3:09:04uh the recorder's office posted a public

3:09:06notice to the city's public notice

3:09:08website stating that the area will not

3:09:10be moving forward.

3:09:11Uh additionally, the Department of

3:09:13Economic Development will send notices

3:09:15to the property address and two property

3:09:18owner addresses

3:09:19uh to inform them of the outcome.

3:09:22Uh these steps are not required by state

3:09:24statute, uh but have been recommended as

3:09:27a potential option by legal counsel, and

3:09:30uh we feel it best to over communicate

3:09:32and ensure that everyone understands

3:09:34that the process is uh ended.

3:09:38>> Councilwoman Young.

3:09:40>> Thank you. Um I'm so grateful for the

3:09:43expertise both sitting at this table as

3:09:45well as the incredible teams that back

3:09:47you guys up um in terms of all the

3:09:49individuals who participated.

3:09:52I guess I'll I'll just share a couple of

3:09:54notes and I'll share similar comments

3:09:56this evening, you know, just for folks

3:09:58who maybe newer to the conversation. So,

3:10:01I've been hearing about a Sugar House

3:10:03Special Assessment Area since the day I

3:10:05joined this council.

3:10:07I appreciate that it can be kind of a

3:10:10bit of a a jargon a term and SAA,

3:10:13but it really is what you just stated,

3:10:16which is a tool for the community to

3:10:18create a special assessment area. And

3:10:21different than many of our tools across

3:10:23the city, this is one where it's the

3:10:26community who brings that forward to

3:10:28make the request to sponsor an

3:10:31additional tax to create a revenue

3:10:33source to address specific needs that

3:10:36have been identified by the community.

3:10:38So, to be clear because it is at the

3:10:41community's request that we begin this

3:10:43process to measure buy-in from local

3:10:46property owners, it really only makes

3:10:48sense to me that we honor those same

3:10:50voices in terms of abandoning the

3:10:52process

3:10:54as it stands today before taking it

3:10:56through another series of steps, you

3:10:59know, that requires additional city

3:11:01time, efforts, and resources.

3:11:03So, noting that this was brought forth

3:11:06by the community, I do really appreciate

3:11:09the consideration that's been given

3:11:11related to that the buy-in just isn't

3:11:14there today.

3:11:15I understand given the current economic

3:11:18challenges that are being faced by small

3:11:19businesses from increasing costs across

3:11:22labor, supplies, and rent. And

3:11:24additionally, we we know that Sugar

3:11:27House has survived several large-scale

3:11:30road and utility improvement projects

3:11:32and that it's still something that many

3:11:34of our business owners are recovering

3:11:36from.

3:11:37I also want to say that just because

3:11:39it's not today doesn't mean it's a never

3:11:42for Sugar House. As the representative

3:11:45for my neighbors, I do believe that

3:11:47there will be a future date where this

3:11:49action may have more

3:11:52community support for some of those

3:11:54services and solutions that we see in

3:11:57the downtown business district,

3:11:59especially including those downtown

3:12:01ambassadors that help with cleaning,

3:12:03safety, and hospitality. I often get

3:12:06asked, "Why not Why not Sugar House?"

3:12:08And it's a good distinction to know that

3:12:11there is a tool for that, but that is

3:12:13something that's decided upon by the

3:12:15community in terms of that revenue

3:12:17source to support it. I want to express

3:12:19my gratitude to the local business

3:12:21owners and operators who have reached

3:12:23out to share their input about the

3:12:25proposed SAA. Your voices have been

3:12:28heard, and we hope to keep you involved

3:12:30in discussions about the business

3:12:31district through both Sugar House

3:12:33Community Council and the Chamber. I

3:12:36also like to thank the mayor and her

3:12:38team,

3:12:39including our amazing leaders from

3:12:41economic development. Your time and

3:12:44expertise to help us scope and both

3:12:46support the Sugar House leaders who

3:12:48brought this initiative forward is very

3:12:51appreciated. If you're operating a

3:12:53business in Salt Lake City, you should

3:12:56know our economic development team.

3:12:58Their enthusiasm for building the city's

3:13:00economy from major employers to aspiring

3:13:03small business owners has always

3:13:05impressed me, and Sugar House really

3:13:07appreciates you and all of the team you

3:13:10work with.

3:13:11And finally, I would be remiss if I did

3:13:13not thank the leaders of the Sugar House

3:13:16Community Council and Chamber that

3:13:18brought this idea to the city.

3:13:20Like I said, it's been a discussion

3:13:22amongst our community for almost a

3:13:24decade, and Landon, Judy, James, and

3:13:27Scott really helped to translate that

3:13:30discussion into an action for

3:13:32consideration.

3:13:33These are volunteers that give from

3:13:35their traditional day jobs to help

3:13:37create a more connected community across

3:13:39Sugarhouse businesses. And that

3:13:41connected community extends beyond this

3:13:44SAA discussion. The Sugarhouse Chamber

3:13:46is an important organization for our

3:13:49community, and I encourage all of our

3:13:50Sugarhouse businesses, both renters and

3:13:53landowners alike, to get involved. We

3:13:55can do great things when we work

3:13:57together, and that's the future that I'm

3:13:59looking forward to for my neighborhood.

3:14:01So, thank you.

3:14:02>> Thank you so much.

3:14:04>> Thank you. Any other thoughts?

3:14:06Um I I agree that I'm hoping that to see

3:14:09some of these tools

3:14:11utilized across the city. I would like

3:14:12to thank

3:14:15the economic development team for

3:14:17answering the call from the community to

3:14:18explore this tool.

3:14:20And I will say that the takeaway from us

3:14:22is we learned how to do it now.

3:14:25And so, if you know, if Sugarhouse in a

3:14:28different moment or any other of the

3:14:31districts wants to explore this tool,

3:14:34now we have the like the system down. We

3:14:36can do it. We can follow state law. We

3:14:39know the steps that it involves. We know

3:14:41the cost generally of what what it costs

3:14:43to to run these things. And

3:14:46I'm hoping to see more of those in the

3:14:48future. But again, the community needs

3:14:50to,

3:14:51you know,

3:14:52tell us that they want this. They need

3:14:54to follow the process.

3:14:57And

3:14:58and but thank you for the work that

3:15:00economic development and every

3:15:01department has gone through to to

3:15:03accommodate this request. Um

3:15:06I appreciate the time.

3:15:07>> Thank you so much.

3:15:08>> Thank you.

3:15:09Council members,

3:15:11we are going to go to the next item,

3:15:15which is the library one.

3:15:17On item number nine, we jumped a few

3:15:20items this

3:15:21agenda.

3:15:23This is an informational item, library

3:15:25capital projects and proposed local

3:15:26building authority bonds. I'm going to

3:15:28welcome Austin Camal at the table. He's

3:15:30staying there.

3:15:31And now I ask at library chief executive

3:15:34officer and Director

3:15:37Tyler Bond Barr

3:15:39Library Chief Administrative Officer

3:15:41might join us at the table. Um

3:15:44And Austin, it's your time.

3:15:48>> Thanks, Council members. The library is

3:15:50here to provide an update on its capital

3:15:52projects plan for the Anderson Foothill,

3:15:54Day Riverside, and Main Library

3:15:56branches.

3:15:57As the library will discuss, it is

3:16:00proposing to completely reconstruct the

3:16:02Anderson Foothill branch in District 6,

3:16:04significantly renovate and expand Day

3:16:07Riverside branch in District 1, and make

3:16:09several improvements to the Main Library

3:16:10branch just across the street from here.

3:16:13Total cost estimate estimates, which are

3:16:16escalated to 2031, are proposed at $90

3:16:19million.

3:16:21The library

3:16:22is

3:16:23asking and proposing that the city would

3:16:25issue a $85 million

3:16:27local building authority bond to

3:16:29supplement and a $5 million fundraising

3:16:32campaign for these projects.

3:16:34Today's briefing is for the council to

3:16:35learn about the library's updated plans

3:16:37since the concepts were last discussed

3:16:40during the FY27 library budget

3:16:42discussion in April.

3:16:44We've reserved time at the end for

3:16:46additional discussion and Q&A.

3:16:49The library is hoping to proceed with an

3:16:52RFP for architectural designs and

3:16:55construction documents, and funding for

3:16:58those designs and documents were

3:17:00included in the library's approved FY27

3:17:02budget. With that, I will turn it over

3:17:04to Noah and Tyler.

3:17:06>> Thanks, Austin. Thanks, Council members.

3:17:08Grateful to be with you all this

3:17:10evening. I am joined in addition to

3:17:12Tyler, I'm joined with by a number of my

3:17:14library colleagues here tonight that can

3:17:16help answer any questions you may have

3:17:18about these projects. Michelle Cow,

3:17:21manager of the Day Riverside Library, as

3:17:23well as Lindsey Dow and Paul Musser,

3:17:26managers at the Anderson Foothill

3:17:27Library. Uh we also have our consultants

3:17:30with us, um Jeff Davis, principal

3:17:32architect at MSR Design, and Holly Yocum

3:17:35with Pathway Partners.

3:17:37Um before we dive in and talk about the

3:17:39specific building projects, I want to

3:17:41maybe just take a quick minute to speak

3:17:43about what a library is for this city.

3:17:46Um while oftentimes some people talk

3:17:48about libraries as amenities, as we talk

3:17:50this evening about these projects, my

3:17:53hope is that you all council members

3:17:55would be thinking about them the same

3:17:56way that you all think about water,

3:17:59sewer lines, the electrical grid,

3:18:01streets, parks,

3:18:03uh libraries as really critical civic

3:18:06infrastructure. Uh that role is more

3:18:08important today than ever before.

3:18:11Uh a library is the one building in our

3:18:13city where anyone can walk in, stay as

3:18:16long as they need, never be asked to buy

3:18:18something, or prove that they belong.

3:18:21It's where a child learns to read, a job

3:18:24seeker gets online, a new arrival to our

3:18:26city finds their footing, an older adult

3:18:29finds uh company, and a neighbor two

3:18:32neighbors who would never otherwise meet

3:18:34actually share a room with one another.

3:18:36Numerous studies show how residents in

3:18:39neighborhoods with public libraries fare

3:18:41far better than those without.

3:18:43And today uh libraries are not simply

3:18:46repositories of books or quiet places to

3:18:48study, they have evolved into our

3:18:51communities' living rooms, technology

3:18:53centers, classrooms, cultural landmarks,

3:18:56and nurturers of urban vitality.

3:18:59So the three projects we present to you

3:19:01this evening really do speak

3:19:02specifically to that purpose and put

3:19:04investment where the city needs it most.

3:19:07Replacing a building that's failing over

3:19:08on the east side, expanding one on the

3:19:10west side that's growing uh the

3:19:12neighborhood and it's that's a growing

3:19:15neighborhood that's outgrown its

3:19:16building, and intentionally caring for

3:19:18one of our city's most important

3:19:19landmarks.

3:19:21So let's start with a little bit of why

3:19:23these projects and why now. Next slide,

3:19:25please.

3:19:27So, first up

3:19:29Okay, could we This This just shows you

3:19:31quickly like a little bit of the

3:19:33overview process. We began master

3:19:35facility planning back in 2020

3:19:39with a plan developed in 2022. Fast

3:19:41forward, we spent an entire year really

3:19:44in deep community engagement, visioning

3:19:47workshops, community engagement that

3:19:49I'll speak to here in a little bit. Next

3:19:50slide, please.

3:19:53So, Anderson Foothill.

3:19:55Anderson Foothill opened in 1985. It

3:19:58served Eastside families

3:20:00incredibly well for more than 40 years.

3:20:03While the building is approaching the

3:20:05end of its useful life,

3:20:07sinking is causing some really

3:20:09significant structural issues. That

3:20:11means we need to move soon to ensure

3:20:13that we can continue to serve this

3:20:14community.

3:20:15Soils beneath this building are moving.

3:20:18It's causing structural problems that

3:20:20will become life safety problems if we

3:20:22wait.

3:20:23The building just does have to be

3:20:24replaced.

3:20:25And our structural engineers told us 2

3:20:27years ago that was something that needs

3:20:29to be done soon.

3:20:31To

3:20:32to ensure you all the building remains

3:20:34safe today.

3:20:35But at some point it won't be and the

3:20:38building really is at the end of its

3:20:39useful life.

3:20:42The needs go beyond just the structural

3:20:43issues though. We also know that given

3:20:45the orientation of the main entrance,

3:20:48there's really significant access issues

3:20:50and there's also space needs given how

3:20:53the community uses it. Um

3:20:56In addition to that, how the onsite

3:20:58parking is structured really does

3:21:00contribute to the traffic on 2100 East

3:21:03and it shuts people out, those that rely

3:21:06on it most.

3:21:07Parents with young children, older

3:21:09adults, people with disabilities.

3:21:12Um this building is not only beloved by

3:21:14the surrounding community, it also has

3:21:16some of the highest usage in our system.

3:21:18Door counts, checkouts

3:21:21are the highest branch by a significant

3:21:23margin. Program attendance this last

3:21:26year was actually higher than the main

3:21:28library. So, this is just a very beloved

3:21:30community

3:21:32and it's a building that no longer

3:21:34supports

3:21:35the kind of use that the that the

3:21:38building gets from the community. We've

3:21:40heard that kind of over and over again

3:21:41from the community. They need

3:21:45What we heard from the community during

3:21:47our engagement this last year, need for

3:21:49larger spaces for children,

3:21:52larger spaces for community gatherings,

3:21:55quiet space for reading and study for

3:21:56adults, co-working space, and a really

3:21:59significant need for more meeting rooms.

3:22:03Next slide, please.

3:22:06The second project is the Day Riverside

3:22:08branch.

3:22:10As most of you know, Day Riverside on a

3:22:13lovely piece of land right along the

3:22:14Jordan River serving our Rose Park

3:22:16neighbors.

3:22:17One of our most diverse and immigrant

3:22:19rich neighborhoods in the city.

3:22:21The library really does already serve as

3:22:23a central civic infrastructure for that

3:22:25community.

3:22:27Community councils gather here. Dozens

3:22:30and dozens of community groups use this

3:22:32for gathering space every single week

3:22:34and Michelle could speak to that.

3:22:37Children,

3:22:40teens, adults, community groups all

3:22:43compete for the same space. This

3:22:45building this is a community that has

3:22:47just outgrown this building

3:22:49and we kind of see that every day and

3:22:51how the building is used. There's in

3:22:54addition to there not being enough space

3:22:56for all of these competing demands of

3:22:57the people that show up every single

3:22:59day. There's also

3:23:01not a

3:23:02a room large enough for the neighborhood

3:23:04to gather and so often times we run into

3:23:07fire code issues for the community

3:23:09gatherings that we hold there.

3:23:12On the Westside libraries carry a really

3:23:14significant community load. For many

3:23:17households, this is where kids go after

3:23:19school. It's where adults get online,

3:23:22access internet. It's where they apply

3:23:24for jobs, and it's where neighbors meet.

3:23:27We also know

3:23:29that we need more literacy programming

3:23:31and space, particularly in this

3:23:32neighborhood. A nearby elementary

3:23:34school,

3:23:35only 17% of third grade third graders

3:23:38are reading at reading proficiency

3:23:39level.

3:23:41And many households lack access to

3:23:43high-speed internet. And also a problem

3:23:46with this space both when it was

3:23:48designed pre-internet and kind of some

3:23:51some quirks and issues with the wiring

3:23:53is right now we're not even able to

3:23:54provide consistent internet across the

3:23:57building.

3:23:58The needs of this library also represent

3:24:01an equity investment for our city.

3:24:03Westside residents have long asked for

3:24:05public buildings that match the quality

3:24:07found elsewhere in the city. And the

3:24:10kind of library that we want to deliver

3:24:11for this city delivers on that.

3:24:15All right, next slide, please. Our third

3:24:17project

3:24:18is a building you all know right across

3:24:20the street, the main library.

3:24:23This building opened in 2003.

3:24:26It's a world-renowned, award-winning

3:24:29architectural landmark for our city. And

3:24:32it's been our downtown living room for

3:24:34more than two decades.

3:24:36But downtown has changed a lot since

3:24:382003. More residents, more housing, more

3:24:41visitors, more people

3:24:43just around Library Square with the

3:24:45downtown residential population more

3:24:47than doubling since it's opening.

3:24:50And we're seeing more and more people,

3:24:51especially as attendance to downtown

3:24:54venues as a whole increases, we've seen

3:24:56a lot more

3:24:58door door count increases over the last

3:25:00couple of years at the downtown library.

3:25:04In addition to that, for many of our

3:25:06most vulnerable neighbors here in Salt

3:25:07Lake City, the Main Library is the front

3:25:09door to help. Our social service staff

3:25:11connects people to housing, health care,

3:25:13and benefits every single day.

3:25:16And the building needs to be able to

3:25:17support that kind of work as well.

3:25:20But also, how libraries uh how people

3:25:23use libraries has significantly changed

3:25:25in those 20 years. Demands at this

3:25:28library have shifted towards meeting

3:25:29rooms, digital access, programs, places

3:25:33to work, creative spaces, and quiet

3:25:36spaces.

3:25:38So, the redesign that's needed for this

3:25:40building really is in response to how

3:25:42Salt Lake Salt Lakers are increasingly

3:25:44using it.

3:25:46What we talk about in terms of bonding,

3:25:48the majority of what's needed in terms

3:25:50of the Main Library redesign is not

3:25:52included in what we are proposing in

3:25:54terms of an LBA bond. The majority will

3:25:56be is planned to be funded over time

3:25:59through philanthropy and fund balance,

3:26:01but there are some critical um needs

3:26:04that we need to address One is expanding

3:26:07our children's space in the lower level,

3:26:09relocating our resource corner to a more

3:26:12appropriate location in the building,

3:26:14installing fall prevention glass on the

3:26:16fourth floor to ensure patrons' safety,

3:26:18and bathrooms on the main floor. That's

3:26:20just one of those basic amenities that

3:26:22wasn't built in the building that we

3:26:23hear from our patrons every single day.

3:26:26Uh especially given the planned

3:26:27investment from the coming years for the

3:26:29broader Library Square and Civic Center

3:26:31project, these improvements improvements

3:26:33are really critical to the investment of

3:26:35this broader project as well.

3:26:38Next slide. And before uh we talk about

3:26:41the designs, which are uh I'm excited to

3:26:43share with you all, Council members, I

3:26:45want to just share quickly about how we

3:26:47uh arrived at them. I mentioned we spent

3:26:49about a year in deep community

3:26:51engagement through our partners with MSR

3:26:54and Pathway. That included uh really

3:26:56basically everything you're going to see

3:26:58tonight in terms of concepts was

3:26:59informed by that deep engagement work,

3:27:02Intentional listening to community

3:27:03members, wanting to hear from them to

3:27:05really inform these designs.

3:27:07We held interactive community visioning

3:27:09sessions at our locations. We ran

3:27:12bilingual online surveys in English and

3:27:14Spanish. Uh that led to thousands of

3:27:17community responses. We posted dot

3:27:19boards at our libraries, but also

3:27:22community locations around those

3:27:23libraries. And also held multiple staff

3:27:26workshops. Uh really because uh it was

3:27:29important to gather staff voice because

3:27:32these are the folks who work in these

3:27:34buildings every single day and know

3:27:36exactly where they fall short.

3:27:38The designs that resulted from this

3:27:40engagement are really are I think an

3:27:42embodiment of what the community's

3:27:44priorities are. Also their hopes and

3:27:46their dreams come to life um drawn by

3:27:49our architectural partners. So, let's

3:27:51start off with Anderson Foothill. Next

3:27:53slide.

3:27:55So, here's just a concept design

3:27:56diagram. Uh the design starts with the

3:27:59site itself. Kind of a unique site. Uh

3:28:03the building steps down uh the hillside

3:28:05in tiers and terraces. So, it's meant to

3:28:08work with instead of fighting the slope.

3:28:10And it's shaped to better utilize the

3:28:12shape of the lot as well, extending

3:28:14square footage.

3:28:15It opens toward the natural corridor

3:28:18creek to the east. Really so that it

3:28:20welcomes in green space and it becomes

3:28:22part of the library itself.

3:28:24It faces uh the street and the community

3:28:27giving it more visible presence along

3:28:29Foothill Boulevard. Um

3:28:31as well as taking advantage of just the

3:28:33incredible views both towards the

3:28:35foothills and uh the valley.

3:28:38And let's take a look inside to see how

3:28:40it's organized. Next slide.

3:28:43So, the lower level uh it's expanded

3:28:45parking all and all contiguous parking

3:28:48with 34 stalls. It also includes a 24/7

3:28:51holds locker. So, people who work long

3:28:53hours can still use that library to pick

3:28:56up their holds late at night.

3:28:58Uh you step up to level one, that's the

3:29:00active floor. So, as you walk through

3:29:03the main doors, it's a marketplace for

3:29:05browsing, new releases, best sellers.

3:29:08You can also see a large children's

3:29:10library um to the bottom right

3:29:14uh with play and learn space, also a

3:29:16teen area uh connected to a cafe with

3:29:20its own entrance, and a 200-plus person

3:29:23community room opening to a large

3:29:25courtyard. Uh an example, we hold Lunar

3:29:28New Year uh celebration every single

3:29:30year up at this location, and it's a

3:29:32gigantic number of community members

3:29:34that come out. So, this space will

3:29:35actually be able to accommodate that.

3:29:37Uh step up to level two,

3:29:40and um

3:29:42the idea here is that it's a bit of a

3:29:43quieter floor. So, you have adult

3:29:46collection, study rooms, a quiet

3:29:48retreat, 50-person program room, and a

3:29:51reading terrace with a green roof.

3:29:54So, the idea of separating active and

3:29:56quiet floors allows for families, as

3:29:59well as people, adults, who need calm

3:30:01space to be able to use the building at

3:30:03the same time, despite the constraints

3:30:05of the actual footprint.

3:30:08And uh here is what it's going to look

3:30:10like with a street view. Next slide.

3:30:14So, here's a view from the northwest.

3:30:16Again, this is a concept, uh

3:30:19but as you can see, this is a building

3:30:20that really invites the neighborhood in.

3:30:23Uh glass

3:30:25uh at the street level, a cafe that

3:30:27people can see into and access even

3:30:29before the library opens, and

3:30:31importantly a clear and accessible

3:30:33entrance. It's built for walkers, for

3:30:35cyclists, for people using wheelchairs

3:30:38and strollers uh that really have a hard

3:30:40time accessing it now.

3:30:42Um and compare this to the current

3:30:44building, uh it's a long set of ramps

3:30:46and stairs. So, this really is allowing

3:30:48people meeting people at the sidewalk.

3:30:51>> Councilmember Napier Pierce.

3:30:53>> Yes, perfect.

3:30:53>> All right, sorry to

3:30:54>> interrupt. On level two you have an open

3:30:57atrium

3:30:59and you said that level's going to be

3:31:01our quiet time, but you're going to have

3:31:03all the noise from level one if it's

3:31:05open, right?

3:31:07>> That's a good question, Councilmember.

3:31:09Uh I might ask um

3:31:12Jeff from our MSR consultants to hop up

3:31:14here and help me answer the question,

3:31:15but as I understand it it's a pre to

3:31:18have kind of space open from the bottom

3:31:20one is intended to try to provide a

3:31:23little bit um yeah, more of a spacious

3:31:25building as a whole and I think there's

3:31:27probably

3:31:28architectural designs to manage the

3:31:30acoustic control because I do think it's

3:31:31meant to

3:31:32Yeah, I think there's real intention to

3:31:34allow it to be a lot quieter space up

3:31:36above. It's a great question.

3:31:40Jeff, would you add anything? Go ahead.

3:31:46>> Yeah, just very quickly I might just add

3:31:49um

3:31:49>> Is the microphone on?

3:31:51>> Yeah, it is.

3:31:51>> Okay, perfect. Thank you.

3:31:53>> Um it uh

3:31:55there there are a number of ways to deal

3:31:57with the acoustics in having that open

3:31:59space and this is a conceptual design.

3:32:02There may be glass that um keeps it from

3:32:05going, but then there's also a lot of

3:32:07absorptive materials and the way the

3:32:09room is shaped where the children are

3:32:11that absorb a lot of that noise and

3:32:13don't necessarily let it get all the way

3:32:15down. Those are the details that would

3:32:16be developed in the ongoing design.

3:32:20>> Thanks, Jeff. Thanks, Councilmember.

3:32:23Okay, on to Day Riverside. Next slide,

3:32:27please.

3:32:29So, with Day Riverside uh we're talking

3:32:32about keeping the existing building uh

3:32:34fully resetting it, meaning new uh

3:32:37finishes, so it feels like a brand new

3:32:39building, but adding two new additions.

3:32:42Uh

3:32:42one entrance serves both the library, a

3:32:46large a brand new large community room,

3:32:48and a bodega,

3:32:50um and it all and that works uh really

3:32:52for all different hours. Uh the idea of

3:32:55a bodega, or kind of a convenience

3:32:57shop-style amenity, was specifically a

3:33:00benefit that we heard from multiple

3:33:01community members. The idea that it

3:33:03would be an easy place uh for a teen or

3:33:06for an adult to grab a quick and healthy

3:33:08snack when they visit the library.

3:33:10Um

3:33:11the design uh is intended to give the

3:33:13library a lot more street presence along

3:33:161000 North. It's kind of sits back

3:33:17behind right now, and it's really easy

3:33:19to drive past.

3:33:21And the outdoor spaces really become

3:33:24program spaces. An event lawn that

3:33:27spills out from the community room,

3:33:29um a uh secure patio for young children,

3:33:33as well as an outdoor reading lounge

3:33:35right along the Jordan River.

3:33:37And let's take a look inside. Next

3:33:39slide, please.

3:33:41So, the existing 14,400 square feet, we

3:33:46add to that another 10,600 square feet,

3:33:48that gives us a 25,000 square foot

3:33:50library.

3:33:51It gives children a dedicated area with

3:33:53a story time and play and learn space

3:33:56connected to an outdoor patio.

3:33:58Uh it allows us the space to provide the

3:34:00kind of additional enhanced literacy

3:34:02programming that we know the

3:34:04neighborhood needs.

3:34:05Uh teens also get their own space um a

3:34:08little bit separate from the adults

3:34:11uh with study rooms and their own

3:34:12computers. Often times just uh people

3:34:15fighting over computer access is a real

3:34:17issue with this branch uh at issue with

3:34:19this branch.

3:34:21And adults have their own space, work

3:34:23space for and computer space for a

3:34:25resume writing, emailing, doing work.

3:34:28Uh the 200-plus person community room

3:34:32uh open to the event lawn, and this

3:34:35gives Rose Park a large gathering space

3:34:37that it really doesn't have today to be

3:34:38able to accommodate uh many different

3:34:40kinds of community gatherings.

3:34:42Um you'll notice in this that there's a

3:34:45little yellow line that might be hard to

3:34:47read that says secure. The idea here is

3:34:50that this will be designed to allow for

3:34:53community room use as well as the bodega

3:34:55to stay open even if the rest of the

3:34:57library is closed.

3:35:00And let's take a look at what it looks

3:35:01like. Next slide, please.

3:35:04So here's a rendering of the concept um

3:35:07from the northeast, from the Jordan

3:35:09River. Uh and you can see again the

3:35:12light the idea here is that we're

3:35:14carrying out kind of the original idea

3:35:16design with the skylights into the

3:35:18additions as well. Um the library

3:35:21becomes part of the Jordan River Parkway

3:35:23rather than just sitting beside it.

3:35:25Families, trail users, neighbors can

3:35:28move between the river, the lawn, and

3:35:30the library. And we think this is the

3:35:32kind of public space the Westside

3:35:33neighbors deserve. Um open, beautiful,

3:35:36connected to the landscape.

3:35:39And I'm going to give you one more view

3:35:41kind of of the site here. Next slide,

3:35:42please.

3:35:44So this is a map from the county

3:35:46assessor's website. Um and I've spoken

3:35:49with a number of you all here about kind

3:35:51of the unique placement of this.

3:35:53Um it sits along the Jordan River

3:35:55Parkway trail, next to the Corrine

3:35:57wetland and Rose Park Community Garden.

3:36:00Um the space just south of the library,

3:36:03so you can see the library own space lot

3:36:06in outlined in yellow. The space just

3:36:08south of it is owned by the city. And

3:36:11we've been in active conversations with

3:36:12a number of city departments,

3:36:14communities and neighborhoods, public

3:36:16lands, public utilities to explore what

3:36:20the possibilities might be of uh a

3:36:23neighborhood campus or um extending the

3:36:26development in light of the planned

3:36:28development of the public library to

3:36:30really think about how we can provide

3:36:31the maximum community benefit as

3:36:33possible for the Rose Park neighborhood.

3:36:35So those conversations are ongoing.

3:36:38They've been really productive and we're

3:36:39excited about what they might yield for

3:36:41the community.

3:36:43Okay, onto the main library.

3:36:45So,

3:36:46given the limits of time, I don't have

3:36:48next slide, sorry.

3:36:50Given the

3:36:51constraints of time, council members, I

3:36:53won't talk about the

3:36:55complete redesign here,

3:36:58but this gives you a bit of a snapshot

3:36:59in terms of the proposed improvements

3:37:03that would that that are really

3:37:04critical, particularly as we prepare for

3:37:06the world to come back to Salt Lake in

3:37:082034. The idea is that we are

3:37:11reorganizing space use by floor from

3:37:15active and playful at the bottom to as

3:37:18you go up in the building a little bit

3:37:20more calm and specialized at the top.

3:37:23This makes wayfinding much easier, which

3:37:25is a real challenge at the main library,

3:37:27just trying to figure out where to go.

3:37:29Visitors find their place by floor. The

3:37:32rec room and the playroom for fam- lies

3:37:35below ground on the lower level.

3:37:38The foyer and the family room entry at

3:37:40the entrance, basically the welcome

3:37:42room. Community studio, where we're

3:37:44rethinking creative our creative lab

3:37:47space.

3:37:48The commons, where people can receive

3:37:50business and nonprofit support in really

3:37:52nice free co-working space.

3:37:54And then the reading room up at the

3:37:56fourth floor, kind of a little bit more

3:37:58of your typical library experience,

3:38:00quieter space for study, a large level

3:38:03of nonfiction and fiction collections,

3:38:05and then our beautiful public rooftop at

3:38:07the top.

3:38:08This really solves one of the biggest

3:38:10problems today.

3:38:12We've got active and quiet uses that are

3:38:14colliding in the same spaces throughout

3:38:17the library building, and this organizes

3:38:19it better.

3:38:20As I mentioned, the broader redesign of

3:38:23this building will be done over time to

3:38:25minimize the impact over continued

3:38:28community use, but as I mentioned, there

3:38:31are some real critical projects that we

3:38:32need to address soon on both our first

3:38:35and fourth floor. So, first next slide,

3:38:37the first floor

3:38:39um just a quick overview of what those

3:38:40things are. Um as as part of the

3:38:43redesign of the uh Civic Center and

3:38:47Library Square, we've been discussing

3:38:48with the city the idea of relocating the

3:38:52uh cafe to the northwest corner of the

3:38:55building and really improving the

3:38:57overall patron experience in walking in

3:38:59that location.

3:39:01Uh the idea of having a cafe that could

3:39:03be accessed before the library opens, as

3:39:06could be accessed within the library as

3:39:08well.

3:39:09That would also mean relocating our

3:39:10social services uh towards the back of

3:39:13the building, which um gives a little

3:39:15bit more private space, as well as a

3:39:17potential other secure entry. So, um the

3:39:21help people need is part of the overall

3:39:22building's design design and not an

3:39:24afterthought. We also moved the teen

3:39:26area down to the first floor to get them

3:39:29closer to the children's space. And then

3:39:31you can't see it in this slide, but um

3:39:33we are also proposing an expanded

3:39:35children's space on the lower level as

3:39:37well. And then importantly uh public

3:39:40restrooms added to this floor as well.

3:39:41Just a really basic amenity that the

3:39:43public is asking for.

3:39:45Next slide, please.

3:39:46We'll just jump up to the fourth floor

3:39:48to show you again uh the reading room,

3:39:50this idea of this being quiet dedicated

3:39:53quiet space

3:39:54uh with a large non-fiction and fiction

3:39:56collection.

3:39:58Important to this floor is really the

3:40:00safety um additions. So, full height

3:40:03glass along the crescent wall space, as

3:40:07well as on the interior space.

3:40:09Um

3:40:10Okay.

3:40:11Uh next slide, we'll talk a little bit

3:40:13about the cost of these projects.

3:40:16So, first Anderson Foothill,

3:40:18uh the new library is 30 just over

3:40:2032,000 square feet over two stories.

3:40:23That's by the way right in alignment

3:40:25with what the recommendation of our

3:40:27master facilities plan it called for

3:40:29back in 2022.

3:40:31Uh the there's a significant cost here

3:40:33related to soil stabilization and

3:40:35parking structure about $6.7 million.

3:40:38That's 14% of the overall cost.

3:40:41Um

3:40:42the building itself 42.3 million. So the

3:40:46total estimated project is 49 million.

3:40:49Uh these uh just as a note are figures

3:40:52uh

3:40:53in 2031 dollars you'll see uh the year

3:40:57that construction would likely finish.

3:40:59So uh these figures already account for

3:41:01inflation and the budget for these

3:41:03buildings already includes contingency

3:41:06fund estimates as well.

3:41:08Again, the alternative uh for this

3:41:10building is continued structural

3:41:12deterioration and eventually closing up

3:41:14the branch.

3:41:16Next slide, please. Day Riverside costs.

3:41:20So uh

3:41:21Day Riverside we're talking about a

3:41:2325,000 square foot library. So an

3:41:26extension of about almost 11,000 square

3:41:28feet. A full reset of the existing

3:41:30building. So again, that feels like a

3:41:33new building uh even though we're able

3:41:36to renovate and expand to keep the value

3:41:38of the existing building while giving uh

3:41:40the neighborhood the space that it

3:41:41needs. So the total estimated project is

3:41:43$31 million and again, that's in

3:41:46uh inflated 2031

3:41:48uh dollar terms.

3:41:51And here's how we pay for these

3:41:53projects. Next slide, please.

3:41:56So both Anderson Foothill Day Riverside

3:41:59uh

3:42:00uh we are proposing uh projects would be

3:42:02funded through local building authority

3:42:04bonds of approximately this $85 million

3:42:08with an additional $5 million capital

3:42:10campaign goal for a total project cost

3:42:13of $90 million. That figure does include

3:42:16$10 million of renovation funds for the

3:42:19main library.

3:42:20Uh that's again about a third of the

3:42:22overall total expense needed.

3:42:25Um, we are exploring a number of other

3:42:28uh, potential funding um, sources for

3:42:31these building projects, new market tax

3:42:34credits for the Day Riverside extension,

3:42:37uh, public-private partnerships as well

3:42:38for that location, uh, and as well as

3:42:41other additional sources that have the

3:42:43potential to reduce the amount needed

3:42:45through bonding.

3:42:47Uh, with this figure though, annual debt

3:42:49service is estimated to be at about 7.8

3:42:52million with interest payments beginning

3:42:54in fiscal year 2029.

3:42:57For the average resident, that is

3:43:00reduced down um, we we just got recent

3:43:02numbers um, from the finance department

3:43:04here at the city, uh, $4.76

3:43:07uh, cents a month on their property tax

3:43:09bill,

3:43:10uh, roughly 57, 58 dollars per year.

3:43:14Uh, and again, that's for two fully

3:43:16realized community libraries and a major

3:43:19improvements um, to the flagship main

3:43:21library.

3:43:23I'll give you a quick update related to

3:43:24the library's capital campaign uh, that

3:43:27has been ongoing. Uh, we have identified

3:43:29187 total prospects, 29 of which are

3:43:33being actively engaged in the campaign

3:43:35currently, and your all show of support

3:43:37council this evening will be incredibly

3:43:39important for those donors that we're

3:43:41working with really to demonstrate that

3:43:43city council is in support of public

3:43:45funding that can really be further uh,

3:43:47extended and leveraged through their

3:43:49private philanthropy.

3:43:51Next slide.

3:43:53So, talk about talking about timeline,

3:43:55this is our estimated timeline.

3:43:57Uh, we do plan to issue the RFP for

3:44:01architectural design and construction

3:44:02documents for Anderson Foothill and Day

3:44:05Riverside.

3:44:06Uh, we anticipate those documents to be

3:44:09completed in fiscal year 2028.

3:44:13Just as a reminder, uh, city council's

3:44:15already approved this expense, roughly

3:44:17$6 million

3:44:18as part of our current fiscal year

3:44:20budget.

3:44:21And that would the idea is that that

3:44:23would be paid back

3:44:25once the bond was taken out for these

3:44:27projects.

3:44:29In addition to this timeline, I'll just

3:44:31mention in the next 6 to 8 months, we

3:44:33continue to plan to explore

3:44:35possibilities

3:44:36in partnering with the city, as well as

3:44:38possibilities of a public-private

3:44:40partnership opportunity as part of the

3:44:41Day Riverside expansion.

3:44:44The bond would then be issued

3:44:47and construction beginning in fiscal

3:44:49year 28 or 29. And then

3:44:53the tax increase that would be needed

3:44:55for debt service that would begin in

3:44:56fiscal year 2029.

3:44:59We anticipate construction to be

3:45:00completed by fiscal year 2031.

3:45:05Just a quick note,

3:45:07what you'll

3:45:08note is not in this estimate or much in

3:45:11this presentation this evening is the

3:45:13Ballpark Library.

3:45:15We did do some deep engagement with that

3:45:17community as well over this last year,

3:45:19but again in our conversations with you

3:45:21all council members, with the mayor's

3:45:23office, with the CRA, we recognized that

3:45:26now is just not the right time for that

3:45:27building and that that'll be something

3:45:29we'll be excited to talk about in some

3:45:31future date.

3:45:34Next slide.

3:45:35>> [sighs and gasps]

3:45:36>> And just in closing, I just want to

3:45:37again emphasize what you already know

3:45:40that libraries are are not a nice extra,

3:45:42they are just a part of what makes a

3:45:43neighborhood work. These are projects

3:45:45that keep our infrastructure strong for

3:45:47the next generation.

3:45:49Our hope and our request would be that

3:45:51the city council would conduct a straw

3:45:53poll in support of this direction,

3:45:55recognizing that approval of LBA bonds

3:45:59would not be for some time, would likely

3:46:01be needed in fiscal year 28 or 2029.

3:46:05With that, I thank you all for

3:46:07the opportunity to speak with you all

3:46:09and we're we're happy to answer any of

3:46:10your questions.

3:46:12>> Council Member Carlson.

3:46:14>> Uh thank you for that presentation. Um I

3:46:17think my question is uh

3:46:19similar to the policy question that's

3:46:21included in the staff report, um which

3:46:23is that during the uh budget

3:46:25presentation way back in gosh, was that

3:46:27May earlier April

3:46:30of this year?

3:46:31And Jeff's like, "Mhm."

3:46:34>> [laughter]

3:46:34>> Um the library was contemplating issuing

3:46:37a $40 million bond and now that's uh

3:46:40nearly doubled and so wanted to

3:46:42understand what led to that change in

3:46:45what's being proposed. And then related

3:46:48to that, as you are thinking about an uh

3:46:50an increase in the total um bonds that

3:46:53would be issued, $80 million in here,

3:46:55are you also thinking about a

3:46:57subsequential uh increase in the goals

3:46:59that you're setting for the capital

3:47:00campaign and fundraising?

3:47:02>> It's a good question, Council Member.

3:47:03Thanks. Um and I I don't know Jeff if

3:47:06you wanted to maybe come up as well to

3:47:09share a little bit about increasing

3:47:11costs. Council Member Carlson, when we

3:47:13were asked to provide kind of early

3:47:15estimates around the overall cost of the

3:47:16buildings, it was it was very early in

3:47:19the process. We did as best as we could

3:47:21when we were

3:47:22asked of those, but it was before

3:47:24engagement was completed and before the

3:47:27actual concept designs were finished.

3:47:30And so um

3:47:31that that was that was our best guest

3:47:34estimate at the time. It didn't include

3:47:36the and maybe Jeff you can speak a

3:47:39little bit to kind of our cost

3:47:40estimators that you all have worked

3:47:42with. It didn't include all of the

3:47:44expense related to soil stabilization on

3:47:46the Anderson Foothill site which which

3:47:48is substantial. Um and we also wanted to

3:47:51make sure we included in this final

3:47:53estimate inflated 2031 dollar amounts.

3:47:56It increases by about 5% every single

3:47:59year.

3:48:00As well as

3:48:02making sure we're accounting for

3:48:03contingency funds.

3:48:06Uh related to your question around

3:48:08capital campaign,

3:48:09uh, 100% we we are dedicated to try to

3:48:12raise as much as we can through PIF for

3:48:14philanthropy.

3:48:16Uh, we have a dedicated Salt Lake City

3:48:19Library Foundation board that this is

3:48:21their singular task. Uh, we have a

3:48:23growing board that knows that this is

3:48:25their task. And so our our goal is for

3:48:29that $5 million to be a a floor and we

3:48:33we were already in conversation with

3:48:34folks around potential naming

3:48:36opportunities that could exceed that. So

3:48:38our hope would be to be able to raise

3:48:39more.

3:48:40Would you add anything, Jeff?

3:48:43>> Yeah, I would I would just add that the

3:48:46um, as we did look at the costs for all

3:48:49of these facilities,

3:48:50um, it was before we had finished the

3:48:53design engagement with the community

3:48:55which was really important as we reached

3:48:57out and tried to understand not just

3:49:00what the, you know, hopes and dreams

3:49:02were but what the actual needs are. And,

3:49:05um, in the case of, um, Anderson

3:49:08Foothill specifically, we knew about the

3:49:11soils,

3:49:12um, but we weren't sure exactly how we

3:49:14were going to approach that. Um, we

3:49:16ended up combining that with a parking

3:49:18solution which was really important to

3:49:20the community and which we think will be

3:49:23actually a a cost uh, efficient way to

3:49:26deal with the soils that has has done

3:49:28that but that did, um, once we got that

3:49:31our arms around that, uh, increase some

3:49:33of the costs. Um, also some of the needs

3:49:36in both uh, the Day Riverside and the

3:49:39Anderson Foothill,

3:49:41um, from that point forward increased

3:49:44the size slightly of those buildings

3:49:46which also does give some increase in

3:49:49cost but it's really to meet those needs

3:49:52of the communities. And then as Noah

3:49:54mentioned, there were also a number of

3:49:57uh, contingencies that we wanted to make

3:49:58sure in place so that uh, we're not in

3:50:01the middle of um you know, design and

3:50:04construction and

3:50:06um that uh um there there isn't the

3:50:08funds to

3:50:10um do the right thing for the project.

3:50:14>> Mr. Jeff.

3:50:19Mr. Dugan.

3:50:20>> Appreciate the the conversation. I

3:50:22appreciate you reaching out to all of

3:50:23us.

3:50:24Uh

3:50:24again, you know, when you walk through

3:50:25these libraries, you you know, you

3:50:27realize how important they are. And uh

3:50:30all the major cities have the great

3:50:32libraries and so it is sad that Anderson

3:50:34Foothill, cuz I love the way it sits

3:50:36there, it's got bad, you know,

3:50:40bones, I I guess.

3:50:42It's sitting on bad bad bones, right? So

3:50:45that that and it's also kind of

3:50:47uh

3:50:48you know, worse than that, we don't know

3:50:51when that

3:50:53could cause more problems and we end up

3:50:55basically having to close it.

3:50:56Cuz that would be a great loss to that

3:50:58area and a great loss for the city

3:51:00itself. And the same thing, you know, uh

3:51:02uh the Riverside, you know, great land

3:51:04around it.

3:51:05You should expand it so that it's all

3:51:07one big community space cuz then you

3:51:08look at that whole place and that's

3:51:10like, I want to live there. You take a

3:51:11little bridge across the river and

3:51:13that's a great place to play outside and

3:51:16go in and grab a book

3:51:18and then something to eat. So uh

3:51:20yeah, it's seems like it's a daunting

3:51:23big bill, uh but if we uh don't have

3:51:26this, we really lose a, you know, a a

3:51:28part of our soul of the city.

3:51:31>> Councilwoman Young.

3:51:32>> Thank you. Um I appreciate all of the

3:51:35efforts that's gone into this, um

3:51:37including kind of the scoping and and

3:51:39understanding um what the individual

3:51:41costs are project by project. I think I

3:51:44would just want the opportunity to

3:51:46reflect. It's not a question of like, do

3:51:49we do we want to do this? Because I

3:51:51think that the clear answer you're

3:51:52hearing is like, oh, of course. Like, we

3:51:54would love to have better libraries,

3:51:56better infrastructure, you know, that

3:51:58supports increased usage across the

3:52:00community, especially in the key areas

3:52:02that you highlighted related to early

3:52:04literacy, you know, um being able to

3:52:07access reliable Wi-Fi, um and computer

3:52:10and tech support. And that is so

3:52:11important. Where I um continue to to

3:52:16grapple with this is just where it sits

3:52:20in the broader conversation of the other

3:52:23existing city needs and bonds. Um and

3:52:26that's the piece that's really

3:52:28challenging for me. Um you know, if we

3:52:31had unlimited resources, I think again

3:52:34it would be like an easy yes. Um being

3:52:37that we we don't, I think that for me it

3:52:40is about looking at the comprehensive

3:52:42city landscape. What other bonds are

3:52:44being considered and how we then factor

3:52:47those into a prioritized list of what is

3:52:50possible. Um I know that um final

3:52:53property tax assessments came in the

3:52:56mail this week because a constituent who

3:52:59lives in my household directly

3:53:01confronted me with ours.

3:53:03Um you know, and so as we as we

3:53:06consider, like I said, those impacts and

3:53:09that they're coming from multiple

3:53:11aspects, you know, across the community,

3:53:14the school board as well as the county,

3:53:16um that's just something that I'm trying

3:53:18to take into consideration um as we look

3:53:21at this opportunity.

3:53:22>> Thank you, Council Member Young. We we

3:53:24certainly understand that and we very

3:53:26much appreciate the broad city

3:53:28perspective that you have to represent.

3:53:30Uh one of the things I would just

3:53:32underline about the projects we're

3:53:33putting before you all, you know, one is

3:53:36that we really are talking about with

3:53:38one of these buildings either staying

3:53:39open or closed. Two, and it is the

3:53:42highest use building in our highest use

3:53:44library in our city.

3:53:45And two, that we really are at being

3:53:48attentive to the kind of pressures that

3:53:50you and we know so many of our Salt Lake

3:53:52City residents are feeling in terms of

3:53:55um property tax increases and why we

3:53:58have been so intentional around

3:54:00leveraging private philanthropy as well

3:54:03as other potential funding sources to be

3:54:04able to help make these critical

3:54:07uh

3:54:07projects happen.

3:54:09Thank you. Councilwoman Be True.

3:54:12>> Thank you for the presentation and I

3:54:14love at the Riverside especially how you

3:54:16are mitigating by using things that are

3:54:19already in existence and not reinventing

3:54:22wheels that don't need to be reinvented.

3:54:24Um my concern will continue to be and

3:54:27I've made no I've made no secret of

3:54:29this.

3:54:30Um

3:54:31I am in support of us moving forward

3:54:33with what we've allocated so far but

3:54:34it's an intent.

3:54:36If economic conditions don't change

3:54:39I cannot ask my neighbors to continue

3:54:41going into their pockets for things that

3:54:44are nice to have. I will ask you to

3:54:45figure out how to put you know

3:54:49like some like lofts or something in to

3:54:52expand the space that we have but these

3:54:54are these are things that um

3:54:58my neighborhood definitely uses this

3:54:59library. It was a lifeline during COVID.

3:55:02It continues to be the noisiest spot

3:55:04after school. It it when institutional

3:55:07trust fails in marginalized communities

3:55:10schools, [snorts] libraries and parks

3:55:12are the places that people repeatedly

3:55:14return to where we can rebuild

3:55:15institutional trust. So you're not only

3:55:17important for issues like literacy and

3:55:20like getting homework done. You are

3:55:21important at a basic civic level

3:55:24but also making sure people can afford

3:55:27their basic life

3:55:29is and very few of my neighbors will get

3:55:31raises commensurate with

3:55:34the utility rate increases that we

3:55:35anticipate with all of the other things.

3:55:37So I love how you've been clearly a good

3:55:41steward over what we have. You've looked

3:55:44forward with an eye towards maximizing.

3:55:46I'm very very, very deeply interested,

3:55:49especially at the Day Riverside, where

3:55:50we have the land to experiment, how do

3:55:53we leverage a joint venture in a

3:55:55public-private partnership to mitigate

3:55:58taxpayer burden. I would be more than

3:56:00happy

3:56:00>> [clears throat]

3:56:00>> because Anderson Foothill does not have

3:56:02the land to let the bond go over there

3:56:05and to allow us off the hook by

3:56:08leveraging city-owned assets and real

3:56:10estate assets to get us the library

3:56:13space we need without the taxpayer

3:56:15burden. And I know you're already

3:56:16looking at that. I'm putting it on the

3:56:18public record that that's something I'm

3:56:19deeply interested in and support because

3:56:22while everything you've said is amazing,

3:56:25while your institution is so important,

3:56:27our neighbors are just under extreme

3:56:29duress and we can't ignore that or hold

3:56:31our hands to the sun.

3:56:33If suddenly magically we have,

3:56:36you know,

3:56:38decisions that aren't stressing people

3:56:40out and causing gas to be $6 a gallon,

3:56:42cool. Maybe things change. But this my

3:56:44support now is definitely for the intent

3:56:48portion, what's already allocated, and I

3:56:50expect a really, really, really robust

3:56:52engagement before we move forward with

3:56:54anything else that could be impacting

3:56:56taxpayers in their month-to-month.

3:56:59>> Thank you, Councilmember Pedro. On the

3:57:01all the possibilities related to the Day

3:57:03Riverside, we 100% agree and are excited

3:57:05to dive into those in especially in ways

3:57:08that might kind of mitigate the impact

3:57:10on taxpayers. And to your point, I think

3:57:13that's exactly what we are looking for

3:57:15this evening is uh support related to

3:57:18intent. We We do understand that when it

3:57:21comes time um to consider the bonding

3:57:24required, that's in a little bit of

3:57:26time, and we recognize a lot can change

3:57:28between now and then. So, that is

3:57:29exactly what we're looking for tonight.

3:57:31Thank you.

3:57:33>> Um

3:57:34no more. So, I I would like to share

3:57:37that, you know, I I share the the hope,

3:57:40uh but certainly the concern as well. I

3:57:43I do think that um you know, our

3:57:45Westside library, you know,

3:57:47their Riverside need needs the the

3:57:49update uh big time. Uh it's it's a huge

3:57:53asset for the community and it's

3:57:55is busy almost every time that you go

3:57:58go there

3:57:59uh and you see all ages uh sometimes

3:58:02competing for the same space.

3:58:04Um I so we definitely need to invest in

3:58:06this community space and certainly I I I

3:58:09do uh believe that, you know, um

3:58:12the older library as well, especially

3:58:13because it's becoming unsafe as well. I

3:58:15um

3:58:16I will I support the general direction

3:58:19of this.

3:58:20Uh these are trusted community spaces

3:58:22and we want to build on them. I do want

3:58:25to highlight the the land that we have

3:58:27right behind the library as as a way of

3:58:30lowering the cost of this project

3:58:32potential with what you know, whatever

3:58:34the you know, um

3:58:36public private partnership or a

3:58:37different kind of tool

3:58:39uh to maximize the use. I also think

3:58:41more neighbors in the area would be

3:58:43amazing as well. It could be a huge uh

3:58:47um

3:58:48benefit to the library itself uh if we

3:58:50have some neighbors abutting it. Um so I

3:58:53more eyes, more activation. I I think

3:58:55that there's a huge benefit versus

3:58:57having land sitting empty for no reason.

3:58:59So um that that is my um

3:59:03my general support to to the direction.

3:59:05Thank you for the work, the community

3:59:06engagement, and getting feedback on that

3:59:08community engagement and I'm putting it

3:59:10on the on the plan. That that means a

3:59:12lot. Uh you know, a cafe that, you know,

3:59:14has is accessible to the community from

3:59:17from the street level. Uh a a

3:59:19bodega that's also accessible to the

3:59:21community where there is a food desert

3:59:23in the area. I mean, those those are

3:59:25very meaningful

3:59:27um

3:59:29requests that the community uh gave you

3:59:31and you incorporated them to the signs.

3:59:33So thank you for that.

3:59:35Council members?

3:59:36Okay. Thank you so much for the update.

3:59:38>> Council member Poe, or Chair Poe, is it

3:59:41would it be possible just again in light

3:59:43of the

3:59:44would a straw poll be possible for the

3:59:46City Council to conduct a hope would be

3:59:49just to get a general sense of the

3:59:51support in terms of direction,

3:59:52especially as we are working with our

3:59:55our philanthropic partners

3:59:58really to try to mitigate any taxpayer

4:00:00costs related to it.

4:00:01>> So, just a quick point of legal

4:00:02clarification.

4:00:03>> sorry. Yes.

4:00:04>> The um it would be a little odd to have

4:00:06a straw poll because that funding was

4:00:08already approved in the annual budget.

4:00:09So, I think that this what you're

4:00:12hearing from the Council is that they

4:00:13approved the budget in June and that

4:00:16they're generally okay with the

4:00:17direction you're going in. Just so that

4:00:19Council members understand, there's a

4:00:20little bit of a chicken and egg thing.

4:00:22Sometimes we fund Sometimes we wait to

4:00:25fund the architectural design for

4:00:27buildings until the Council decides on a

4:00:29bond. Other times

4:00:31the Council funds the architectural

4:00:33design in order to get a more detailed

4:00:35cost estimate. It sounds like we're

4:00:36going with the latter process this time

4:00:38and so, um with the budget that you guys

4:00:40approved in June, um I think and with

4:00:44this briefing

4:00:46saying what it is, um I think that the

4:00:49library is okay to go forward.

4:00:51Um it would just kind of be odd to have

4:00:53a straw poll for a budget that was

4:00:54already approved.

4:00:55>> Yeah.

4:00:56>> I I think like

4:00:58you know, certainly there are uneasiness

4:00:59for like, you know, with with any tax

4:01:02increase or like impact to the

4:01:03community, but these are spaces that are

4:01:05trusted and unloved and I think you

4:01:08heard that today. Uh so, we, you know,

4:01:10we love the work that you're putting on

4:01:12to, you know, improving these spaces.

4:01:15Uh so, I feel like that gives you the

4:01:17direction and

4:01:19enough to to move forward with with

4:01:20this.

4:01:20>> And sorry, with with the action with the

4:01:23discussion today, um it's just to be

4:01:25clear, nothing can bind a few a future

4:01:27Council on voting on that future bond.

4:01:29So.

4:01:29>> Even if we straw poll, right? So,

4:01:32yeah, thank you so much for the work. I

4:01:34I think that we're excited to share with

4:01:36this now that there is

4:01:37been here or recorded and and proposed

4:01:40with the community for more feedback.

4:01:43I anticipate good positive feedback for

4:01:46for this presentation. So, thank you.

4:01:48>> Thank you all.

4:01:52Council members, we are finally here to

4:01:56this portion of the agenda. There is no

4:01:57reports for me and I don't have a vice

4:01:59chair at the moment.

4:02:01And I'm going to turn the time to the

4:02:03executive director for reports and

4:02:05announcements.

4:02:06>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, we just have a

4:02:08few announcements. Um, the first is that

4:02:10at the end of this year, the term uh for

4:02:12Dr. Neil Vickers is expiring. He

4:02:14currently serves Mosquito Abatement

4:02:16District Board. Um, the council will

4:02:18need to appoint a board member to fill

4:02:20his vacancy. Um, interested candidates

4:02:23can apply through our website um through

4:02:26November 9th or the council can suggest

4:02:29names if there are names of folks

4:02:31obviously with the Mosquito Abatement

4:02:32Board, there's a desire to have a little

4:02:34bit more of a specialized kind of

4:02:36experience. Um, so please let us know if

4:02:39you have any names. Additionally, we

4:02:41would love if there were two or three

4:02:43council members who would be willing to

4:02:45volunteer to serve on a board selection

4:02:49um subcommittee. We don't need to decide

4:02:51that today. Maybe

4:02:54we'll let that

4:02:54>> Don't don't don't jump. So, stop, slow

4:02:58down, right?

4:02:59I I see Councilmember Dugan smiling to

4:03:02this idea. I

4:03:04Yes, we don't have to decide today, but

4:03:05I I hope that maybe you help sort

4:03:07through this

4:03:08through this applications and interview.

4:03:11Um, so I will ask that question in the

4:03:14next couple weeks.

4:03:17>> Um, the other uh announcement is

4:03:19actually a new um thing that the chair

4:03:22and vice chair have asked us as a staff

4:03:24to kind of do more of

4:03:27is report on some of the events or work

4:03:30that our communications team and our

4:03:33liaisons have been doing in the

4:03:34different districts. So, both kind of

4:03:36backward-looking and then

4:03:37forward-looking of what, you know, what

4:03:39we've done in the last month or two and

4:03:40what we're doing in the next month or

4:03:42two. Um, this is a very much an evolving

4:03:45process. So, if you have ideas about how

4:03:47we can improve this information sharing,

4:03:49um, feel free. Um, in the month of

4:03:52September, Council members Petro,

4:03:54Pooley, and Wharton hosted a canned with

4:03:56care event. 60 people over the course of

4:03:593 days and five sessions attended and

4:04:01received lessons on canning. That was a

4:04:04pretty significant staff lift, but, um,

4:04:06I think in future years it might be,

4:04:09um, it might be easier to kind of, uh,

4:04:12put on.

4:04:13Also in September, Council member

4:04:15Wharton hosted a spill the tea with

4:04:16District 3 event and participated in a

4:04:20tasting at the Marmalade Jam Fest.

4:04:23Um,

4:04:24oh, judging.

4:04:26Sorry, yes.

4:04:27>> [laughter]

4:04:28>> Um, in October, um, the staff, uh,

4:04:32manned tables at the Sugar Fest event in

4:04:34District 7,

4:04:36uh, at the Avenues Street Fair in

4:04:37District 3.

4:04:39Um, there was a District 5 town hall

4:04:41that covered topics like fire

4:04:43extinguisher training, sustainable

4:04:45energy,

4:04:46um, and an intro to the CRA. Um, in

4:04:49District 6, there was a town hall in,

4:04:52um,

4:04:53and the events included or the topics

4:04:55included the Temple Square open house

4:04:57and SEG's, um, development. Um, District

4:05:012 hosted a local business town hall with

4:05:03the Department of Economic Development

4:05:05to hear about factors, um, affecting

4:05:08them. Um,

4:05:09in addition, um, as the chair, District

4:05:122,

4:05:13uh, participated in meetings with, uh,

4:05:15SEG in Japantown community to discuss

4:05:18their proposed plans. That's obviously

4:05:20been a significant lift. Um, Salt Lake

4:05:23County is also working um, through a

4:05:25task force to understand better

4:05:26understand dispatch.

4:05:29And so

4:05:30Council has provided information to

4:05:33them.

4:05:34Some of the upcoming events,

4:05:37there's another spill the tea with

4:05:38District 3 event coming up in November.

4:05:41Council member Napier Pearse is hosting

4:05:43a college football rivalry themed street

4:05:46clean up on 300 East from 100 to 400

4:05:49South.

4:05:50Um

4:05:53>> [laughter]

4:05:54>> On November 20th, Council member Carlson

4:05:57is inviting constituents to join her at

4:05:58a District 5 serves event at the VOA

4:06:01Youth Resource Center to help serve

4:06:03breakfast. And then Council member Petro

4:06:05is looking into a Veterans Day event

4:06:08with additional details forthcoming. So

4:06:11those are just some of the things going

4:06:12on. We'll figure out a way to make this

4:06:14information more regularly shared with

4:06:16Council members, but this was the best

4:06:19we could do for today. So

4:06:21let me know if you have any questions.

4:06:24>> [laughter]

4:06:24>> Go use.

4:06:26>> Thank you everyone for participating in

4:06:28the meeting today. We are adjourned.

4:06:36>> [music]

4:06:45[music]

4:06:50[music]

4:07:05[music]

4:07:19>> Woo! [music]