Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hey, hey, hey. Heat. Heat. N. Heat. Heat. Heat up here. Heat. Heat. N.

Get started with roll Amy Barry. here. Richard Leverett here. Laya Rosenfield here. Brian Scott here. Anna Sullivan here.

Uh, all right. Let's go to the report of the chair and vice chair. Um, I do not have anything and our vice chair is not here right now. Uh, report of the director.

Yeah, a couple of things. Uh, one, um, I think some of you may know that Commissioner Veila was planning on his house was for sale and he was planning on moving to Montana. Well, that happened a lot sooner than he thought. So, he actually had he resigned from the commission over the weekend because he has to be out of his house by like Friday. So, and they're moving to Montana. So, uh, we'll be looking for that replacement um, as well. And if you don't know, he served on the Lmarks Commission for years. So I think he did almost two full terms on the Landmarks Commission. So he's volunteered quite a bit of time to the city. Um couple updates on city council actions. Um oh, so obviously the the big news was the city council did deny the zoning map amendment at the old scissor site next to Shirros Park last night. Um but over the last several weeks, they've done a couple other things. So they I I think we might have mentioned this previously, but they did adopt the alley and street closure text amendment. Um they also adopted the expiration of land use approvals amendment. So that um and then I think we've covered these other um recent the they adopted the fence heights and things, but I think we covered that at a prior meeting. Um and then they've had two briefings on some downtown some proposals to extend the D1 zone further east. Um one was a public hearing back in February. That's the one on 100 South and 265 East. And the other one on 300 South, they had a public hearing last night. So that'll be coming up. Um, and then also of note, but not necessarily directly related to uh actions of the planning commission, is that they did enter into a local agreement to extend the S-line and Sugar House. So, that's been funded and now everything's in

place to start construction and as a result, um the city CRA owns a couple of buildings, the old DI site and the old fire station and those will be um those demolition permits have now are underway. So, those buildings will be demolished shortly. They will not go out to develop those properties actually until after the S-line is constructed. just to make sure there's no issues with property lines and stuff like that. Um, and that's my update.

Great. Thank you. Um, we'll move into our open forum. So, if we any commissioners have anything that they would like to discuss, it's not directly related to a uh agenda item. We'll have 10 minutes. All right. We'll move on to our consent agenda for the evening. Um, which is approval of the minutes for March 25th, 2026. Um, and also the plan development and design review modification and time extension request for district uh north at approximately 523 West 200 North. Uh, so I'll open the public hearing for that. Doesn't look like we have any, so I'll close the public hearing for that. And then if we would like to discuss or make a motion.

I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. Second. All right. We have a motion in a second. Uh let's go ahead and vote. Amy Barry, yes. Richard Leett, yes. Laya Rosenfield, yes. Brian Scott, yes. Anna Sullivan,

yes. All right, that passes and we will move on to our work session community plan update schedule. All right, this is justformational for the uh commission um so you kind of know what we're working on and what our plans are. So, um Salt Lake City by state code, we're required to have a general plan. And our general plan, as many of you know, is made up of a bunch of different plans that all combine together. So, first we have plan Salt Lake, which is our city-wide vision plan. And then we have these various element plans. Um, these are just some of those that we have here. So, our community plans, which is really what we're focused on in planning for the most part, are our land use plans, and that's what we're going to go over tonight, but we have these other elements as well um that are part of it. Um the state code does require certain elements um to be in the general plan. So land use, transportation, circulation. There's a moderate income housing requirement uh that says water use and preservation. It should say water use and conservation. Um station area plans around our fixed rail um transit. And then all other elements are optional. So, cities don't necessarily have to have things like parks plans and things like that. Um, so like I said, our community plans really make up our land use element. We have 10 community plans. Technically, the airport has one, but it is more of a airport operations plan more than a land use plan because it's just one big land use. Um, and then we have 22 small area plans embedded within those um community plans. Those are plans that focus on either like a corridor or a few blocks that have very specific land use

policies. So, this is a map of the city with the different uh planning communities. So, these are where the community plans apply just so you can um get an idea and kind of orient your yourself. Um the the two most recent so prior to about 10 years ago, the downtown plan was part there was a downtown plan, but it was also part of the central community plan. And then the northwest quadrant had no plan. So we actually had an area of the city that was unplanned basically, which is how we got the state prison. Um so this is a list of all of the community plans and the year of adoption. So you can see many of these are past their useful life.

And so um and what I mean by that is a lot of them don't have policies that actually address today's needs or even today's values necessarily. And so that's why we've made a concerted effort to come up with a plan to get all of these plans, even the more recent ones, updated um within the next several years. So why do we update the plans? One, obviously state has some requirements. So moderate income housing plan has to be um updated and readopted every five years. Station area plans are required to be adopted as well. So these are for half mileile radius around every rail station um that is either within the city or if that half mile radius falls within portions of the city. So we have something like 34 stationary plans that we would be required to do. Fortunately, we've done a lot of them already. Um, and obviously needs, goal, goals, and values change. You know, 20 years ago, housing issues in Salt Lake City were a lot different than they are now, just as an example. And the world changes pretty quickly. A 20-year time frame isn't necessarily as relevant as it used to be in the world of planning. Um, so let's talk a little bit about what has been accomplished. you'll know a lot of this stuff. Recently, um the planning commission uh transmitted a the northwest plan to be um considered by the city council for adoption. This includes the station area plans for those trans those track stations that are on North Temple. We've also certifi or um have adopted the ballpark station area plan. um in under the state code, we can certify past actions to satisfy the station area plan requirements. And so we've done that for all of the stations downtown. That's like 11 stations when

you factor in um that's everything from 900 South to the North Temple vioaduct um station. So including both the tracks and the frontr runner stations. And then we've also got ex have received exceptions for stationary plans for six stations. Um one I think you know I think we went over this but a couple meetings ago one of those is at the airport. Obviously it doesn't make a lot of sense to do a station area plan when the half mile radius is the runways. Um we also got exemptions for the all of the stations on the campus of the University of Utah because they're not subject to our plans or our land use regulations as state land. And then we got an exception for a station that's actually in West Valley City, but a small sliver of it um of that half mile radius. It's the river station is in Salt Lake City, but it's separated by the 2011 freeway. So there's not really any benefit for that station to people in Salt Lake City. Even though the Jordan River Trail does provide a connection, it's fairly lengthy and not directly to the station. Um so hopefully you guys can might be small up there but hopefully on the screens in front of you this is our basically our annual calendar a yearly calendar that shows when we're going to start when we hope to have things adopted uh and then address the stationary planning. Um, one thing I didn't cover is that state code also requires us to provide a five-year um, status report on how we've implemented our stationary plans. So, that's something that is on here as well. Um, so to start, obviously, this is goes back to 2025. So, we have the Northwest plan, the Avenues plan, and the Capitol Hill plan. Um,

we've already talked about Northwest the Avenue's plan. That draft actually is going to hopefully go public next week and we'll start that um public review and adoption process. The Capitol Hill plan is a couple months behind that. Um, and so we hope that um we may not be able to get all three of those adopted this calendar year, moving down to the the first blue square under 2026. Um but we think that we'll have them all at least transmitted to the city council. Um this year we're also starting this an update to the central community plan. So central community and sugar house are the next two oldest plans not including um city creek but creek is primarily an open space plan. Um and so we plan to do that in this year. We've started the existing conditions and analysis of that. So, the reason why we chose Central Communities is that we already had underway a draft station area plan for the um Center Point track station um which also covers this the uh S-line station that is also right there and the 400 South stations. So, um that's why that's up next. So, how this works basically is we'll start at one year and hopefully adopt it the next year. And so our process is generally we do an existing conditions that identifies what's changed about the community, what the status of it is. We initiate our uh with uh either the mayor, city council or the planning commission to start that plan and then we go through that we have a three-phased um public engagement process for each of these plans. So um there's reviewing the existing condition so people have an understanding where their community is. Then we do kind of a visioning thing as

in response to that and then we draft the plan and then that has public engagement too. So 2027 we'd start two plans uh Sugar House and Westside. So um that Sugar House plan would cover the S-line stations that we also need a stationary plan for. Um and then Westside is not does not have any um stationary planning requirements, but it would be the next oldest plan in line. And then we move on to downtown. We threw City Creek in the same year as downtown because we don't think that really is going to be an extensive update. It's pretty much watershed protection area and is not going to change. Um the downtown plan, we've actually accomplished most of the goals in the downtown plan. So this was supposed to be in place for um 20 years and we've done essentially accomplished almost everything in that in some form in 10 years. So that's a pretty quick uh implementation for a downtown plan. And then we'll move on to the eastbench plan and then the northwest quadrant plan finally with everything wrapping up in 2031. So, this is a we call it a five-year plan even though technically it's six because we started it last year. Um, but that's the major outline. So, some things will impact this, right? This is our schedule, but our schedule often is dictated by other things and heavily influenced by it. So, um, obviously staffing levels and a and availability change. If we have turnover, if we have, you know, whatever happens, we have increased workloads when more development applications, it means we're shifting resources to respond to that. Elected officials obviously change every election cycle. Um, they may have different priorities for us. And so that

sometimes can impact our um what we're working on as well. There's outside forces, you know, for example, the Downtown Alliance, which is one of the kind of downtown uh a group that promotes downtown. Many of you have probably heard of it. Um they're doing their own kind of um plan for downtown right now. So, that may influence what goes into our our plan. And there's obviously changes to state code. Five years ago, we didn't have to do station area plans. Now, we do. Two years ago, we didn't have to do the water element. Now, we do. So, we don't know what, you know, this last session, there was a bill that would require us to include um impacts to wildlife in our general plans. So, that didn't pass, but it just shows that there's there's more and more things that are um added or considered adding to our general plans and then aligning with other element plans. So that's a big thing because our planning function as a city is divided into different divisions and departments. Coordinating all that is really really important. Um a lot of planning departments they'll do that all in one office basically. And so it's a lot easier. But because we are separated, we have to make a very concerted effort um and embed that into all of our processes to make sure that every city department that is involved or that has some element plan, we're working with that to make sure they're all um done in concert. Uh so after adoption um we've already talked about stationary plans but we're setting these up so that every five years we're going to be re-evaluating those existing conditions and so identifying what has changed, what hasn't changed um and whether most things are still relevant. sometimes policies may no longer be relevant. And

so by doing that every five years, we can actually stay more ahead and not get as far behind with changes in need, values, etc. Um, and so that's that's part of why we're setting this process up. And obviously that's going ideally we can institutionalize this so that it you know future staff, future commissions, future leadership of the city just have an understanding that this is how planning in Salt Lake City happens. And that's my presentation. Happy to answer any questions that any of you may have about it. So those small area studies, they're just updated as needed or or based on sort of

Yeah. more abstract demands. Yeah. One of the things that we've been doing, you know, for example, with the Northwest plan, there was the Rose Park Small area plan. We reviewed that and try to incorporate those policies just into the plan itself. And so if that's adopted, that plan may no longer be needed kind of a thing. So that that's that's how we try to do that. So, for example, that 300 West small area plan would be incorporated into the central community plan.

Exactly. That's kind of why you haven't seen it because we're like, you know what, let's we wanted to kind of pause that and do it as the station area plan and a general up at the same time. The council asked us to update the central community plan. So, we're like, let's just do this all at once instead of doing part here and part here. I'm a and I guess my my last curiosity is like how did like plans that were made in the 80s like never get updated? Was it just there was too much turnover in the city? Like what what happened?

Yeah, there's probably a lot of reasons for it. I think some of them, you know, like if you look at the avenues, not a lot changes in the avenues. It's just the nature of the built environment there. And so it hasn't faced a lot of the development pressures that say central community has or downtown or sugar house or most of the other parts of the city really. So there's there's lots of different reasons why some of them haven't. Some of it has just been staff availability. A and are we does the planning commission technically review the city creek plan even though it's mostly a watershed protection plan? Uh you would because it's technically part of the general plan. So you would have a role. Appreciate it. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. We will move along to our other business, the petition initiation regarding community correctional facilities.

So, I'm just going to stay here. Um you have the the memo that we put together in your packet, but basically um this was a request that the commission made and we put together some information to initiate that some background information and our kind of overarching uh finding I guess of the research we've done is and we've already talked about whether you know how state and federal lands aren't subject to this and so this would mainly be um the private types of operations or other government entities who are subject to our zoning. Um, and one of the things that we found is that in state code, if anybody wants to operate a a private prison in the state of Utah, they have to enter into a contract with the Utah Department of Corrections. part of that state code requires the what's called the local governing body that is our city council has to actually accept that location in their city by state law. So our suggestion for this is that we remove that from as a allowed use in the zones because we don't want that to be construed to mean that the city council has already granted their consent to having a facility and thereby adopting it has an allowed use in our code. So that's the premise behind it behind our recommendation. So Nick, are you um going to strip that from all um land use tables?

What's that? Are you going to strip that uses from all land use tables? That would be the the proposal that are existing would just be grandfathered. Yeah. So what we would do is that we would leave the use listed

in the land use tables where it is. We would simply delete the C that indicates it's a condition use. That way somebody can't make a claim that it is a unlisted use under state law and we're just closing that potential path. That way it's just the city we've already decided it's it's it's a listed use. It's prohibited. And then in your review, did you um find that what we have available in terms of ordinances and whatnot that the city council has enough tools to then address other things that don't require us to initiate something?

Yeah. Because we can't we they whatever we put in zoning wouldn't apply to what the state does or the federal government does, but it would apply to prison. And so if we don't allow the use, they've got to come through the city council regardless. So there there's the community correctional facility definition and and my apologies if I'm just misunderstanding it is a little bit confusing to me. Um it seems like it also applies to things like halfway houses or or drug rehab facilities if there's any confinement element to that. There are like a decent number of those in central city. Are those just do they not have the confinement components?

So most of those end up falling under one of our residential definitions. So we have the residential we have like the group homes, the residential treatment homes and things like that. Most of what is commonly referred to as a halfway house falls under those. We do have some that are actually owned by the state of Utah. Okay.

Um where it's people who are still incar are incarcerated. are just allowed to leave the facility for work and then they come back. So those would not be impacted by that. But things like you know you know a Odyssey House runs a number of group homes in the city. Um I don't know the nature of everybody who's in those group homes but they're not considered a community correction facility because the the people are not under um they're not one incarcerated, right? They're they have some sort of release programs and things like that where they're going out in the community and doing things.

They have release programs, but but are they still let's see the um I mean like some of there there can be judicial requirements for detention in in those recovery centers. Um but but they're not in they're not necessarily incarcerated by the state of Utah. So the other side academy for example that's a pathway an alternative pathway that program that they you so people are not necessarily when they're under the care and supervision of uh the other side academy they're technically not considered incarcerated right

they may if they violate whatever their conditions are of being in that program they may end up going back same with like Odyssey house and other providers too but but they almost always fall so like TOSA is a group home under our code. Most Odyssey houses are too, but there's some that are substance or basically substance treatment facilities. Yeah. But are are those facilities allowed to confine people or prevent them from leaving or is that uh if if they're for certain hours? Maybe. I don't know that. But we have not we have never considered one of those a community correction facility.

Okay. So, community correctional facilities really only applies to facilities that are contracted by the state of Utah to a private provider as a half or as a what might be called like a halfway house to for people who are like still under judicial supervision effect. I think that's right. I think what the state calls them is something similar to our term. That's why they so I think they call them uh community detention centers. Okay.

So, we have two or three of those in the city. All right. And so the the the the only the only ones that you that are in the city are the the community correction six community correctional facilities. Fortitude, Bonavville, Orange Street. Um those are the only the only ones. Odyssey House not not included um a separate definition under under residential rules. Correct. That's that's correct. Those uses also typically fall under fair housing. Okay. Um statutes. So that's how we address them. Okay. And why we address them as housing.

That makes sense. Um but those that kind of facility would never be able to use for be used for any sort of immigration detention or by the federal government for that particular

No. Well, not they wouldn't be able Yeah. They wouldn't privately operated. They would be subject to our zoning rules. So, if they fall under a group home or another um supportive housing type, that's what they would be if they're doing something else and they're and those also are things that are regulated by the state of Utah and licensed and things. So, that's one of the ways, one of the checks we have. So, if the state licenses them as a group home, we consider it a group home and etc. Now, if they're doing something else that either doesn't require a state license or doesn't fall into one of our land use categories, we'd have to look at the at the particulars to figure out what that land use would be. If it is something that is essentially a community correction facility, we would tell them that they're not allowed.

Even if that right, because like so the community correctional facility as defined by the state is is licensed by the state. a facility licensed by the federal government for private correction. Is that even a possibility under Utah state law? Uh, well, it probably is under federal law, but if they're a private operation and they're just operating under a contract with the federal government, they're subject to our zoning, which would mean that they would be considered to fall under community correctional facility. Yes. License or contracted by the state of Utah. It just says the state of Utah. it looks like in the code. So that would be my

federal federal law would address that, not state code. If it's a if it's a if federal government contracts with some entity to provide a service, that service provider is a private contractor, they're subject to local all local land use regulations. If it's the federal government land and they have somebody operating it, then the federal government land is not subject to it. Right. But I'm I'm just saying that like yes, it would be subject to our zoning code, but currently the definition of community correctional facility only applies to facilities licensed or contracted by the state of Utah, right?

So, and that that would mean that a facility licensed or contracted by the federal government would potentially fall in a gray area. No, it wouldn't because to operate in Salt Lake City as a community correction facility, they would have to also have some contract with the state to do it. They cannot just do it the operate on their own just because they have a federal contract. There's lots of service providers, private companies that provide services to the federal government that are subject to local land use regulations. So, if we don't allow the use, they could not come in and do that. But if if the state of Utah basically said, well, you know, federal facilities, federal correctional facilities don't need to get a state license.

It doesn't matter. That private entity operating on privately owned land is subject to our zoning. I I understand that it's subject to our zoning broadly. I'm trying to figure out because the definition of community correctional facility says an institutional facility licensed or contracted by the state of Utah.

I I think I understand your question, Commissioner Rosenfeld. So, I mean, these these things are tied together. So if the state changed the law such that you no longer had to have a license from the state of Utah, then we could change our code to account for other sources of lensure. They're connected right now. We want to make them connected, right? A private correctional facility has to get a license from the state. That's why our code definition references that license from the state. If the state changed the state law, we could change city code to reflect some alternate potential licenser scheme.

I I really worry about the timeline there to be honest just given how quickly this current ICE facility has moved and how quickly the federal government is moving. Um like the I I worry that we could get caught flatfooted. Um, and so I wonder and and I guess this relates to another question like I wonder if we can put a series of triggers in here. Um, which basically say like if the state of Utah removes lensure requirements from f from, you know, correctional facilities that are operated by the federal government, then those also are included under community correctional facilities. But also um if you know and I don't actually expect this to happen but it's still worth I think talking about it. If um state code 1020305 is modified such that we are allowed to reg regulate federal uses then I think it would be helpful for us to have a a trigger in our in our zoning code. Well, the federal law would have to change too for federal land to be subject to local land use regulations. So, that's not going to happen.

That's fair. Um, I I would like to add that that trigger with regard to to the federal question as you know to our um motion if that is all right with other folks. But I think I will open up the space for other people to share their thoughts. At this point, I don't see what's in our circle of purview. I think we're we're we're making rules and discussing rules now, but there's nothing inside of that potential. There's no potential inside of that circle that we're trying to regulate. Like there's nothing like there's nothing we can do. There's nothing the city could do to stop a federal or state correctional facility. Well, it doesn't

even from a private standpoint, you wouldn't structure a deal that would give the city power over it. Just wouldn't make sense as any operator. So, we would we could draft something that would give the city power to to to stop it, but no operator would opt into that when the other way is equally feasible. How someone someone would have to opt into wanting it not to happen to make it happen. Does that make sense? Like as an operator, you would have to say, "Let's structure it so we have to go to the city when the city doesn't want us." When you don't have to structure it that way at all.

Well, you would have to sell the land to the federal government as a private operator in order to structure it in a way that was allowed to be built.

That's one way. There are many other ways the federal government can be on the land operating and just have a private contract to do everything inside the facility. You could you could give the land to the federal government and you there are many ways to do it to avoid this all which are cheaper and easier than us doing this and someone trying to avoid it. So I think that this causes more and and so that that's that's one issue I have that we're drawing a circle around something that's nothing nothing will ever be in that circle. The second piece is this seems like legislation unless it comes from the city council. I don't think we should step into legislating anything. those two parts. For me, I I guess where I'm at is right now the the federal government is it's attacking our neighbors. And I I think that for for me it feels like anybody who has any sort of power or ability or mechanism of control over any of the levels of municipal or state level government um at least for me it feels like a moral obligation to drag our heels in every way possible. So perhaps yes it is it is possible to work around this but it's like one more annoyance. It's one more slowdown. And if everybody starts dragging their heels, then that can slow down the the machinery that is that is currently like kidnapping our neighbors. And that that matters a lot. Um, so I I'm like, you know, when you see me taking the stab at in the direction of, you know, can we create a trigger law? Can we, you know, do X, Y, or Z? It's

because I think right now it's on all of us as individuals and as as a community to to try and stop this process of of repression.

I won't disagree with that, but I think we have to look at the mean. If there was something before the city c something before the city council something before the planning commission that would go down that road then we have you know lots of tools we can use even by not showing up and not having a quorum not being present that drags it down this is not that it's two separate sort of things you got to see what like what we have in our toolbox to use and I think this doesn't this doesn't give us anything in the toolbox it's just like this creates a lot more work for people and it doesn't solve anything. It it's it's even a bad signal because it's showing it's it's it's it would be yeah it's just it's it's legislating in a space we have no business in as a planning commission but also it's just ineffective as a as a piece of legislation or as as a as a change to the code. So, I I I think, you know, I I definitely I stand with you in that something has to be done, but this is not one of those things that I I think it doesn't move the needle. It doesn't slow things down. It slows us down. It puts a target on our back. It does a lot of things, but I I don't think it I don't think it does anything functionally. I don't think it would ever do anything functionally. um kind of somewhere in between those two, but I I lean a little bit more towards it being it it being something that kind of blocks something that doesn't happen. And my my only concern is um similar to

what you were talking about how the definitions overlap between smaller rehabs and um other kinds of facilities, right? Like I worry that doing this would not end up preventing something like that, but end up making it harder for someone to build a halfway home like the 300 bed one. But that has not happened in the city. So if you look at where the community correction use is allowed.

It's primarily in our M1 zone, there's a small small few blocks of MU11 where it would might be allowed because it used to be allowed in the CG zone, but it's prohibited within a half mile of a residential zone. So that eliminates almost all the MU 11. We have dozens of various residential treatment homes that we have properly allowed as a land use that have not fallen into the community correction facility category. So I understand what's being said,

but we do not have an issue with that based on how our other land uses are drafted. They more closely align with those uses than they do a community correction facility. Okay. So, the three that are in the city are though like are those just non-conforming uses that have been there? No, they're they're stateowned and operated. Oh, they're stateowned. They're not subject to it. Okay. Gotcha. Okay. Yeah. Um Okay, that makes sense.

All right. For the sake of argument, I I'll let's say if someone came in and said part of Salt Lake City's existing Salt Lake City Police Department, Salt Lake City's correctional regular correctional budget, whatever is in there for housing inmates within the city had a plan to do it and save money, but it was going to be a private operator. And it was some new model approach that's really in line with reducing recidivism and had another a lot of other pieces in it. That's not a halfway house. is actually it's it's a jail, but it's something new, modern, and innovative that progressives would be for. By having this, we'd be eliminating that possibility from ever happening if the city ever wanted to do that because we're only affecting what happens within the city in that way under the city's purview.

If the city wanted to do it, we have the ability to change the code. If something like that ever came up, yeah, but we we'd be signaling that we would never want anything like that by removing it. And that's the only thing we're actually in power in control of right now. all the other bad stuff and the boogeymen that we're trying to stop. We don't control. We only control what's happening, what we have control under the city, which is I think everyone speaking in line and having the same sort of feeling and direction that we want to go in. So, I'm going to go back. I just did that for exercise this time. Sorry, I didn't

just trying to trying to describe what would be in that circle if it's something in the circle. Now, so I'm I'm going to go back to that provision in state code that requires the city council to give consent to a private community correction facility being located in the city. By having that in our zoning, it can reasonably construed to mean that the council has given that consent because they've allowed that as a use. And so what we're proposing to do and asking the planning providing the planning commission that information is to take that use out of our land use code so that we've eliminated that possibility of somebody making that argument. Instead, they would have to go to the city council and the city council can decide if that's a use that's appropriate in the city. I mean, I do think that's a that is beneficial on its own, but you you talk about the the the examples ultimately private prison facilities do exist and ICE does contract with private prison facilities, right? They're run by these companies, Core Civic, um God, GEO Group, right, that that are monstrous. they often have far far worse rights records than um than the entities, you know, that than than public entities. Um a and they often own their own land. So that would be foreclosing that possibility, right? Right. It would be forclosing the possibility of GEO Group or Core Civic or one of the other private prison operators coming in, purchasing land, turning it into a prison site, and then offering it offering its services out for contract to anybody to ICE, to the state of Utah, even to the city itself. Um, in terms of a a sort of hypothetical in, you know, incarcereral facility that um that might

be a novel approach, given that this is already a conditional use, um, and given that we would still be like providing the power to the city council, um, you know, regardless of your of of my my own personal feelings on on innovation in the space of incarceration, um, I think that it It probably rightly should be in the hands of the elected representatives of the people of Salt Lake rather than like the the conditional use process. It should be very very carefully considered um through a legislative process rather than through a a purely administrative process. So, it sounds like we're settling on if we move forward with this, we're eliminating the option for a for the use to exist MU11, M1 zoning districts as it does now, and anything would have to go to the city council for regular approval, but it wouldn't be in the code as existing already. showing the making the assumption that it is a use that they're willing to allow. So if you take it out then it has to go and it all goes to all goes to the city council.

If it's a if it's a private facility under Utah code then yes that's what the code says.

I'll just um jump in on the issue of the conditional use. So conditional uses have another set of state laws that basically tell us we have to approve them. So in this particular instance, removing a conditional use um I don't think I I feel like actually would help in then that proper decision making channels for a correctional facility. Because if it's administrative and it comes to us as a conditional use, there's very little we could even do to stop it. Whereas simply removing it from the land use table as a conditional use means we are saying this is something a correctional facility is something that warrants more of a city council review and for them to decide. whereas we don't even really have a whole lot of leeway on a conditional use to decide. So leaving it as a conditional use, I think is almost a de facto. Yeah, it's going to happen. So just to wrap up for me, I would entertain a motion that doesn't include any triggers but just does that removing conditional use of private prisons. Just to make that to get that off the books.

Sorry, can you say that again? It doesn't include what? I don't think we can include triggers to kind of loop in what might happen on the private prison or federal side. Um but I think we can make the we can eliminate the conditional use pretty simply. So basically a motion to um remove uh is it correctional facilities? Is that how it's spelled out? Community correction facility that the then we would initiate a petition to remove cor community correctional facilities from the land use table as a conditional use. That's correct. I I agree with that and I think that's clean

and it's appropriate regardless. Let's just take out the whole scenario of what's happening now. Any community community correctional facility should probably go to the um city council anyway. I'll second that motion. Oh, did I make a motion? I will. But I was just like I was just trying to clarify that that that is what satisfies your um your thoughts but also gets us moving to where you want to go.

Yeah. I mean I I I think that that's a that's the baseline and I'm perfectly happy to support that baseline. My my real concern is like a technical policy concern that I think that I worry about you know Geog Group coming in and saying we're not actually licensed by the state of Utah, we're just licensed by the federal government. Sure. And I don't know that we can I don't know that we can foresee all those things. Yeah. I will make that motion if we're ready. Okay. I would like to move to initiate a petition um to remove community correctional facilities from the land use tables in Salt Lake City as a conditional. Second.

All right. We have a motion and a second. Let's go ahead and vote. Amy Barry, yes. Richard Lebert, yes. Laya Rosenfield, yes. Brian Scott, yes. Anna Sullivan, yes. All right. Thank you. And that is our last item of business. So, that is all for the evening. Um, I believe our next meeting is the 22nd. That was so fast. I didn't even finish my drink. Heat. Hey, Heat.