Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

We will open up by taking roll.

Jeffrey Barrett.

Here.

Richard Leverett.

Here.

Lila Rosenfield. Here. Brian Scott.

Here.

all right um moving on to the report of the chair and vice chair um i do not have anything to report nor do i um and then to the report of the director uh the only thing i have to report is that we are working on adding more commissioners so we have forwarded some names to the mayor's office for consideration and i believe we have one pending in front of the city council so just THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

IF I MAY, ARE THERE IF I MAY, ARE THERE IF I MAY, ARE THERE ADDITIONAL VACANCIES SINCE LAST ADDITIONAL VACANCIES SINCE LAST ADDITIONAL VACANCIES SINCE LAST I WAS PRESENT? I WAS PRESENT? I WAS PRESENT?

I'M SORRY, I COULDN'T HEAR YOU.

I'M SORRY, I COULDN'T HEAR YOU. I'M SORRY, I COULDN'T HEAR YOU.

ARE THERE ADDITIONAL VACANCIES ARE THERE ADDITIONAL VACANCIES ARE THERE ADDITIONAL VACANCIES SINCE LAST I WAS PRESENT? SINCE LAST I WAS PRESENT? SINCE LAST I WAS PRESENT? SINCE LAST YOU WERE PRESENT? SINCE LAST YOU WERE PRESENT? SINCE L

Moving on to the open forum. So this is for commissioners to bring up items or anything that is not directly related to an item on the agenda. So we'll have 10 minutes for that if anyone has anything. All right. Then we will move into the consent agenda, which, Consists of the approval of the minutes for May 13th 2026 Commissioner Barrett We had a yeah, so sorry I'll move I'll move that we approve the consent agenda Lisa second I wasn't present I

No, I was not there. I was there, but the meeting was so short. But I did review everything, so if we need an official second, I can second that, because I did review everything.

Yes.

Yeah, OK. Yeah. All right, I'll second.

Commissioner Barrett?

Yes.

Commissioner Leverett?

I'll say yes.

Commissioner Rosenfield?

Abstain.

Commissioner Scott?

Abstain. I also wasn't there that week. So that does pass, though, I think.

Technically, you can vote for them, even if you weren't here, if you reviewed them.

OK. That's correct.

OK. I did. So I mean, I'll vote for it. OK. Great. All right, we will move on to our regular agenda to our first item, the zoning map amendment and general plan amendment at approximately 140 B Street and 272 East 3rd Avenue.

Yeah, I think I need you to unlock it, sorry.

And then you just click this when you're ready. Sorry. Your stuff's all right here.

Perfect.

Hello. OK, the microphone works. Sorry, as soon as I find the button to present, there we go. We will get started. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Alicia Seeley, and I am the planner representing staff and presenting this petition. Petition numbers are there on the screen, 202600034 and 202600008. This is for a zoning map and a general plan amendment at 140 B Street and 272 East 3rd Avenue. Just an overview of this request. This consists of two properties processing under the same application. The current zone for both properties is RMF 35, which is the moderate density multi-family residential district. And the applicants are requesting that both properties be moved to MU 2, which is the mixed use 2 district. The intent of the rezone is twofold. For the property at 140 B Street, it is to align zoning with the historic commercial use on that property. and for the smaller property, the 272 East 3rd Avenue, to convert the residential use into commercial use. Staff's recommendation is that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to City Council. The property location, again, is here in the avenues on the corner of 3rd Avenue and B Street. The surrounding zoning is primarily residential, RMF 35 for most of those blocks, and there are some nearby SR1A zones, as well as public lands and institutional uses. Most of the commercial use in this area is non-conforming uses. OK, so to give an overview of what exists on this existing site, on the corner, the large corner building there is the Ellerbeck Mansion. So this building is a historic commercial use, even though it is in a residential zone. It is a landmark site and a legal nonconforming bed and breakfast. It's operated that way for over 25, I think, 30 years now. And the use of this property is unaffected by this petition. Right next door, that gray rectangle is the parking pad that serves this property. It accommodates up to six vehicles, and this space is the only off-street parking for the site. And then on the other side is the historic carriage house. This operates as a cafe, Cafe 140B, in conjunction with the Ellerbeck Bed and Breakfast. It opened in 2022. It was formerly a storage space, garage space, and it's also... The use of this property as a cafe is unaffected by the result of this petition. What is affected and what my presentation focuses heavily on and the reason that staff does not support this petition is because of how it affects this second property. So this is the house at 272 East 3rd Avenue.

Sorry, real quick. Can you close the little box?

Yeah, I didn't realize that. Thank you for letting me know. OK, thank you. So this is a single family home. It is a one bedroom home. There is no history of commercial use. There's no evidence that this house has ever been used as anything but residential. So this home was purchased by the applicants in 2024 and used as a short term rental. until they came under enforcement. Short-term rentals are not a permitted use in the RMF 35 zone. They came under enforcement. It is now a 30-day rental. And the applicants are proposing to change the zoning designation to MU2 on this property to expand their commercial use. so just so we're clear on what is on the table here if this zoning map amendment and general plan amendment are approved the house at 272 east third avenue will be approved for any use permitted under mu2 and the applicants do have a specific proposal of how they want to use the property but we are permitting it for anything under mu2 cafe 140b will continue to operate as it does today and the ellerbeck mansion will continue to operate as it does today if denied the house at 272 will remain residential while the other two properties will be able to continue operating as they do today So just to get a sense of the use changes that would be possible with a change to MU2, here is the entire, this and the next few slides are the entire land use tables showing what is currently permitted and not permitted in RMF35 and comparing that to what is permitted and not permitted in MU2. So any of these uses, that show an X in RMF35 and MU2 would be allowed. This is less change. These are mostly the residential dwelling uses. And here, more commercial-focused uses that would be allowed on this property. And then finally, I've highlighted here restaurant and retail, which is what the applicants are proposing to use this single-family home for. I've also highlighted short-term rental, just so the commission should be aware that is a permitted use under MU2. Okay, the community benefit that the applicants are proposing is that the change of use to expand their existing business is providing commercial space for local businesses or charitable organizations. In this case, they themselves are the local business. This particular benefit is set up, and you can see the language here, so that generally a private property owner usually allocates a percentage of space to a separate organization, which makes this proposal a little bit difficult to evaluate. But generally, staff's evaluation is that, yes, they are a local business. However, the community benefit was not designed so that the party benefiting from the change and the private property owner are one and the same. um i should mention here in the staff report does mention a promise of donations to local charitable organizations that is no longer part of the petition and so the community benefit should be evaluated solely on whether or not they meet this criteria for providing commercial space for local businesses and all the factors that that entails Community input was largely in support of this change. I received a lot of emails from, sorry let me move this mouse, okay. I received a lot of emails from community members telling me how much they love Cafe 140B, the existing business that these applicants run, and a lot of appreciation for what the owners have done. Many of the public comments also expressed a desire for more walkable neighborhood retail, and they feel that Cafe 140B is a great example of the kind of neighborhood serving retail businesses that they love about the avenues. And many also expressed that the cafe is very popular, very busy, and that there is a need to expand to meet existing demand. However, there were several comments received by staff opposed to this zoning change that focused on the house at 272 East 3rd Avenue and lamented that the house would be in effect lost and called it an attainable historic home and would hate to see that convert over to retail. Several community members also cited impacts on the neighborhood that would result from a change of use on this property. In particular, parking and traffic were mentioned the most, as well as the trash and refuse generated by these properties, as well as some community members felt that changing the historic use would have negative impacts on the historic district. So city plans and policies Most of, all of these plans and policies up on the screen, Housing SLC, Thriving in Place, Plan Salt Lake, and the Salt Lake City Community Preservation Plan, all call for priority to be on preserving housing. I do want to read this section from Community Preservation Plan that is extremely relevant to this application. It says, since historic preservation typically increases property values, the long-term viability of these neighborhoods will depend on their ability to achieve a range of size and price in the housing stock to meet a variety of needs, including those of families, the elderly, and single people. and staff's determination is that none of these plans support the proposal and in fact present direct conflict with what the applicants are proposing as it pertains to this historically single-family home. The mixed-use consolidation in the general provisions, and now this is the the zone that the applicants are asking for. But the general provisions state that the intent of the mixed-use consolidation was to, one, preserve places for small and large businesses and increase the supply of a variety of housing types in the city, and therefore puts forth this balanced approach that we should have both and that places for small and large businesses should not supersede or take over the housing stock that we have. SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING STAFF HAS DONE SOME DETAILED ANALYSIS ON AMENITY ACCESS AND DISTRIBUTION THROUGHOUT THE CITY, AND THIS IS THE ANALYSIS THAT CAME OUT OF DOING THAT FOR THE AVENUES AREA, AND STAFF IDENTIFIED THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THIS B&B PROPERTY SITS AS A TIER ONE WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD, MEANING THAT IT IS AMONG THE MOST WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOODS IN SALT LAKE CITY. And the recommendation to go along with that was that this tier indicates that this area could support a greater variety of housing types to ensure that more residents have access to walkable amenities. The community plan, the reason that this is here for not only a zoning map amendment but also a general plan amendment is because the current adopted avenues plan does not call for mixed use or commercial in this area. It calls for medium density residential. And so in order to adopt this change, the zoning, sorry, the general plan would need to be amended. Now we understand that this map is out of date and we understand that it desperately does need to be updated. And so we, I'm sure you're all aware you do have a briefing tonight about the Avenues Community Plan update that staff have been working on over the past year plus. Now, I should say that using anything in this community plan update as grounds to support or deny this petition is inappropriate because it is not an adopted plan. However, because there has been so much speculation on whether or not the new plan will support this proposal, it's important to take a minute to talk about it. But again, it's not an adopted document. It cannot be used to justify opposition or support for this plan. But from the housing section in this Avenues Community Plan draft, The main stated goal is to preserve and maintain existing housing. I'll just read the excerpt. Actively preserving existing housing is important to help combat affordability issues and prevent displacement. Although the Avenues is a high cost neighborhood overall, existing housing, particularly older and smaller units, represents an important source of more attainable housing. So just in case there's any ambiguity, this new plan update does not support this proposal. If it did, if it was going to support this proposal, planning staff would have had the applicant wait until this plan was adopted, and then it would not need a general plan amendment. But for two primary reasons, one, the updated future land use map does not call for a change on the property at 272 East 3rd Avenue. It does say that a change for the Ellerbeck property itself may be appropriate, but for this small bungalow, it's not identified as a property where a business would be appropriate and a general plan amendment would still be needed if that plan were adopted today. Secondly, it's true that that plan calls out the demand and the desire for increased neighborhood serving businesses. However, the team that put that together was very intentional and very thorough about coming up with strategies and saying that new commercial development should be planned in coordination with housing, not at the expense of housing, and was very careful to recommend strategies to increase these neighborhood retail uses without displacing housing. And some of those, they've researched a lot of opportunities that may include commercial infill or accessory commercial units and institutional redevelopment opportunities that come with those to retain and retaining or restoring historic commercial uses as avenues to put more retail into the avenues without displacing housing. OK, so it may seem in this proposal that these goals are conflicting. On one hand, we have goals to preserve and increase the supply of housing. And on the other hand, we do have goals as in city adopted documents to support entrepreneurship and local businesses and industry to thrive. However, I'm here to say that we can have both. If a petition is supported by one of these goals and directly in conflict with the other, it is not supported by the overall vision of Plan Salt Lake and our adopted goals and policies for a balanced approach to growth. Okay, so for housing loss, I think I've already kind of touched on this. So in our standards for general amendments, there is a provision that says if a change results in a demolished unit, the future development may be required to replace the demolished housing unit within the new development. And in this case, no unit is being demolished. However, the change of use effectively takes that house off the market indefinitely and qualifies as a loss of the housing unit. And one of the primary reasons that staff cannot support this proposal is because there is no plan to replace that housing unit or to address the loss of housing we before recommending denial staff had many conversations with the applicants to see if they might be willing to provide some kind of replacement unit or explore that option and they were unwilling to do so mostly due to the constraining lot size. And as you can see here, the red line is the property line on that bungalow. And the footprint of the house takes up most of the property. So replacing it on site really isn't feasible. And that is the extent of the backyard in that second photo there. OK, as far as relative housing attainability, again, like the avenues plan update has pointed out, the avenues is increasingly unaffordable, especially for home ownership. The median home price in the avenues, according to the research done by that team, is $802,000 compared to the $615,000 median home price citywide. So it's about 30% higher. And this home as an older, as a smaller, as a more modest form of housing represents an opportunity that is more and more rare in the avenues for relative housing attainability. 42% of the avenue's housing stock is made up of single-family homes, and they're not being added to the avenues. Most of the new housing types we're seeing are infill units or apartments. And so allowing for these more modest homes to be taken off the market will contribute to rising costs of housing in this neighborhood, and it will be more unattainable than it is today. Finally, and I touched on this earlier, short-term rental use is permitted in the MU2 zone. If the zoning change is approved, there is nothing stopping the applicants from going back and continuing to run a short-term rental. If for whatever reason in the future the cafe is not viable or even not this property owner, the next property owner, Could just continue to use this as a short-term rental if this zoning change is approved Unless there is specific language in a development agreement that prevents that Finally the There was, in 2022, a petition, a very similar petition, was brought to the Planning Commission. This was a home in Central City on 865 South, 500 East. And the property owner proposed to convert it into a retail space, much like this petition. They addressed the loss of housing by proposing a backyard ADU. And the city council still ultimately denied the proposal. And importantly, this was denied prior to the adoption of thriving in place, which is the city's anti gentrification and displacement plan, which further doubled down on the city's efforts to mitigate displacement and loss of housing. Finally, it's we understand it's very easy to look at this proposal and say it's just one house it's one small house it won't make a dent in our housing supply that may be true but if we go down this road and allow housing units to be displaced for commercial use with no plan for replacement where Does it end? How many other housing units of these smaller, more modest types will be looked at for future investment opportunities and not as homes? Which again is not supported by any of the city's adopted plans and policies. And so given that, planning staff recommends that the planning commission forward a negative recommendation to the city council because adopted plans and policies do not support commercial use at the expense of existing housing stock, especially housing that is relatively attainable. And this proposal does not meet the factors of consideration in 21A50050 as outlined in the staff report.

Any questions?

Clarifying questions?

Okay.

Sorry, a couple of things. One, you mentioned that my recollection is there were in the in the the benefits discussion there there were dollars there was like you know i forget like a thousand dollars worth of event something and then maybe some kind of gift card that would be given to auctions but in your presentation you said that that had been pulled out is that correct

Correct. And I'll let the applicants speak more on that. But yeah, essentially, there was initially that was part of the community benefit was those donations. And staff had worked with the applicants and said that those are, while well-intentioned, really, really difficult to enforce in the development agreement. And they decided that they didn't want to include that as part of their petition.

Speaking of enforcing things in development agreements, the notion that, I guess, walk me through the notion that this property could be anything that was in your table on MU2 uses. Because we have a development agreement I thought that would limit it to the stated intended use. Is that not correct?

Yes, so the development agreement would need to be very specific. And it does depend on what the development agreement says when that is drafted. There's not one drafted because staff is recommending denial. But yes, the development agreement should stipulate

WHAT USES WOULD BE ALLOWED SHOULD WHAT USES WOULD BE ALLOWED SHOULD THE ZONING BE CHANGED SO I GUESS I THE ZONING BE CHANGED SO I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF DON'T UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF THOSE SLIDES I MEAN IT SEEMS LIKE THOSE SLIDES I MEAN IT SEEMS LIKE THEY WOULD BE LIMITED AND IT THEY WOULD BE LIMITED AND IT COULDN'T JUST BE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL COULDN'T JUST BE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL OR A MEDICAL OFFICE OR WHATEVER OR A MEDICAL OFFICE OR WHATEVER ELSE WAS ON THAT LIST I MEAN IT ELSE WAS ON THAT LIST I MEAN IT SEEMS LIKE IF WE WERE GOING TO SEEMS LIKE IF WE WERE GOING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND THEY WOULD BE CONSTRAINED, RIGHT?

YEAH. SO THESE SLIDES ARE UP HERE TO TELL YOU THAT IF YOU DISAGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND YOU WANT TO RECOMMEND ADOPTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL, THERE SHOULD AT LEAST BE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS TO ELIMINATE SOME OF THESE USES AS A POTENTIAL FUTURE USE.

Okay, that's fair and then I think one final thing which is in the staff report. There's a note on City Council requesting that staff do something with respect to mu2 on collector streets. Could you unpack that a little bit for me and and I guess IS THIS A COLLECTOR STREET? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT DEFINITION IS. JUST HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT NOTE WAS IN THE STAFF REPORT.

YEAH, THIS IS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. THIS IS SOMETHING, AND NICK, FEEL FREE TO JUMP IN IF I AM MISREPRESENTING THIS. BUT, YEAH, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL, THE CITY COUNCIL HAS EXPRESSED WANTING TO LOOK INTO. AND EVEN THIRD AVENUE HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP it will be brought up in the community plan update as an area that could accommodate mixed use, that could accommodate more retail. The point that staff is making here in saying that this is not the right property for that is saying that while it might be along a collector street that could accommodate more retail, this is not the way to do it, is to displace housing. It doesn't mean that every property along that STREET SHOULD CONVERT TO RETAIL AND DISPLACE HOUSING WITH NO PLAN FOR REPLACEMENT. BUT IT DOES MEAN THAT THE CITY COUNCIL STAFF WOULD GENERALLY BE OPEN TO MORE RETAIL USES ALONG THOSE CORRIDORS.

PLEASE SUPPLEMENT. I WOULD ADD TO THAT THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE RELAY TO THE COUNCIL WITHOUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE RELAY TO THE COUNCIL WITHOUT LEGISLATIVE INTENT THERE ARE TWO LEGISLATIVE INTENT THERE ARE TWO COMPONENTS TO IT ONE IS THAT BECAUSE COMPONENTS TO IT ONE IS THAT BECAUSE WE WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF DOING WE WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF DOING THAT MU ZONING CONSOLIDATION WE TOLD THAT MU ZONING CONSOLIDATION WE TOLD THEM THAT WE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS THEM THAT WE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS WISE TO START REZONING CORRIDORS WISE TO START REZONING CORRIDORS CITYWIDE UNTIL THAT WAS DONE AND CITYWIDE UNTIL THAT WAS DONE AND TWO VIRTUALLY NONE OF OUR CURRENT TWO VIRTUALLY NONE THE COMMUNITY PLAN PROCESS. THE COMMUNITY PLAN PROCESS. OUR PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO UPDATE OUR PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO UPDATE EITHER IN A CITYWIDE STATEMENT EITHER IN A CITYWIDE STATEMENT LIKE PLAN SALT LAKE ABOUT THOSE LIKE PLAN SALT LAKE ABOUT THOSE COLLECTORS AND ARTERIALS AND COLLECTORS AND ARTERIALS AND HAVING THEM ZONED MIXED USE OR HAVING THEM ZONED MIXED USE OR DO IT THROUGH THE COMMUNITY PLAN DO IT THROUGH THE COMMUNITY PLAN PROCESS. PROCESS. AND SO WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IS AND SO WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IS THROUGH THE COMMUNITY PLAN PROCESS. THROUGH THE COMMUNITY PLAN PROCESS. SO IF YOU MAY NOT REMEMBER like 900 West that included a lot more mixed use zoning than what currently exists now. So that's how our preference is to have a community conversation about what the community plan should say in that regard, instead of just putting together a proposal that probably changes all of those corridors.

If you'll briefly indulge a consideration, if we're looking at, it's a question, well, it's a, I can hold off.

Yeah, let's hold off. Okay. No, good. No, you're good. Will the applicants come join us up at the front table? And do you guys have a presentation or, yeah, okay. So you'll have 10 minutes for that. And if you guys could just state your name when you start thanks yes Kara Alden And I'm Tyler Alden

Good evening, commissioners. Kara Tyler. We'd like to thank Alicia for presenting our petition, and she's been really great to work with this whole time. We're grateful to have her working alongside us here. We own and operate Ellerbeck Bed and Breakfast and Cafe 140B. We took over the B&B in 2019. We've lived in the avenue since then. We have three kids who attend school there. And we see ourselves living here for our whole lives. We care a lot about the neighborhood and want to see it thrive.

We have a great grandfather. raised his family in the avenues and he ran a brick-and-mortar art supply store nearby and We love Salt Lake. We love coming from a tradition of doing business in Salt Lake. It's a good place to do business and We're proud to be Salt Lake business people

So Ellerbeck Mansion was built 134 years ago by Thomas Ellerbeck for his wife Henrietta. 140B is on the historic registers, as Leisha shared, and we celebrate our 30th year as a bed and breakfast this year. Since opening in 1996, we're now one of the longest running bed and breakfasts in Salt Lake City. We've welcomed guests who first came on their honeymoons and later returned 20 and 25 years later to celebrate their anniversaries. Cafe 140B. opened out of the original carriage house five years ago and has become a beloved neighborhood third space. Oops, sorry. We're really excited to speak to you today about the B&B, Cafe 140B, and the adjacent property at 272. The planning staff recommended no. Historic Planning Commission recommended yes. This is obviously a very important discussion, I think.

Yes. This is the map that planning presented with tonight. And this comes from the 1987 Avenues Master Plan. While I do respect that it is the guiding law at the moment, if we look at the avenues community plan that is on our agenda tonight, and which we've got right here, they do detail some things that I think are very relevant to this case that we would like to go into. So in this map right here, which planning used to demonstrate commercial and residential mix, You can see when we add the present day commercial use, it's missing about 20 businesses, some of which are also non-conforming like us, which leads to a zoning map where these businesses don't exist. The new draft of the Avenues Community Plan, the one on your desks today, however, we believe supports this rezone proposal. We'd like to highlight the four points from the economy chapter of this plan to show how our petition is aligned with the community's vision for the future.

First off, let's just look at 140 B Street. Currently, we are a legal non-conforming bed and breakfast. We are allowed to operate a non-guest cafe. However, this idea of legal non-conforming is not a good solution for businesses or the city. From the draft, let's read along in this section that says align zoning to retain existing commercial uses. Zoning can play a key role in supporting the local economic activities in the avenues. Currently, less than 1% of land allows for commercial use in the avenues. This is largely due to past zoning changes that converted many mixed use or commercial areas to residential only. As a result, many areas with existing businesses or properties with long histories of commercial uses are now only zoned for residential uses. That's Ellerbeck. This nonconformity limits businesses' ability to expand and creates barriers to secure financing. Updating the zoning designation in these areas to recognize and support these existing community businesses will help retain them. Legal non-conforming status theoretically allows our existing use to continue, but it does not give us access to capital, and it creates an uncertain future. Look at 2020, for example. The previous owner of Ellerbeck Bed and Breakfast decided to list 140B on the residential market as a single-family home. Could have been lost that quickly to the community. the community would have lost access to the historic building and the business would have ceased to exist. It's in the city's interest to protect this bed and breakfast by converting this parcel to MU2 so it doesn't just turn residential like it's zoned in this gray area. Planning states that remaining non-conforming is sufficiently secure, but we have had, as recently as this month, civil enforcement reaching out for concerns related to our zoning. Dated May 8th of this year, this is a shutdown notice for our cafe. Just 10 months ago, we went through this exact process with the planning department, and we were told we were clear to operate a cafe as part of the B&B per the code, which states... that a residential structure is designed to accommodate guests for lodging, nightly, weekly basis. A bed and breakfast can have an on-site restaurant that offers meals for guests and non-guests. Essentially, this one complaint from a neighbor evolved quickly into a shutdown notice. You need to fire your staff, lose half your income, and shut down your staple. There was very little due diligence done on this because the city just views this as a strange gray area where the zoning doesn't align with the use. Just 10 months ago, we went through this exact process with the planning department. We were ultimately told we were clear to operate the cafe as part of the B&B as per the code. However, during this process we even had one civil enforcement officer tell us that the bed and breakfast might be shut down due to our non-conforming zoning issue. This civil enforcement officer later walked back his statement and this violation notice has already been rescinded. However, these experiences stand to show us that we are under threat without protections of zoning that matches our use. This legal non-conforming gray area is confusing for the city And for us, as business owners, it's very insecure. Ellerbeck is the livelihood of 15 people alongside our family who rely on this business that many of them have worked in for years. Where is our legal non-conforming status even recorded, if not on the zoning map? It's like we're in this 30-year relationship with the city, and you guys won't commit and put a ring on it. For 30 years, owners of 140B, including us for the last seven, have put in investment, time, blood, sweat, tears into this business, and we need our zoning to match the long-standing commercial operations of this corner in a way that allows future investors, city departments, and planners to make solid, long-term decisions related to this property.

The second point that I would like to make from the avenues community plan here, The Avenues affirms that it wants more businesses in the neighborhood. They want to see more walkable, more bikeable retail to, you know, enjoy in and among their residential setting. And it says in the plan, Avenues community members want more neighborhood businesses and community engagement identified the lack of neighborhood serving amenities as one of the most important issues in the Avenues.

Just so you know, you've got about two minutes left.

Thank you, I appreciate it.

As the draft detailed, past zoning changes have converted many mixed use or commercial areas to residential only. As you can see here, these buildings have commercial facades, but they have been converted into residential spaces. In the draft, it says that there's not a lot of land in the avenues. There's not a lot of redevelopment opportunities here. We have to get creative with existing structures, like the cottage, to solve this problem here. Where are commercial spaces desired then?

So in the plan here, it states that there are some streets in the community where there's a high level of visible ground floor activity, like art galleries, retail, or restaurants that are desired, and it highlights these streets. So let's take a look at this map that we looked at earlier, and I put a star on Ellerbeck and 272 there. And it specifies that key streets in the community where enhanced active commercial uses are a priority include B, C, and Third Avenues, in addition to D, E, and I there. This puts us right at the center of where the city intends for commercial activity to go. And we believe that this proposal is in line with the city's long-term view.

Fourth, walkability, bikeability. Commercial projects should be designed to support walking and biking as primary access modes. Over half our guests of the Cafe 140B walk or bike up to the cafe. It's a beautiful community gathering space. The city has already invested in the public and infrastructure to support this corner. route right along our road. There's a station right in front of Ellerbeck. Third Ave has a beautiful protected bike lane already. So in conclusion, the Avenues Community Plan calls for a future focused on preserving historic character, supporting community storytelling, strengthening neighborhood gathering spaces, and using existing assets in targeted context-sensitive ways. We hope you'll agree this petition accomplishes all of those. We hope you recognize the investment work we put into the avenues at Hellerbeck and the cafe and align our zoning to match that. You can trust us to create a new business that the community will love at 2723rd. And we respectfully ask the commission to vote for a positive recommendation to our city council. Thank you.

Thank you. I will go ahead and open it up for public comment. So I will go through the cards that I have here. And I will, when you're called, please step up to the podium back there and state your name. Those are very different. AND THEN YOU WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES OR IF YOU ARE FROM A MINUTES OR IF YOU ARE FROM A RECOGNIZED COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION RECOGNIZED COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION YOU'LL HAVE FIVE. YOU'LL HAVE FIVE. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND FIRST UP SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND FIRST UP WE'LL HAVE JOHN STEFFEN AND WE'LL HAVE JOHN STEFFEN AND THEN AFTER THAT RUTH STEFFEN SO THEN AFTER THAT RUTH STEFFEN SO THAT YOU WILL BE PREPARED. THAT YOU WILL BE PREPARED. JOHN STEFFEN? JOHN STEFFEN? OH, I'M SORRY. OH, I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. I WILL JUST READ THIS INTO THE RECORD. MY BAD. JOHN STEFFEN IS IN OPPOSITION. THIRD AVENUE IS A VERY BUSY STREET. I OPPOSE THE ZONE AMENDMENT FOR 272 EAST. IF IT WERE CONVERTED TO A COFFEE SHOP IT WOULD MAKE THE BAD PARKING SITUATION WORSE. THE COFFEE SHOP OPERATES LONGER THAN THE CAFE NEXT TO IT WHICH WILL CAUSE HEAVIER TRAFFIC FOR LONGER PERIODS OF TIME. THERE IS NOT AN ADEQUATE PLAN TO DEAL WITH THE INCREASED TRAFFIC THAT WILL IMPACT THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE NEARBY. Next, we have Ruth Stefan, who is in opposition and against changing 272 to commercial use. Against a business with multi-parts open seven days a week next to a B&B and cafe already very busy. Traffic problems and people around all day long, parking problems. I'm against changing the B&B and cafe to commercial use. over B&B are operating under current zoning. Going commercial would allow them to expand and add to existing problems. When the cafe is open, you can't find parking on the street. There is no off-street parking in 272. Already noise problems when the cafe is open. This would increase if zoned for commercial use. Some events could be heard a block away. If these properties are changed to commercial use, it could set a precedent and could change the character of the avenues forever. All right, then Jed Butler, if you would like to step up and speak. And after Jed, we'll have Vanessa Brown.

Can you hear me? I'm Jed Butler. I live at 428 East Fifth Avenue. So I live about three blocks away from this business. I'm one of the people who would prefer to walk to a bookstore instead of order books from Amazon.com. I do read. I love reading. It's a great thing. So just wanted to note that. A point I'd like to call out, I feel like staff's characterization of displacing housing actually really strikes me as disingenuous. 418 B Street, 353 East 8th Street, 259 8th Street are all houses not being used for housing close by. They're not being used for anything. There's 91 properties on Airbnb right now that are operating legally, whatever you want to call it. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT story you know it's there's not a lot you can do with it so we're really talking about an abandoned house that could become a community benefit the next point i wanted to address is city planning's assertion that these businesses will continue planning op or will continue operating as they are today i also find that disingenuous I'VE SPOKEN WITH MANY BUSINESS OWNERS IN THE AVENUES AT THE AVENUE STREET FAIR AND OTHERWISE. LIKE I SAID, I'M A RESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I TALK TO PEOPLE. THIS LEGAL NONCONFORMING THING IS A REAL PROBLEM FOR PEOPLE IN THE AVENUES BECAUSE LIKE THE MAP, WHICH IS FROM 1987, WHICH IS ALSO THE YEAR I WAS BORN, IS NOT NECESSARILY REFLECTING THE REALITIES OF A MODERN GROWING NEIGHBORHOOD. So, for instance, Jack Mormon Coffee on East Street could also get shut down at any time. So I urge you to support this. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we will hear from Vanessa Brown and then Jared Brown afterwards.

My name is Vanessa Brown. Has anyone considered the man next door to 272 B Street? This elderly man's home is only feet away from the home we are talking about tonight. Tables and chairs would be set up only feet away from this man's front door. Patrons would be using these tables and chairs going in and out of the establishment on a daily basis. No doubt loud conversations would follow along with food and drink. I am in support of the B&B. I support the carriage house business located on the B&B property. Together the business is charming. However, I am not in support of this business moving to residential territory. Nobody wants to live next door to a daily frat party only feet away from your front door.

Thank you. Next we will hear from Jared Brown and then Jim Jenkin.

My name is Jared Brown. I'd like to state that in the future avenues plan on page 63 it says households in the southwest portion of the planned area have the highest level of access largely due to proximity to downtown. The lower avenues which are most neighborhood population are generally within 15 minutes walk of amenities. I can walk to five different coffee shops two blocks away from my house. My name is Jared Brown. I was born at LDS Hospital. I, too, come from Pioneer Heritage. My nickname's Downtown Jared Brown. I've lived downtown forever. I know what's going on down here. For years, the Alden have pushed the boundaries and crossed lines of the scope of their B&B breakfast. We as neighbors have had to endure these activities. This includes running of illegal music venues called secret sessions as written up in the Salt Lake Tribune. Then to purchase the single family house next door to rent it for nightly stays robbing a legitimate buyer of the opportunity as well as it is not permissible to expand illegal nonconforming use property and is not legal under M35 zoning. They did it anyway. Then they got busted. Then an appeal to the city for a variance. The city said no. Knowing a nightly rental would not pass conjured up the idea of a bookstore, coffee shop, pastry shop. What if there was no plan for a coffee shop? If the zoning changes to MU2, it could revert back to the most efficient way to make money. The 272 property house becomes a hotel honeymoon suite. It's a shame that our community has to start a neighborhood watch for white collar crime. Then came the Historical Landmarks Commission meeting. What did we witness? Four commissioners suffering self-inflicted wounds to their credibility, as well as the legitimacy of the SLC legacy itself. Where is the integrity of any of this? Then, a beacon of hope, the staff report. The Planning Commission staff report is a beautifully written document constructed by professionals with formal education, expertise, and insight. I stick with the staff report. Thank you.

Next, we will hear from Jim Jenkin and then Cindy Cromer.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Jim Jenkin. I am the current chair of the Greater Avenues Community Council Land Use Committee. I hopefully will not need five minutes. So this seems like a pretty straightforward application, the kind we see a lot of. The operators of a non-conforming business seek to expand their capacity by purchasing an adjacent property. They operate it. There's an enforcement procedure, and then they submit an application to legalize the operation. This one is very well written. I might have done it different, but I certainly understand why they went for the whole zone. The problem facing this commission is that it would result in the permanent loss of an avenue starter home from the housing supply and raises the possibility of the Ellerbeck Mansion itself becoming a professional building down the line, as has happened to some Salt Lake City B&Bs. It would also create a pocket of mixed-use zoning. I sympathize that Plan Salt Lake doesn't have much guidance, on managing entrepreneurial activity in a primarily residential neighborhood. Like the HLC, our housing committee was split on this issue because of the various lovely features of this property and the people who run it. So I can only state the conditions and implications of the application, which I believe to be correct to the best of my knowledge. I would like to say, Briefly that there are many collector streets in the avenues that have mixed-use development But to my knowledge, there are no collector streets in the avenues that would be appropriate to wholesale Rezone as mixed-use even partially Thanks.

Thank you next we'll hear from Cindy Cromer and then Willie litig I

My name is still Cindy Cromer. What can I say to persuade you that the staff report is the accurate analysis? The public clamor is for more good food. The basis for the clamor is irrelevant to the zoning issue. I want to say that I've owned a legal nonconforming business property for 50 years. I haven't had a great many problems with insurance over those years. I've managed to pay it off. I never attempted to expand the nonconforming use for a business property because I'm in the housing business. For 20 years, I've owned a fourplex next to a restaurant. The issues have been garbage, parking, and hours of operation. Supporters want you to believe that a restaurant operating four days a week for a total of 16 hours with impacts already on parking and garbage will not create issues under the M2 zone. That is not consistent with my own experience. The proposal adds a retail space as a waiting area for customers. It does not address existing issues with parking and garbage. The proposal can't because of the limitations of this site. The remote location of the kitchen from the dining room, the kitchen is in the mansion, the existing demand for on street parking, and the small amount of seating available in the restaurant. Because this is an enforcement case, where the applicant failed to comply with the existing zoning, I don't think it would be a good idea to proceed with a development agreement. And as part of my preparation for this, I looked at the Bs and Bs that were initiated starting 40 years ago in the 80s with the Brigham Street Inn by John and Nancy Pace. and what those have morphed into over time is very concerning they don't resemble the bnbs that they started out to be i think that's a pun um and i sent you a picture of one of them in the central city neighborhood in the historic district um sorry that wasn't electronic but it should be circulating around your desk thank you thank you uh next we'll hear from willie littig and then kim king

Hi, my name is Billy Littig. I have a long history in the Avenues. I was on the community council for 10 years and was council chair for two years. I also have been the Avenues representative for the Historic Landmarks Commission. And I moved the Avenues first in 1970. I remember hearing from a young couple that bought the home at 140 B Street. They were in over their heads having bought a house too large. Their only way of saving it was to run it as a bed and breakfast. It sounded charming. At the same time, the Brigham Street Inn and Hackson Manor were also being proposed in the area. I opposed all three of these bed and breakfasts in the neighborhood. I wouldn't want to live next to party lights and revelry nightly. The Elderbeck once a bed and breakfast has now expanded to include coffee, tea, bakery goods, and ice cream. This is what is described as commercial creep. I live in a residential neighborhood. We too bought over our heads and interest rates were in the teens. The appraised value has risen 20 times. We pay property tax and the city should ensure this area is kept residential. We do not need another bakery where we have a home. This site has no parking. The use as Beehive Cottage has been used improperly out of zoning and use. Please respect that we are as a neighborhood. There are close commercial spaces more suitable. We do not need this change. It is a zoning change. It would be permanent. We all know- That's time. THANK YOU.

WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENS. WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAPPENS. AND THEN KIM KING, IT'S NOT AND THEN KIM KING, IT'S NOT CLEAR, DID YOU WANT ME TO JUST CLEAR, DID YOU WANT ME TO JUST READ THIS IN, IF YOU'RE STILL READ THIS IN, IF YOU'RE STILL HERE? HERE? OKAY. OKAY. IN SUPPORT, THE AVENUES IN SUPPORT, THE AVENUES NEIGHBORHOOD HAS A NEED FOR MORE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS A NEED FOR MORE PLACES TO GATHER IN A WALKABLE PLACES TO GATHER IN A WALKABLE COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT. COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENT. WALKABLE SO THERE'S NO ISSUES WALKABLE SO THERE'S NO ISSUES WITH MORE TRAFFIC. WITH MORE TRAFFIC. AND THEN WE'LL HEAR

hello my name is emily sloan pace i was born at elias went to roland hall before it was the cathedral school i grew up at 181 b street and i currently own that property the historic beer mansion as well as properties on 4th avenue i love the cafe but i am here to oppose the proposed expansion the application is presented as a modest neighborhood serving coffee use in reality it represents another step towards commercializing and intensifying an already dense residential block without accounting for the impacts on the people who live here. The lower avenues already has five coffee options within a few minutes walk on E Street, less than half a mile away. The neighborhood is not underserved by coffee. What this proposal really does is convert another single family home into commercial property in one of the few remaining relatively attainable parts of the avenues. Given that housing affordability is already under strain, removing starter homes from the residential market for more commercial use should require a very compelling public benefit. I have yet to hear one presented. I also want to address the parking issue because those of us living near the current Ellerbeck experience the impacts on the days they are open. During business hours, street parking on B Street between 3rd and 4th is routinely consumed by cafe traffic. making it significantly harder for residents and visitors to access the neighborhood their delivery operations already create congestion issues on nearby one-way streets this proposal adds intensity without adding any off-street parking or meaningful mitigation i urge the commission to reject this proposal separately i am also the chair of the downtown community council but i am here in my capacity for this comment as a very close neighbor and property owner.

Thank you. I have a card from Mike Johnson. Did you want to speak on this item? Okay, go ahead.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I've lived in the Avenues for over 10 years. I renovated a house on B Street that's just a few blocks away, the historical Shetlar House. I have a soft spot for historical houses, blood, sweat, and tears in some of these houses. But I also live on the edge of the Avenue, or I also work on the edge of the Avenues in a mental health clinic. I'm a mental health provider. So I also have, I see a lot of patients who live in the avenues, a lot of young people who live in the avenues. And while I understand the need for housing and to preserve housing, I want to stress the point that as we expand housing, as we try to turn more units into bigger apartments or bigger units or allow subdivision of existing houses in the avenues, we also have to provide a space for people to go. And I heard previous comments, there's already coffee shops. But I would argue the ratio of places for people to come together and congregate also needs to go up. People are losing connection with each other. There's a lot of college students that come into the avenues from different backgrounds and other places. And the inn has always been a place, that cafe in the carriage house, where people can come and hang out as long as they want and have coffee and hang out. But there needs to be more space. Those things are getting overrun. So I beg you to consider, much like in European communities, how important bakeries, coffee shops, little tables, hangout spaces, not big restaurants, that's not what we're talking here that everybody keeps freaking out about, but creating much more small spaces where people can come and connect with each other, especially people from so many diverse backgrounds. I would beg you to consider that in allowing this tiny little expansion of this small house. Thank you.

Thank you. That is the last of the cards I have for this topic, but is there anyone else who wanted to? Yeah, go ahead.

Hello. My name is Victoria Baskin and I have been the hotel manager and innkeeper at Ellerbeck for the past five years. Every day I host folks from around the world and offer them a touchstone into Salt Lake City history and more specifically the story of Ellerbeck. I host countless staycations of people who live just around the corner or a few blocks up, celebrating wedding nights, their anniversaries, their birthdays. I consistently host families of neighbors from the avenues, folks celebrating their graduations, weddings, births, marriages, funerals. their families all stay with us and know that they'll be taken care of essentially like an extension of their homes just down the road in the last few years the bed and breakfast and the cafe have quietly grown to become a pillar of our neighborhood a walkable third space for so many in our community it's a gathering space for local clubs musicians teachers teachers from the multiple surrounding schools, a place to share a meal after a Sunday church service down the street. I've been part of countless conversations with neighbors in favor of the proposed rezone and in favor of a more walkable business. Folks are curious about what more we can offer them, and we in turn want to offer more. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who? Yeah, go ahead.

Hi, I'm Maya Dangerfield. I've been the manager of the cafe for the past two years and I live around the corner from Ellerbeck on 2nd and B Street and I've heard so many positive things about the cafe. Most of the people in my apartment building and the adjacent two are very grateful to have a walking distance cafe. It's the reason I know a lot of my neighbors and they're no longer just strangers. I've hired so many of these neighbors and we've created jobs for our community. Many of our staff enjoy a quick, beautiful walk to work like myself. We've had many cafe regulars spark up conversations that lead to friendships, relationships, even professional relations. I've personally never been to a restaurant that this happens so frequently at. It's part of the magic that I hope you've all been able to experience at the cafe. I've had many cafe regulars that are at the cafe every single weekend, some multiple times per weekend. We have teachers from the surrounding schools using our space to decompress. We have moms in the area that escape with our friends. We have large groups that come weekly after their service at the cathedral. We have many hospital employees coming in for lunch. Our cafe services all of our neighborhood, and I've heard nothing but excitement from my generation about the expansion of this cafe. The Aldens have truly captured history and preserved it into a time capsule that people can actually enter and be a part of, and it's why I've stayed under their employment the past four years. um also the comments made tonight i think a lot of the parking issue that these people aren't realizing is saturday sunday parking is a nightmare anywhere everyone's out of work and everyone's parking on the street it's our thursday friday days where our cafe is very busy and still very full be like our b street is empty so i think a lot of the comments are not understanding that the renters and the units around them the apartment buildings and the duplexes PARKING. MY PARTNER HAS TO STREET PARK. MY PARTNER HAS TO STREET PARK. MY PARTNER HAS TO STREET PARK. IT'S PART OF LIVING IN A CITY IT'S PART OF LIVING IN A CITY IT'S PART OF LIVING IN A CITY AND I THINK PARKING WILL BE A AND I THINK PARKING WILL BE A AND I THINK PARKING WILL BE A PROBLEM NO MATTER WHERE OUR PROBLEM NO MATTER WHERE OUR PROBLEM NO MATTER WHERE OUR BUSINESS IS BUT THANK YOU.

BUSINESS IS BUT THANK YOU. BUSINESS IS BUT THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? WANTED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM?

WANTED TO SPEAK ON THIS IT Could staff come back up? Thank you.

Mr. Chair, normally we'd give the applicant an opportunity to respond. Oh, yeah. Sorry, sorry.

I'm sorry. Yes. If you guys would like, you can take a moment and respond to comments.

Yes.

One comment or theme in the comments that I appreciate and would like to address is we very much would like a development agreement going into this. From the outset, we've anticipated that there would be an agreement with planning with the attorneys there to find the happy middle ground that's going to make this work. And so we do... have a very open mind for what that would take, and we would love to pursue that. Carolee, do you have any others?

Just two other things that came up. The donations piece that was addressed. We have that in our original proposal. We stand by that personally. It was the only reason we removed it for this presentation purposes was because it was strangely spun in an atypical difficult to enforce. It was used sort of in the negative light in our previous commission hearing and we felt like that was not looked at as a positive somehow. So we just decided to pull it out. But we hold ourselves to that. And we would love to put that in the development agreement. We stand by those promises. The other thing I just want to say is our neighbor Doug, the man that you mentioned, Vanessa, we're good friends with him. We chat with him regularly. We get along great. And we mow his grass. And so we really want to be good neighbors to folks. knocked on our fellow neighbors' doors. We've tried to invite them to the cafe. We want to create this community so badly. And as has been said, the cafe is so busy. It is overwhelmed with people. We serve people sitting on curbs. We have lines Saturday and Sunday out the door constantly. That is how much our community wants more space. So the fact that there are other restaurants or walkable spaces It's true, the demand is much higher than the amount of businesses that are in this area. This area needs more businesses, and I recognize there's a bit of a conflict here between the housing and business needs poll, and we just put forth that we can make this house an extremely valuable asset to our neighborhood as an open-doored community space. THANK YOU. HAPPY TO TAKE ANY OTHER HAPPY TO TAKE ANY OTHER HAPPY TO TAKE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THOUGH.

QUESTIONS THOUGH. QUESTIONS THOUGH. GREAT, THANK YOU. GREAT, THANK YOU. GREAT, THANK YOU. NOW GO AHEAD AND DISCUSSION. NOW GO AHEAD AND DISCUSSION.

NOW GO AHEAD AND DISCUSSION. IF OTHER FOLKS WANT TO KICK US IF OTHER FOLKS WANT TO KICK US IF OTHER FOLKS WANT TO KICK US OFF, I'M TOTALLY FINE HOLDING, OFF, I'M TOTALLY FINE HOLDING, OFF, I'M TOTALLY FINE HOLDING, BUT I'M DIGESTING MY THOUGHTS A BUT I'M DIGESTING MY THOUGHTS A BUT I'M DIGESTING MY THOUGHTS A LITTLE B

I think we all are digesting thoughts. Paper, rock, scissors to see who goes first.

You know? You're like .

It, oh. Go.

Ms. Seeley, right, Seeley, correct?

I want to thank you for your staff report. This, I think, speaks highly of the planning profession in terms of the careful and detailed and thoughtful analysis about many competing factors in this issue. I know it's often difficult to go against what maybe like the majority of comments came in, especially in recommending rejection, and I think that you made a very, very strong case. I have a couple of curiosities. First of all, in regard to the possible replacement housing. You said that there was substantial discussion between the applicant and the planning staff about potentially providing replacement units, and that it didn't end up going anywhere. I am a little bit curious about that. THAT SMALL PARKING LOT. IF WE WERE TO UP ZONE TO MU2, IF WE WERE TO UP ZONE TO MU2, IF WE WERE TO UP ZONE TO MU2, WOULD THERE BE ANY VIABILITY WOULD THERE BE ANY VIABILITY WOULD THERE BE ANY VIABILITY TO ANY SORT OF STRUCTURE ON THAT TO ANY SORT OF STRUCTURE ON THAT TO ANY SORT OF STRUCTURE ON THAT EXISTING OPEN SURFACE IN BETWEEN EXISTING OPEN SURFACE IN BETWEEN EXISTING OPEN SURFACE IN BETWEEN THE B&B AND THE CARRIAGE HOUSE?

THE B&B AND THE CARRIAGE HOUSE? THE B&B AND THE CARRIAGE HOUSE? YOU GO AHEAD. There's not much space for expansion. And obviously, expanding historic homes would have its own issue. There's potential for creating a basement AD, or not even ADU, but a basement unit that we'd be willing to entertain. It's just the cost. situation here for us as small business owners, you know, basically we'd be in the position to be sort of creating a new unit and opening a new business, and that's quite financially difficult, but there's potential for, if that is the hang-up here, we can explore those options. It's something we haven't got.

It's a small house. It's a small house.

I mean, it would be like a studio basement unit, potentially. It's unfinished right now, I should be clear. But we're open to that, and we want to address that concern for sure and mitigate the housing loss where possible.

Specifically to your question, Lila, about the parking pad and the feasibility of developing that into a home. So my understanding, and this is in the staff report, with regards to parking is that because the buildings that currently exist on 140B and 272 East 3rd Because they were built prior to 1944, they are not required with a change of use to comply with today's parking standards of MU2. However, building a new structure would be required to provide off-street parking, that is required in MU2. And with that space already being limited, that further diminishes the feasibility of using that space as housing.

So at minimum, it would be incredibly cost prohibitive because it would need to be like an underground parking structure or something.

Gotcha. Thank you.

You know, it's... quite nice seeing how many folks came out in support of your business and its expansion. I'm curious, did you like, and I don't want to imply any nefarious activity, but I'm very curious, did you discuss with community members? I like to see how people organize their community in favor of changes like this.

I mean, just the cafe guests who are, for the most part, local and right around the cafe, they were obviously notified by signage and we just added links to our proposal, which you have. Whenever we work at the cafe, we try to talk about it. We've talked about it on social media. I don't think it's so much that we spurred them to action as much as they just truly love what we're doing at the cafe. And when they heard wind of potential more business space or more walkable amenities, I think they trust us. I think they trust that what we're doing at the cafe, we can do it again. We can do a little bit more of that on the 30 more feet of that. So I think it's just they like it. They like the cafe. Thank you. It speaks for itself maybe is how I would answer that.

I appreciate it. Thank you for walking me through.

I WANT TO HEAR FROM EVERYONE. TO ME, IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE A LOT OF PLANS TO WORK WITH AND YOU CAN MAKE A CASE FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS AS BEING SUPPORTED BY THE PLAN. I KNOW THAT A LOT OF THE DRIVING IN PLACE AND SIMILAR HOUSING FOCUSED DOCUMENTS ARE very recent and and fresh to mind and and it's a priority of the community but i mean i i can't help but reflect that you know if this were proposed in my neighborhood i would be one of the letter writers in support probably but that's not this that i mean that's not uh i don't think that's meaningful to this discussion necessarily um And I think that, I guess one question, and this may be for you, it may be for you. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. HAS THERE BEEN TALK OF BREAKING HAS THERE BEEN TALK OF BREAKING UP THE, BECAUSE TO THE UP THE, BECAUSE TO THE APPLICANT'S POINT ABOUT RECENT APPLICANT'S POINT ABOUT RECENT NOTICES FROM THE CITY ABOUT NOTICES FROM THE CITY ABOUT THEIR CURRENT USE AND THE THEIR CURRENT USE AND THE ANXIETY THEY SAY THEY HAVE ANXIETY THEY SAY THEY HAVE ABOUT THE LEGAL ABOUT THE LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE. NONCONFORMING USE. WE DIDN'T HEAR TONIGHT ABOUT WE DIDN'T HEAR TONIGHT ABOUT ANY CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING ANY CONSIDERATION OF APPROVING THE UP ZONE FOR THE ONE PROPERTY THE UP ZONE FOR THE ONE PROPERTY AND NOT But you know that would And I think I know you encouraged us not to lean too much on the draft plan. But it's hard to not see it as context. And I will also note that right after telling us not to rely on it, the prospective plan for context, you cited other context that was in support of your. But that plan. WOULD SUPPORT SORT OF THIS MIXED APPROACH, YOU KNOW, THE UPZONING THE ONE PROPERTY AND NOT THE OTHER. SO I WONDER IF THERE'S ANY CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THAT. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING MORE THAT STAFF WOULD WANT TO PERMANENCE OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT VERSUS A ZONING AGREEMENT VERSUS A ZONING AGREEMENT VERSUS A ZONING CHANGE, RIGHT? CHANGE, RIGHT? CHANGE, RIGHT? BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS TODAY PUBLIC COMMENTS TODAY PUBLIC COMMENTS TODAY SUGGESTED ALMOST THAT, OR I SUGGESTED ALMOST THAT, OR I SUGGESTED ALMOST THAT, OR I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS STAFF OR DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS STAFF OR DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS STAFF OR PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT SOMEONE PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT SOMEONE PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT SOMEONE SUGGESTED THAT A DEVELOPMENT SUGGESTED THAT A DEVEL

outlive the ownership of the person's you know the the owners that signed said agreement and i wonder if if that's true that's a lot of questions but okay i will try to remember all of those questions but if i miss anything um please pose it again um so first the issue of of the enforcement and the confusion yeah there there was a case um as recently as today where um The civil enforcement confusion over the property came not necessarily as a result of the zoning, but more as a result of understanding the business license and the definition of bed and breakfast within that business license and whether that covers having an on-site cafe for outside visitors. That should have never been sent to the property owners. That was a mistake. It was rescinded. However, yes, if this proposal was just the Ellerbeck property, just 140B, it would be a very different conversation. And in the staff report, staff actually, or me, I actually did write that staff would support a mixed recommendation, if that was the direction that Planning Commission wanted to go. We did consider that initially, a mixed recommendation, meaning that we would support or recommend approval for 140 B Street and recommend denial for to 72 East 3rd Avenue, because that's where the big hangup is. We ultimately decided not to, just because of how the community benefit was drafted up to be only if both properties are rezoned. So there wouldn't be a community benefit just associated with Ellerbeck and some other logistics. logistical things but yes the avenues draft does say a lot about aligning zoning to buildings that have historic commercial use and that is the Ellerbeck property and so staff would support a split recommendation if that was the direction planning commission wanted to go

SO FOLLOW-UP, WOULD THERE NEED TO BE A COMMUNITY BENEFIT IN THE SO FOLLOW-UP, WOULD THERE NEED TO BE A COMMUNITY BENEFIT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE NEW PLAN IF CONTEXT OF THE NEW PLAN IF UPZONING WOULD BE CONSISTENT UPZONING WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN WITH THE NEW NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN OR WOULD THERE NOT NEED TO BE? OR WOULD THERE NOT NEED TO BE? BECAUSE YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT ALL THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT ALL ATTACHES TO THE PROPERTY TO THE ATTACHES TO THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST. EAST. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS DOES SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS DOES THERE NEED TO BE A COMMUNITY THERE I KNOW THAT'S NOT OUR CURRENT CONTEXT.

THE NEW PLAN IS NOT ADOPTED. THIS WILL GO TO THE CITY COUNCIL BEFORE THAT PLAN IS ADOPTED. ANY OTHER CONTEXT ON THAT?

ULTIMATELY WITH THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT, ULTIMATELY THAT'S UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO DECIDE. WHEN THAT WAS ADOPTED, THE REQUIREMENT FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS, IT WAS WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT INTENTIONALLY GAVE THE COUNCIL DISCRETION BECAUSE SOME PROPOSALS ON THEIR FACE PROVIDE A COMMUNITY BENEFIT, RIGHT? AND SO WITH FACTORS FOR PLAN there is a lot of discretion, right? Not every factor needs to be considered. Well, all of them have to be considered, but not all of them have to be complied with, right? It's a lot different than, say, a planned development where everything has to be complied with. And part of the role of the planning staff, the community, the applicants, the planning commission is to put all of that stuff together so that the decision makers can make a decision, right? I think we all collectively do our best to figure out what's ultimately the best path to go down for this city as a whole. So that's ultimately the final kind of thing, right? That all of those factors are supposed to be in. I WOULD SAY SO THAT YOU ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS NOT MOVING WITH SO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS ARE TIED TO THE LAND REGARDLESS OF WHO OWNS IT SO CURRENT OWNERS SELL IT THAT WAS FUTURE OWNERS THEY'RE PURCHASING THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND ALL EVERY ALL THE GOOD ALL THE BAD THAT COMES WITH IT SO THAT AND THAT'S TYPICAL ACROSS ALL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THOSE AGREEMENTS STAY IN PLACE until they either have an expiration date written into it or the council So there have been development agreements that had very specific use restrictions that were done 10 or 20 or 30 years ago that suddenly that property became no longer viable for that use. Those people have had to go through a zoning amendment basically to remove those conditions, to modify that development agreement or remove it altogether. So that has happened in the past. I would also add something related to the nonconformity. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMOVE THAT NONCONFORMING USE. THAT NONCONFORMING USE. THAT NONCONFORMING USE. GENERALLY, IF A NONCONFORMING GENERALLY, IF A NONCONFORMING GENERALLY, IF A NONCONFORMING USE IS SOMETHING THAT THE USE IS SOMETHING THAT THE USE IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY, MEANING I'M TALKING ABOUT CITY, MEANING I'M TALKING ABOUT CITY, MEANING I'M TALKING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT AT THIS POINT, THE GOVERNMENT AT THIS POINT, THE GOVERNMENT AT THIS POINT, SEES AS DESIRABLE AND ALIGNING SEES AS DESIRABLE AND ALIGNING SEES AS DESIRABLE AND ALIGNING WITH THE GOALS OF THE that's something that we do try to do probably not as much as we should but that's one of the reasons why we have so 1995 the last time the city had a comprehensive zoning change so many properties were made either non-conforming due to the use or non-complying due to the buildings because things like heights and setbacks all changed AND IT HAS BEEN VERY CHALLENGING TO ADMINISTER THAT FROM A CITY STANDPOINT AND AS FRUSTRATING IT IS FOR US, I CAN ONLY IMAGINE HOW FRUSTRATING AND WE HAVE HEARD SIMILAR STORIES ABOUT THE IMPACTS THAT NONCONFORMING USES HAVE ON THE ABILITY OF A PROPERTY OWNER TO refinance, to get other types of, sometimes even to change the use, all of those things. So for how frustrating it is to us to administer, I can only imagine how frustrating it is for the owner to deal with those things. Those are one of the reasons why nonconformity should be removed one way or the other, right? THEN I WONDER WHAT COULD YOU SPEAK TO WHY IN THIS CASE STAFF DIDN'T SUGGEST THE UPZONE ON THE ONE AND NOT ON THE OTHER JUST BECAUSE THE EXISTING PLANS DON'T IN THEIR CURRENT FORM SUPPORT THAT WELL SO THIS GETS BACK TO YOU KNOW WE ALL HAVE A DIFFERENT ROLE AND WHEN WE'RE CONSIDERING ALL OF THE APPLICABLE PLANS AS A WHOLE UM THE FINDING THAT WE CAME UP WITH IS THAT THERE'S MORE POLICIES THAT LEAN THE WAY WE RECOMMENDED VERSUS the way the applicants prefer to go. And that's okay. And it's up to you to figure out which one of those is the right course of action.

Nick, I want to push back on that for a second. I have some questions. But also, I want to thank everybody who presented. It did seem it's a lot of thought put on both sides and some difficult decisions that had to be made and a lot of things to weigh here. So I'm very sensitive to that. I think there is an answer here that solves everybody's issues and concerns. And I think that's within the development agreement. And I sat here and tried to figure out what that would look like. And then I said, that's not my job today. And I've been paid a lot to do that. I don't think we should do it for free. But I think there is an answer here. And Nick, you just gave a lot of points to it. But I don't think it's before us now. And I don't know if it's before the Planning Commission has sort of figured that out and sort of nailed those things down. I do like the statement that I think the staff recommendation, I think it's on point. I think it describes the policy to a T. I think it talks about everything. It ranks things accordingly. I think that's definitely on point. And I also think that the owner's presentation is very impassioned. I think the community's comments was the same from both sides. But the middle ground is that in that development agreement. um including you know what might be the community benefit and how that looks and what might be the the true community exchange for losing a house in the neighborhood what that should look like and what that's on paper right and i don't i don't know that we have anything in the code that provides the value on that for the neighborhood and what it should look like um and i think you just made a point about non-conforming uses and the ability of staff to go around and say, okay, let's make these things conforming now and let's find a way that this fits into the code and make these businesses legit or whatever it might be. I think that's noble and I think that for the avenues and for the way people have described the neighborhood, there's a certain flair and flavor to it and a certain reason you live there to certain things you expect and things need to roll smoothly for people who live there people who shop there and people who walk around the neighborhood and want to grab a cup of coffee i think it all makes sense but i think that the lifestyle that people have in the neighborhood and people who are accustomed to in the neighborhood should be conforming and i think it is in a very colloquial sense like it should be a solution for this but I'm not sure that if I talk for another 30 minutes we'll get to that place or I'll have the idea for the development agreement. So I don't know where to go from here. I'm thinking about what the recommendation would be, but I'm lost right now for what those exact words are.

Yeah, I think I just went blank because I was listening to you. The one thing that, so I think, I do think about the two properties separately and whether that's dealing with it by splitting the recommendation or saying, you know, apply for a zone, rezone for this part later. As slow as it is, I think the city is dealing with that nonconforming use because there's two things we would have to vote on here, right? There's the master plan amendment and then there's the zoning. And the master plan, well, it's not the master plan, but this draft plan that we talk about that is coming up it does change that kind of overall category to match that so that then it's easier for the zoning to be updated to match that. So as slow and I'm sure infuriating as it is, I think that is at least the direction that the city is going with that. So I'm less worried about that. It's a tough thing to weigh character versus a house. And I mean, when I think about it for myself, I'm someone who would say, oh, yeah, that's great. Let's have that down in the neighborhood. I know that's not how everyone is, though. One thing that did... STAND OUT TO ME IN THE STAFF REPORT WERE THE COMMENTS FROM THE HOUSING STABILITY, WHICH SAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE REQUEST. IN FACT, THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO LEAVE THE CURRENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT VISUALLY AS IT IS IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS FOR EASY CONVERSION BACK TO A RESIDENTIAL USE IS A POSITIVE THING. that is something that gives me, that makes it a little bit more palatable for me. And if in the future then this does need to become a residential unit again, if it's more easily turned back, it's not knocking it down and putting in something with storefront glass and et cetera, right? So it's... It is still losing a housing unit, but it's slightly less of losing a housing unit. But again, it's a difficult thing to weigh, so.

One question and then another comment. So there was a couple of times there was basically the cafe carrying capacity of the avenues brought up, as in are there a sufficient number of cafes within walkable distance to this area to serve the demand of the community? has planning undertaken any sort of analysis about like how many cafe seats there are walkable here versus other walkable neighborhoods in salt lake yes um have you seen the walkable slc project i probably have it i look at a lot of those if i could hold on if i could get back to my presentation i did make

reference to it. I should just pull up the web map. But yes, so walkability has been brought up a lot. Walkable amenities, neighborhood, walkable retail. It is something the city thinks about a lot. And this was about, I don't know, a year and a half ago that the planning staff started putting together this analysis. It's an interactive web map that you can go online and see basically the relative walkability a whole bunch of different amenities, including retail, including transit, including clinics, including parks and trails, and all of these things. sort of just put that out there for the public, but also internally kind of to give us a gauge of what neighborhoods we need to focus on that could use more amenities, and then what neighborhoods are really amenity rich and could use more residents to take advantage of those amenities. And so that's what, is this on the screen? Okay, good. That's... WHAT THIS KIND OF INSET MAP IS FROM IS THE EVALUATION OF THE FROM IS THE EVALUATION OF THE AVENUES THROUGH THAT LENS OF AVENUES THROUGH THAT LENS OF ACCESSIBILITY, WALKABILITY ACCESSIBILITY, WALKABILITY TO NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING TO NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING AMENITIES. AMENITIES. AS I SAID, THIS LOWER AVENUES AS I SAID, THIS LOWER AVENUES AREA WHERE THIS PROPERTY SITS AREA WHERE THIS PROPERTY SITS WAS DESIGNATED AS A TIER ONE WAS DESIGNATED AS A TIER ONE WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD. WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD. RELATIVE TO THE REST OF SALT RELATIVE TO THE REST OF SALT LAKE CITY, IT IS CONSID

I mean, I guess then the question becomes a little bit, and this is maybe going too deep down the rabbit hole, but like sort of an induced walkable demand where neighborhoods that are already highly walkable and might have like an unbalance of amenities, you know, because, you know, if you're talking about the upper avenues, almost nobody is going to be walking to a coffee shop no matter what. But if everybody is trying to walk to a coffee shop here, it might be that, right, like the the needed number of stuff within walkable distance goes up pretty dramatically as you get those agglomeration effects. Does that make sense?

Yes. Is that a question or just a statement?

I guess when comparing this to other tier one walkable neighborhoods, is there an imbalance that we might be seeing that leads to that overflowing of the cafe that the applicants have identified?

Or maybe that's pushing too far beyond the analysis that planning has done. I mean, if I may, it seems like it's just a popular business. In my view, it's not that there are insufficient cafes in the neighborhood. I mean, it seems like there are a lot. But at the same time, the popularity of a given business should not like necessitate or compel zoning changes on all the proximal properties in order to accommodate the growth of those businesses.

So I 100% agree, which actually goes to my next comment, which is that, you know, ultimately what we are being asked to do here is alter the zoning so that the applicants can reduce the number of housing units by one. which drives up the cost of housing in the city, and also add an amenity, which also drives up the cost of housing in the city, and especially in the neighborhood, not to, you know, be, don't do anything that improves the quality of a neighborhood, obviously. People need to live, and we want to make nice places where people need to live, but in some ways, right, like, this is the opposite. This has the opposite um valence in terms of its impact on our capacity to house salt lakers both new and existing than say approving a large up zoning to build an apartment complex because in that case you're adding um you're adding units and potentially slightly decreasing the value on a per unit basis this is reducing units and increasing the value of every other unit in the area and i think that that the city choosing to do that should request in favor of additional income and additional profits for a local small business. Think you know if that is the trade-off we're going to make we should ask for a significant amount Possibly that basement ad you even if it even if it drives up the cost of the of the change Ultimately we are we are making a concession. We are saying You know this is an We are changing the rules of the city in order to allow you to expand What can we request in response and I think we should request quite a lot.

I Mean I guess in follow-up to that I I guess I'll just say to me it seems like there's a ton of community benefit in the expansion of This business because it seems like a business that is beloved however That is not a type of community benefit that I think we're supposed to consider in this context. It's supposed to be sort of additional benefit that is not just people like the business, let's give it more square footage. And in that regard, there's not a ton here. But there is some, and I take it seriously. But it's not formalized. It's essentially the idea that to the extent there are a lot YOU KNOW, EDUCATION, YOU KNOW, NONPROFITS AND OTHER TYPES OF ENTITIES IN THE AREA THAT COULD BENEFIT FROM THE USE OF THE SPACE THAT THEY'LL OFFER IT UP IN A CERTAIN FORMAL, SEMIFORMAL FASHION. THAT'S A BENEFIT AS A MEETING SPACE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S SUFFICIENT. I MEAN, SO I'M HAVING TROUBLE

THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT.

WE ALMOST WOULD NEED TO SET ASIDE WE ALMOST WOULD NEED TO SET ASIDE WE ALMOST WOULD NEED TO SET ASIDE A LOT OF THE SUPPORTIVE COMMENTS A LOT OF THE SUPPORTIVE COMMENTS A LOT OF THE SUPPORTIVE COMMENTS BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST SAYING WE BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST SAYING WE BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST SAYING WE LIKE THE BUSINESS. LIKE THE BUSINESS. LIKE THE BUSINESS.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT THAT WE'RE COMMUNITY BENEFIT THAT WE'RE COMMUNITY BENEFIT THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER. SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER. SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER. AM I RIGHT ABOUT THAT? AM I So it says the Planning Commission may make a recommendation to the City Council regarding accepting the proposed public benefit. So going back to when this was created, the idea was that the Planning Commission would be reviewing the public benefit to see if it was proportionate to the ask. And it's not to suggest alternative public benefits it's not to add additional public benefits is to consider what's proposed by the applicant and whether or not it's essentially acceptable.

And, to be honest. Well, given that the applicant is no longer proposing that those nonprofit stipulations be in the community benefit, and I know that there's a bunch of complexities and back and forth on that, and given that FOR ME, I WOULD WANT TO SEE SERIOUS CONSIDERATION BY THE COUNCIL OF FIGURING OUT A WAY TO INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL UNIT SOMEHOW, SOMEWHERE. I CAN'T SUPPORT. I WOULD CERTAINLY SUPPORT THE

140B STREET, YES.

140B. I WOULD CERTAINLY SUPPORT THE UPZONING OF 140B. I CANNOT, I THINK, AT THIS MOMENT SUPPORT GIVEN THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT ARE CURRENTLY BEING CONTEMPLATED THE UPZONING OF 272.

SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT COMMUNITY BENEFITS ARE STILL PROPOSED, THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS, THERE WAS A $1,000, THERE WAS A $3,000, THOSE HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE, BUT NOT THE NOTION OF OFFERING UP THE the facility in some way for the use of other entities, for nonprofit use, et cetera. That's still in there, I believe.

We could let the applicant clarify what the community benefit is that they're offering here.

Before we go down that route, I want to be very clear about something I don't think we should do. seven different categories of community benefits that we generally consider and anything else can be creative in that space. I think that the more we talk about what it should be and trying to put a price on certain things, we step into this business space of limiting their creativity or what they might want to come up with. I don't want to say there's no one way to do this. There might be something we're thinking about, might be something we're okay with approving, But given this footprint and given the existing business there, given 30 years of there being a bed and breakfast there and how the neighborhood interacts with this space, it could be anything, right? Just the idea of having more public space on that block and having more chairs and tables that people could sit at even when the business is closed. That's the community benefit that I would consider. Like all these things are different possibilities out there, but I think as we kind of drill them down and say, hey, what's your community benefit here? And I want, you know, a certain dollar per square foot of housing that we're taking away. Like all of those things I think are, are an overreach, right? And I don't wanna get into that space for me. I mean, you all can demand what you wanna demand and figure out the space, but I don't think we should go down that route of prescribing to a T or to a dollar amount what a community benefit should be when it's not proposed already in that space, especially in a space like this where this is an amorphous sort of block and it's trying to interact with the community and they're a functional business, right? So if something goes wrong in a neighborhood, it's not gonna work.

So I think I could agree with what you're saying, and that reference is kind of what Nick was saying, that it's not our purview to figure out the community benefit. I think what we're just trying to do is the staff report had stuff listed that has since been taken out. And so to clarify what is being proposed, let's get that clear from you guys, please.

Yeah, we apologize. That became a hiccup. We have found that it's challenging to communicate to our city planners that there is a benefit to the community to have a bookstore and a place to go buy a smoothie and some shops or some seats out on the patio. and we have tried to you know through these donations through the offerings of space and we very much all of these are still there we we all you know all of these are still very valid benefits that we would love to offer but we are having a hard time hitting i think maybe those seven qualifications for how does a bookshop benefit a neighborhood and i don't know to me it does But we need to find a way to work through that if we don't realize none of it agrees.

In relation to the donations, we stand by the donations that are in the original report. We offer those, and we're happy to have those as part of the development agreement. The only reason it was taken out for this presentation's purposes, it was just used in a very strangely negative light in the last session. We were basically painted as like, this is so atypical. They're donating, and we can't enforce this. And this is very strange that they would be offering money to local nonprofits. Are they trying to buy us? That was sort of the tone. And we thought that was extremely inappropriate and absolutely not our intention there. So we currently donate. very close to what this is. We'd be happy to formalize it in a development agreement. And as Tyler spoke to, and I think of the seven community benefits you're referencing, the one that we fit is a business space. We want to create a new business space. And yes, that is very difficult to define. And we're happy to agree upon the use with city council what we will create there. So, there you go. Okay.

So, and Nick, just to be real clear, so we can, for purposes of what the community benefit offered is, we can say it's what was in that original report, if they're saying they stand by that?

Sure, yes.

OK, great.

So is there a possibility to split the two and vote on them separately? Or would we have to delay? No, that's not the right word. Apologies. We have to hold off till next?

No, you don't need to table it. You can make the motion however you want. OK. So basically, if the commission wants to split and recommend that the council adopt rezoning, the property that the bed and breakfast is on you would make that as part of your motion and then if if the direction is to or if the recommendation is to not approve the zoning of the single family home you would just make that as well but because the community benefit really is tied to that other property you're not really even by doing that you're saying you're not really concerned about the community benefit um because you're you're They're tied to that other property.

I mean, I guess I would say that there's a technical and conforming cleanup effort on 140B. And then there's a more community benefit oriented question on 270.

272.

Thank you, 272. And I think it's more useful for us to consider those questions separately.

what right because to Commissioner Scott's comment really what we would be doing in that case is just since the applicant is before us today we'd be just getting a little bit ahead of the direction the city already seems to be pointing and I you know so I just I think the question community benefit on that is

it doesn't seem quite as relevant to me yeah although maybe i mean you can split them and and make that motion my suggestion would be that we deal with it as as an entity rep just so that we aren't trying to kind of pick out the community benefit and etc in our brains because THE AVENUES PLAN IS ALREADY MAKING ONE OF THESE SHIFTS IF IT'S ADOPTED.

SO THE CODE SAYS YOU MAY CONSIDER THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO. IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION THAT YOU, LIKE WE JUST DISCUSSED, THAT YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PIECE HERE BUT NOT THIS PIECE HERE.

well would you like to make someone like to make a motion wait of course question for for staff if we're trying to limit what the up zone could do with uh development agreement how specific do we have to be at this point so i think that

I don't necessarily think you have to be specific and list the allowed uses. I think you can recommend that the council consider adding to the development agreement on the types that would prohibit the MU2 allowed uses that are somehow you know you could either list like the short-term rental came up i think there's probably some other ones um you can just recommend that the council essentially figure out how to limit the uses you don't need to be specific about it I mean you don't even actually I mean I get wanting to recommend that but because it's a restriction on the proposal you don't have to do anything specific about that so you can say that you recommend adoption with the council considering limiting the allowed uses in the MU2 zone

And could, I mean, could we say limiting the allowed uses to uses that are available to the benefit of the, you know, the space will remain public in some sense? Because an Airbnb is not public in the sense that we're talking about. A bookshop, a...

You have a lot of discretion here. So you can say something like that. You can say to retail and other similar uses that the public is invited to visit and patronize the business, the use.

Although ultimately, if we recommend that the council deny because we find the community benefit to be insufficient, that also sends a signal that they still have the option to negotiate just a more stringent community benefit, correct?

They always have that option regardless of what motion you make.

But it might serve as a weighting factor for them.

Yeah. I mean, I think what the council finds beneficial is some direction as to your motion, right? So if it's a straight up denial, fine. That's fine. The staff report, everything else aligns with that. If it's something different than that, it's helpful to the council if they have some understanding of what the planning commission is trying to achieve with their recommendation.

OK. And just procedurally, is development agreement made at, or suggestions like that, would it be better to tie those to the zone or the master plan?

It doesn't matter. It doesn't really matter because they're going to be, it's going to be one agreement.

Okay, cool.

Thank you. Can I make a motion? And I'm going to try something a little bit funky maybe. So if this doesn't work, let me know. With respect to PLN PCM 2026-0008, the Ellerbeck General Plan Amendment, I move that we split the question between 140 B Street and...

I think what they were saying was that we don't, it's not that we like split it and then vote separately, it's that you make a motion that we approve this part, but not this part, correct? That's correct.

Okay. Never mind. In that case, with respect to PLN PCM 2026-00008, the Ellerbeck General Plan Amendment, based on the information presented and discussion, I move that the commission recommend that the city council approve the general plan amendment for 140 B Street and deny the general plan amendment as recommended by staff for 272 3rd Avenue.

Is that a proper motion?

Do we have a second?

No?

All right.

I don't know. I think for the record, we should note that there was no second. Oh, sorry.

So that motion dies. OK, sorry. So there is no second, so that motion dies.

I'm not leaving. I just need some water.

Okay, trying again. Based on the information presented in the discussion, I move that the commission recommend the city council deny this petition as recommended by staff in its entirety.

Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? There is no second, so that motion dies.

I'M GENUINELY TORN. I MIGHT HAVE SECONDED THE FIRST I MIGHT HAVE SECONDED THE FIRST MOTION I WAS CONSIDERING IT. MOTION I WAS CONSIDERING IT.

WHAT WOULD YOU NEED TO FEEL WHAT WOULD YOU NEED TO FEEL CONFIDENT IN SECONDING THAT FIRST CONFIDENT IN SECONDING THAT FIRST MOTION?

I JUST, I FEEL COMFORTABLE ON THE UP ZONE OF THE ONE PROPERTY. I FEEL LIKE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH SORT OF THE DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS EARLIER. BUT THEN ON THE OTHER ONE, I ALMOST, ON THE BUNGALOW OR THE I FEEL LIKE SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT COULD GO EITHER WAY, AND I LEAN TOWARDS SORT OF TAKING STAFF'S DIRECTION, AND IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO GO ANOTHER WAY. THEY'VE GOT SORT OF A SPLIT RECORD. THE HLC RECOMMENDS ONE WAY. WE RECOMMEND ANOTHER WAY WITH A SPLIT. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THEY'LL GRAPPLE WITH IT. AND IF THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS SORT OF CONTRARY TO STAFF'S TECHNICAL POSITION, THEN THEY CAN DO THAT. I just wanted to give some more room for conversation about that motion and to hear from you two before we set it aside irrevocably because I think there's value given sort of the character I just put on it.

I mean, can we discuss the motion once it's been seconded?

WELL, I DON'T KNOW, BUT WE SHOULD JUST FIGURE OUT AND THEN WELL, I DON'T KNOW, BUT WE SHOULD JUST FIGURE OUT AND THEN WE CAN MAKE THE MOTION.

WE CAN MAKE THE MOTION. GENERALLY YOU SHOULD DISCUSS GENERALLY YOU SHOULD DISCUSS THE MERITS PRIOR TO THE THE MERITS PRIOR TO THE MOTION. MOTION. THE DISCUSSION IS ON THE MOTION It needs to be some kind of clarification, making sure everyone understands it. It's not necessarily on why did you make the motion.

Okay. I mean, I'm in the same spot as you, I think. And I would love to hear our two other commissioners' thoughts.

You look like you're trying to work out a motion, are you?

I THINK THE RIGHT MOTION IS PROBABLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE THAT OUT NOW, THE WORDING.

YEAH. CAN WE JUST PAUSE FOR A MINUTE AND GIVE THEM A SECOND TO DO THAT?

ABSOLUTELY.

YOU WERE WAITING FOR ME. I THOUGHT YOU WOULD TALK ABOUT IT. WE CAN WEAN THIS NOW. LET'S GO. No, based on information presented, and we are referencing PLNPCM2026-00008, and all of the discussion, I move that the commission recommend that the city council adopt this position for the following reason, being the council with the correct development agreement can alleviate the issues stated by The staff.

Can I suggest a revision to that, just to make it clear? Sure. So we were good up until accept the position. I would add in there, as recommended by staff, because that wasn't stated, with the condition that council, or excuse me, with the suggestion that city council require a development agreement.

This is contrary. Yeah, it's contrary to staff, though.

Sorry, contrary to staff.

All right. So the correction would be, I move that the commission recommend the city council adopt this position and contrary to the recommendations of the staff with a development agreement that.

The recommendation.

The recommendation of a development agreement that would address the concerns of staff.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION? DO WE HAVE A SECOND? CAN THERE BE DISCUSSION? NOT UNTIL WE GET A SECOND.

LET'S CLARIFY WHAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS BY STAFF WOULD BE. WHAT I WANT YOU TO GET TO IS WHAT WOULD THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONTAIN? WHAT WOULD IT ADDRESS?

SO, WELL, OKAY. I MEAN, I WOULD ONLY SUPPORT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT INCLUDES THAT BASEMENT HOUSING UNIT OR ANOTHER WAY OF FULFILLING, OF ADDING A HOUSING UNIT TO REPLACE THE LOST HOUSING UNIT WITHIN A BLOCK.

JUST A QUESTION ABOUT, I CAN'T MAKE MOTIONS, CAN I SECOND THEM?

We'll check.

OK. Thank you. But because if I can, I will second your motion. And I think what she was getting at is just a little more specificity. And I think it's the guidance we would give is just in terms of limiting uses from things like short-term housing or whatever.

But what Commissioner Leverett said was addressing staff concerns, which the staff concern is housing loss. And so that's not going to be addressed by limiting the scope of the prospective MU uses in the development agreement. So those are in common.

I think that's one of the housing concerns. And I think Commissioner Rosenfield, she stated the same.

Yeah, and I wonder how a development agreement is going to get after that. And if so, and if it did get after that, would it be accomplishable by the applicant?

Well, I think the housing concern is one of the staff concerns, but it's also the least of my concerns. So I probably want to rephrase it to exclude that. I wasn't trying to be inclusive of the housing issue. And that's just based on open discussion. There's a lot of talk around housing supply and demand and how it affects prices. I think that there's a lot of colloquial formulas that we use and things we say that are probably incorrect if you look at just different reports from different economists. But I don't know. I mean, I don't want to... say conclusively that we're correct in removing this house changes significantly the pricing or anything like that in the neighborhood. So I think that's a dangerous sort of conclusion to draw. And also, I think that requiring some kind of ADU housing on this site changes the business aspect of it as well. And I don't want to go down that path either from my earlier statements.

I mean, ultimately, I think if the applicant is unable to support additional housing, Like if they're if they are taking away housing to expand their business That's that's problematic. And if if the business cannot support the the maintenance of at least some level of existing housing Then that is exactly that gets to exactly the point that staff was making which is that this this is not in line with the needs of the community as laid out in the relevant planning documents

So I think maybe I misspoke in trying to include housing concerns in the development agreement, but I do want to include some concerns. So I might just need to reword that. Can I? Nope. Okay.

Okay.

Are you going to reword that?

You know, I might.

No, I'm not ready to do it now, but I'm thinking about it. See if we can get two.

I am also concerned with the way that this is splitting up. It's going to be very difficult for any motion to get a second, and also it's going to be very difficult for any motion to pass. I don't know for sure, but that seems like a possibility, and I wonder if we need to table just so that we can have a larger body that can actually get a clear division on the vote.

Why don't I suggest this, unless you want to jump in, Nick, but I was going to suggest you make your motion again, I'll second it, we'll vote, and we'll see just how that goes.

Sounds good. Okay. In the matter of PLN PCM 2026-00008, based on the information presented in discussion, I move that the commission forward a split recommendation to city council to approve the petition in... CONTRARY TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION CONTRARY TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR 140 B STREET AND DENY FOR 140 B STREET AND DENY FOR 140 B STREET AND DENY THE PETITION AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PETITION AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PETITION AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF FOR 272 3rd AVENUE.

STAFF FOR 272 3rd AVENUE. STAFF FOR 272 3rd AVENUE.

I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. I'LL SECOND THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. GO AHEAD AND VOTE.

GO AHEAD AND VOTE.

Commissioner Rosenfield.

Yes.

Commissioner Scott.

No. So that passes.

Do you want to make the second? Yeah. Based on the information presented in the matter of PLN PCM 2026-00034, the Ellerbeck zoning map amendment, based on the information presented in discussion, I move that the commission recommend that the city council approve this petition in part, contrary to staff recommendation, for 140 B Street and deny this petition as recommended by staff in part as to 272 3rd Avenue.

We have a motion.

Do we have a... Yeah, I'll second it again.

And a second. And we'll vote.

Commissioner Barrett?

Yes.

Commissioner LeBret?

Yes.

Commissioner Rosenfield?

Yes.

Commissioner Scott?

No.

3-1.

Great. That passes as well. Thank you, guys. We're going to take a five-minute break.

Thank you. you ¶. Thank you. Bye. you So, Thank you.

If you guys aren't here for this item, if you could step outside, please. Thank you. Next up is our zoning text amendment for maximum daily water use.

All right. Thank you. This is actually a pretty quick item. So currently we're operating under what's called a temporary land use regulation that the city council adopted on March 24th that basically modified the land uses that are subject to the current maximum daily water use of 200,000 gallons per day. That temporary land use would become permanent if the city council makes a decision to adopt those changes by September 20th, 2026, and after it goes through the normal zoning amendment process. SO THIS IS WHY THE CITY COUNCIL SO THIS IS WHY THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE TEMPORARY LAND USE ADOPTED THE TEMPORARY LAND USE REGULATION THAT WAS IN THEIR REGULATION THAT WAS IN THEIR ADOPTING ORDINANCE AND IT WAS ALL AT THE SAME TIME THEY DO THIS TEMPORARY LAND USE REGULATION, THEY ALSO, THERE'S A COMPANION REGULATION THAT'S IN TITLE 17, WHICH IS PUBLIC SERVICES, AND IT'S THE FURNISHING OF WATER, SO THAT'S A REGULATION THAT APPLIES TO ALL PROPERTIES THAT THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH, AND IT'S EVERYTHING FROM THE SAME MAXIMUM WATER AMOUNT TO MAKING SURE THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT CONNECTIONS, ALL OF THE RIGHT CONNECTIONS, ALL OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. SO THOSE ARE NOT CONSIDERED LAND SO THOSE ARE NOT CONSIDERED LAND USE REGULATIONS BECAUSE THEY USE REGULATIONS BECAUSE THEY APPLY EVENLY TO EVERY As you can see on the board on the screen This was has of last week the current drought situation I think the percentages or something like 97% of the state is in at least a in a drought a moderate drought or higher and that went up from like 70% IT'S A RAPID THING THAT IS ONGOING AND IT'S BASED, OBVIOUSLY, ON OUR HOTTEST WINTER MONTHS ON RECORD IN SALT LAKE CITY AND IN THE REGION AND OUR LOWEST SNOWFALL ON RECORD AND OUR WATER SOURCES ARE DIRECTLY TIED TO OUR SNOWPACK. SO THIS IS THE KEY CHANGE. Underlined is what's being added. STRIKETHROUGH IS WHAT WOULD BE DELETED. THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHER MINOR CHANGES THAT ARE MORE TECHNICAL IN NATURE IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THE CODE WORKS RIGHT. BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS DOES IS THAT RIGHT NOW THE CURRENT REGULATION PROVIDES EXCEPTIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL, RESIDENTIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL USES, SCHOOLS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WHAT THIS WOULD DO IS STRIKE THE RESIDENTIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL USES. and limited to certain institutional uses and government owned or operated facilities that primarily provide social services and also places of worship so that's the primary change here and our recommendation is that you recommend the council adopt the proposal i will add that this because as you'll find in the staff report some of the public the only written public comment we received was related to the potential detention center because this is a land use regulation the federal government is not subject to our land use regulations the city's position is they are subject to title 17 which has already addressed this exact same change so that's already in our code

All right. Thank you. We'll open up. Oh, sorry. Do you have a clarifying?

Yeah. Will you explain that last point in a little bit more depth?

So like I said at the beginning, Title 17 is what all, anyone who wants to use our culinary water for any purpose is subject to those regulations. AND THE CITY'S POSITION IS THAT EVEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS EVEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS EVEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS AND USES THAT NEED TO CONNECT TO AND USES THAT NEED TO CONNECT TO AND USES THAT NEED TO CONNECT TO OUR WATER SYSTEM ARE SUBJECT TO OUR WATER SYSTEM ARE SUBJECT TO OUR WATER SYSTEM ARE SUBJECT TO THOSE. THOSE. THOSE. THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT AND NEITHER THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT AND NEITHER THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT AND NEITHER ARE THE LANDS OWNED BY THE STATE ARE THE LANDS OWNED BY THE STATE ARE THE LANDS OWNED BY THE STATE OF UTAH TO OUR ZONING OF UTAH TO OUR ZONING OF UTA Zoning also can't be applied retroactively. So uses that existed prior to that being adopted would not be subject to it however title 17 is We can basically anyone who's connected to our water system we can hold them to those rules of how much water they use and

DOES THAT HELP? SO THEN WHY THE DUPLICATION? WHY ARE WE PUTTING THIS IN THE LAND USE CODE AT ALL?

BECAUSE THE LAND USE APPLIES TO NEW DEVELOPMENT.

OKAY.

RIGHT? YEAH. AND SO IT'S REASON FOR US TO DENY AN APPLICATION FOR SOMETHING. WHEREAS BEFORE, THE OTHER THING, WE'D HAVE TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION AND THEN WE GO INTO AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE IF THEY'RE USING MORE.

GOTCHA. IF THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES IN GENERAL, BECAUSE IT'S A LAND USE REGULATION, WHY THE LINE ABOUT EXCEPT FOR GOVERNMENTAL SOCIAL SERVICES?

SO IT DOESN'T APPLY TO FEDERAL AND STATE OWNED LANDS. IT DOES APPLY TO OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITIES THAT AREN'T THOSE. SO FOR EXAMPLE, SCHOOL DISTRICTS, ALTHOUGH WE WOULD HAVE A SCHOOL EXEMPTION FROM THEM THERE. county right county facilities so for example the salt palace convention center it would apply to things like that and other CREATIONS OF THE STATE THAT ARE LOCAL ENTITIES WOULD ALSO BE.

SO TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND, WHICH I THINK IS UNLIKELY, BUT WE'LL TRY. SO WITH THIS CHANGE IN THE ZONING, IT WOULDN'T APPLY TO A FEDERAL APPLICANT OR PROPOSED USE, BUT THEN IT COULD BE AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE AFTER THAT USE IS APPROVED, IT COULD BE AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE IF THEY'RE USING WATER IN EXCEEDENCE OF A CERTAIN NUMBER.

YEAH, SO IF SOMEBODY CAME IN AND, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY'RE LIKE, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO OCCUPY THIS BUILDING, THEY HAVE TO GIVE US AN IDEA OF HOW MUCH WATER THEY'RE GOING TO BE USING AND WE CAN TELL THEM THIS IS YOUR MAXIMUM AMOUNT. right so this is another example of where that might apply would be say you have a an existing food processing plant like maybe they're or a better use would be like a bottling plant they bottle water we clearly don't want a private company to come in use our culinary water to put it in bottles and then sell it and so but if they're already operating and they're a legally existing entity, we can use that provision in Title 17 to say, no, you're stuck at 200,000 gallons per day. Like you can't exceed that no matter what. So if it's in only zoning, and that water bottling plant is a legal use that existed prior to this regulation being adopted, they are not necessarily subject to it. They may have an argument there, but because we have it in two places, we're eliminating that argument.

All right. I will go ahead and open up for public comment. Is there anyone who would like to speak on this? then I will go ahead and close public comment and bring it back to us for discussion or a motion.

I'll make a motion. OK. based on the information presented and the discussion, I move that the commission recommend that the city council adopt this petition.

We have a motion. Second. And a second. We'll go ahead and vote.

Commissioner Barrett.

Yes.

Commissioner Leverett.

Yes.

Commissioner Rosenfield.

Yes.

Commissioner Scott.

Yes. All right, that passes, thank you. Next, we will move on to the Avenues Community Plan update.

I wasn't sure if we still needed to present, or at least I thought I'd have to give more of an introduction on the plan.

Well, to this? I don't think this is...

all right so tonight we are presenting an overview of the avenues community plan the planning division started the process to update the community plan last year june of 2025. we have a lot to cover we're going to try and cover it in maybe 15 minutes but if there are any sections that the commission wants us to take like a deeper dive into we are more than happy to do that and we're going to start by giving just a brief overview of the purpose of the update and then goals of the plan. And then we are going to also talk about how it fits into the overall framework of Plan Salt Lake. And then we will break down the plan by the guiding principle overall topics and discuss main themes from each of those sections. And then we will discuss community feedback and next steps. And planning stuff is recommending that the planning Commission forward or excuse me table this recommendation to a future meeting and accept public comment at the public hearing we are still in the 45 day public engagement period and we have extended that at the request of the greater avenues Community Council. So this plan sets out a vision for the Avenues community for the next 15 years. It describes the future the community hopes to create, grounded in an understanding of existing conditions and shaped by input from community members, business and property owners, community organizations and visitors, and integrates these perspectives with adopted city policies and priorities and provides a framework to help achieve the vision. The main goals of the plan are to align the community plan with city-wide goals and policies. The existing plan is the oldest city plan. The oldest community plan in the city was adopted in 1987. And then the overarching goals of the plan are to identify commonly held values, define what makes the community unique, guide future growth in a way that reflects community values and protects neighborhood character while considering the needs of future populations and provide clear policy direction for decision making. And then finally, an implementation framework to measure our progress over time. So this map shows the Avenues Community Plan boundary, the eastern boundary of the plan where you see the yellow overlay. has been adjusted to incorporate additional land in the foothills natural area that we discovered is not currently included in any community plan boundary. And then the other map shows the avenues in context with the overall city boundaries. And the Avenues Plan is part of a broader planning framework for Salt Lake City, and it builds on citywide policies and initiatives established in Plan Salt Lake. Community plans like the Avenues Community Plan are considered the land use element of the city's general plan and the link between other parts of the general plan, such as transportation plans, Reimagine Nature, which is the city's parks and open space plan.

Community engagement for the plan has been broken down into three main phases. Phase one, opportunities and issues. Phase two, big ideas. And phase three, final vision, which is where we're at now. Completion of an existing conditions report marked the first step in this process, which provided a foundational understanding of the community that helped guide and inform goals for the plan update as it moved forward. The existing conditions report is included in the staff report in attachment C. Here's a snapshot of engagement for the project. A full report of the team's engagement can be found in the staff report in attachment F. The key components of the plan include a vision describing the desired future of the community in relation to the guiding principles, a roadmap which includes policies that express established city goals and initiatives that identify specific actions to realize the vision, and a future land use map that illustrates the intended distribution of land uses in the community. There is also an implementation framework to help measure progress over time. These are the plan sections that we will go over with you. This plan defines the avenue's role in advancing the citywide vision and translates the 14 guiding principles from Plan Salt Lake into a community level vision. It includes a future land use map and implementation framework that we will be using to accomplish the vision.

So the first section that the plan covers is neighborhoods. The neighborhood section is largely focused on community gathering areas and targeted changes to better use existing neighborhood assets like supporting existing businesses, encouraging use of adjacent park strips for things like outdoor dining or small-scale retail, all things that were talked about with a previous item. It also talks about play streets, which are temporary road closures. We heard from the community that they really liked this during the pandemic, the COVID-19 pandemic, and these streets were used for play areas, block parties, and those types of things. The growth section the avenues has a really strong foundation for growth that has a mix of houses It has access to open space small blocks We also recognize that the community is largely built out with relatively few parcels and also the physical form of the avenues in terms of its proximity to the foothills and indicate that significant change is really unlikely in the avenues but there are opportunities for growth future growth in the avenues is largely going to depend on small context sensitive infill development on underutilized properties and action items focus on removing regulatory barriers to infill housing this is just a map of the There's a couple blocks in the avenues just showing that there are opportunities for infill in those yellow areas. And then this property down below is on 2nd Avenue, I believe. And it was an undersized lot and went through a process for a new construction. And then opportunities for growth. Obviously the potential redevelopment of the LDS Hospital campus into a mixed use area presents an opportunity to accommodate most of the community's future growth if it were to redevelop. This also helps reduce pressure on surrounding residential areas by concentrating a significant share of the growth to this area. It is also possible that this site will not fully redevelop, but may see demolition of some buildings and reuse of others. And then growth can also be accommodated on some other institutional properties. We don't know of any currently that are changing, but if there are properties that change over due to demographic needs in the community, There could be other opportunities for redevelopment or reuse of those properties. And then growth is also, responsible growth also means identifying where growth should be more limited. In these areas of the upper avenues and the Arlington Hills area where there is steep terrain and proximity to natural lands, these types of areas create some management challenges in terms of access and development. So growth in these areas in the plan focuses on accessory dwelling units and other gentle density options. Access to housing is a growing concern throughout the city, but especially in established neighborhoods like the avenues, where there's little space to build additional housing. When asked to rank the most important issues facing the avenues, almost three-fourths of online survey respondents ranked the cost of housing as one of the top three issues, with 42% identifying it as the number one concern. Housing strategies in the avenues prioritize preservation and maintenance of the existing housing stock as the foundation of the community's affordable housing supply. Strategies include aligning land use designations with existing conditions, education about existing city programs such as the city's NOAA program, which is the naturally occurring affordable housing program, and zoning incentives that we have for things like affordable housing incentives and building preservation incentives. This slide highlights the development pattern in the avenues where you can see in the lower avenues there's a lot more mix of housing types than there is in the upper avenues, and that's just largely due to the time period that was developed. It's more reflective of a historic development pattern. And then transportation. The avenues.

sorry the avenues transportation network is shaped by its narrow streets steep terrain and high demand for on-street parking during community engagement community members identified several transportation issues including traffic issues like speeding safety in general and parking a public transportation limit specifically with the bus system in the avenues and infrastructure gaps and maintenance, specifically for pedestrian and bicycle transportation networks. The Avenues Community Plan is primarily a land use plan, but it also touches on other topics like transportation. Connect to SLC, the citywide transportation plan, was used to guide the initiatives in this plan section. Action items to address safety issues include traffic calming measures in Livable Streets, which is a community-driven program to help calm traffic in residential areas, improving traffic control, consistency, and visibility at intersections, and community programs. For example, the Play Streets program is one way to reduce cut-through traffic. For public transportation issues, the plan supports higher frequency bus services, especially during commute times, frequent connections to high demand destinations like the University of Utah, expanding flex bus routes and services, and also it encourages mobility options and amenities like benches for pedestrians, multi-use paths, green bike stations, especially e-bike options, and secure bike or scooter parking. For air quality, some of these topics that are listed here on the slide are already covered in other plan sections, like transportation options and building preservation and adaptive reuse, which will be covered in greater detail when we get to the preservation section. This section also focuses on enhancing the urban forest by preserving existing trees and expanding the tree canopy. It also focuses on energy efficiency by encouraging updates in older buildings and promotes education assistance and incentives. During our community engagement, we heard from community members that access to natural areas and recreation is one of the most valued qualities of living in the Avenues. The Avenues is home to community and regional assets like the Foothill Trail System and City Creek Canyon. To protect the City Creek Watershed, the plan identifies appropriate land use designations for this area. The plan calls for coordinated management and environmental protection in the foothills and other sensitive areas. Part of this includes applying appropriate zoning designations to ensure that these areas are protected from development and detrimental land uses. It also supports increasing access by connecting to key destinations, creating a variety of trails for different users and abilities, and connecting the trail system to lower elevations where it can be accessed by transit or from the city's urban trails. It also supports promoting stewardship programs and opportunities to strengthen the connection between the community and these areas. All Avenues households are within a 50-minute walk, park, or open space. This plan section's initiatives are guided by Reimagine Nature, which has goals to link the city's natural assets, and it also includes goals to enhance existing parks by providing more amenities, programming, and increasing maintenance. Action items to enhance existing parks include increasing amenities like shade, seating, and drinking fountains. Programming is also supportive, which includes activities like community gardens, yoga classes, and farmer's markets. Some parks may also be suitable for small-scale commercial uses like food vendors. Strengthening connections between parks, open spaces, and trails is supported to create a network connecting green spaces, cycling, and pedestrian routes. And one way of doing this would be to have more wayfinding in the community with directions and distant markers between these places. Like the Air Quality section, some of the items under Beautiful City are included in other planned sections. One focus of this section is preserving the defining streetscape features that make the avenues unique, such as street trees and historic features in public spaces like hitching posts or carriage steps. These also include urban design qualities like uniform building setbacks, spacing between buildings, and architectural elements. Initiatives include creating an inventory to document and protect historic features in public spaces and implementing wayfinding features such as unique signage for the avenue's local historic district that would support a strong sense of place and reinforce neighborhood identity.

So preservation in the avenues is fundamental to its identity. The character and diversity of its buildings, the historic development pattern are all deeply intertwined with the community's sense of place. And preserving these qualities is important to maintaining what residents love and value most about where they live. So properties within a local historic district or individually listed landmark sites are subject to the historic preservation overlay. The Avenues Local Historic District is the city's largest local historic district, and while the historic preservation standards have been successful in maintaining the historic character of the avenues, community members have expressed a desire for more clarity about how standards are applied. And then another thing that this section focuses on is the Salt Lake City Cemetery, which is nearing capacity and still has financial maintenance obligations moving forward. Moving forward, efforts to improve the preservation process focus on monitoring the historic standards and guidelines and identifying ways that they can be improved and continued education and outreach to increase understanding and trust in the preservation process. Building maintenance is also an important component of preservation and expanding access to resources such as city-funded workshops that provide hands-on experience. will help property owners understand how to be good stewards of their historic properties. And then the plan also supports the goals and recommendations in the Salt Lake City Cemetery Master Plan, including using the cemetery as a multi-use facility and more activation in the cemeteries to support its long-term financial success. And one of those things also includes listing it on the National Register of Historic Places. Arts and culture in the community, the plan focuses on public art and city partnerships. The Salt Lake City Arts Council supports public art through a variety of programs, community-based arts and cultural activities. It also supports efforts to cultivate community participation by sustaining longstanding traditions such as the Avenue Street Fair and showcasing a diverse range of artistic talent in the neighborhood. through events like Avenues Open Studio. Things like updating zoning regulations to also allow for encroachment of private art in setback areas could also help add additional art into the community.

Since the Avenues is largely built out, there aren't many opportunities for new development and preserving existing housing is a key priority. The equity section of the plan focuses on improving access to housing and access to amenities while being mindful of these constraints. Infill development and redevelopment of institutional uses like the LDS Hospital are strategies in the plan to increase access to housing. The chart on the right side of the slide shows that most Avenues households are within walking distance to most amenities. However, access can still be improved by supporting more mixed-use locations and improving the pedestrian network to support trips by foot. Community feedback indicates that lack of amenities is a top issue. Residents support existing businesses and they want more community-serving businesses dispersed throughout the neighborhood. The feedback that we received also emphasized a desire for flexible, local, home-based businesses. Action items to support existing businesses include aligning land use designations for existing businesses that may currently be in residential zones and activating public rights away with seating retail or similar uses. The plan also identifies key areas for a mix of uses which are shown on the future land use map. And accessory commercial units, or ACUs, are another strategy that would allow residential properties the option of having a small business attached to their home. Grant programs and incentives are also encouraged for projects that commit to below market rent for neighborhood serving businesses, tenant remodel cost assistance, and other tools that would balance development opportunities with community benefits. For government, the main goal of this section is to increase public participation. Action items for this include providing accessible opportunities, including digital engagement options and public-facing materials in multiple languages, increasing institutional partnerships, increasing visibility of city staff, and continuing to collaborate with the Greater Avenues Community Council. To support water conservation, the plan supports updating zoning regulations and community outreach through community programs and demonstrations. The picture on the right side of the slide is of the Greater Avenues Demonstration Garden, so this is a great example. It also supports more education about landscaping regulations and updating city operations.

So the plan also includes a future land use section. The future land use section of the plan illustrates the intended distribution of land uses in the community and the designations or essentially categories describe the intended scale and intensity of development within each land use designation. The Avenues Future Land Use Map guides the future land use development by establishing a flexible framework that offers adaptability, enabling the community to evolve over time. The map doesn't alter current zoning. It just helps guide decision making around them. They're also not zoning districts. So for example, the R1 5000 zone and the SR1A zone would share the same land use designation category, which is low, moderate density residential. Guiding themes for the future land use map include protecting sensitive lands, stable and connected neighborhoods, encouraging appropriately scaled infill and mixed use development, and enhancing key locations. So this shows the existing future land use map and the proposed future land use map. In terms of highlights of the map, I want to highlight what is actually changing instead of just focusing on like what's staying the same. So the main things that are changing are there are areas within the upper avenues and the eastern portion that's been incorporated into the plan boundaries. that some are open space zoned right now or an open space land use designation and some are not, don't have a land use designation. So we've identified those for a natural open space designation in working with public lands We've identified some properties that are currently open space that warrant a more restrictive land use designation. And so we've identified those as natural open space. Additionally, there are some existing parks that are not identified as a park land use designation. They are smaller parks in the community, mini parks like Richard Kletting Park. And I'm blanking on the other ones, the other park names, but there's three or four parks that are currently designated for residential land uses. And then mixed use designations, we have identified existing commercial uses in the area as well as former properties that have been historically used for commercial use. And then the LDS Hospital Campus, which is currently institutional or public lands for a mixed use designation. And then there are a couple of other individual PROPERTIES THAT WE HAVE APPLIED A MIXED USE DESIGNATION FOR, BUT IN TERMS OF THOSE MOSTLY, IN TERMS OF THOSE, THEY ARE MOSTLY IDENTIFIED ON EXISTING COMMERCIAL USES. AND THEN THE MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, THAT IS GOING TO BE SOUTH OF 7th AVENUE. And I will explain more how we got to that conclusion on this next slide. So when we went out to the community with this information, we looked a lot about what housing looks like in the avenues, what density already looks like in the avenues. And this map on the top, this was included in one of the earlier slides, but this just shows that lower than Seventh Avenue, there's already a mix of housing types in the avenues and densities in the avenues. IN THE LOWER AVENUES. AND CURRENTLY THERE IS NO MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION IN THE COMMUNITY ON PAPER, BUT IT EXISTS IN REAL LIFE. SO THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF A BLOCK THAT CURRENTLY MEETS THE MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL THRESHOLD AND JUST WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. SO NOT EVERY BUILDING IS GOING TO BE A MULTIUNIT BUILDING. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS ON THIS BLOCK. And there's certainly not every block is going to be able to have infill. There are some blocks that there is not room for infill, but where there are infill opportunities, this would allow for a slight increase of context-sensitive infill. And then finally, City Creek has its own plan, and it was adopted, I think, in 1986. And it does include a future land use plan in that plan, but the future land use plan only covers the lower portions of City Creek Canyon. And so with the avenues community plan, we are updating the future land use map for to include upper areas of the canyon And we would designate those as City Creek Canyon watershed. This is currently not a land use designation that we have So we would be working with public utilities to identify the parameters of that land use designation currently this area does not have a land use designation and And there may be additional areas that are identified by public utilities that we've currently identified as natural open space that may switch over to City Creek Canyon watershed the next time that we come before you. And in terms of public process and comments, we have compiled all of our comments throughout the engagement process over the last year into an engagement report. And that's also included in the staff report. We also have all of the raw data results, all the public comments that we've received to date included on the citizen access portal for anyone that wants to try and sift through those without them being compiled into the engagement report. And we have included the public comments on the plan itself, which I believe there are nine public comments, seven that were included in the staff report and two that were forwarded to you, I believe, yesterday as they were received after publication. I just want to touch on some of the public comments related to the plan that we've received so far. And we've been really thankful for the community's participation in helping us understand if we've reflected their vision accurately and things that we can do to improve the plan. And I do want to reiterate that we are still in the engagement process. We are still refining the plan, and we'll be making refinements over the next couple of months. So there are instances where staff responded to public comments to provide clarification, and we have included those responses in the staff report for reference. One comment recommends revisions and addition to the wording of some of the avenue's guiding principles. Some of these things relate to preservation and discussing something that we heard through community feedback that's mentioned in the engagement report which is that the avenues is a residential neighborhood first and foremost and that commercial uses should be there to support the neighborhood rather than take over the neighborhood and more of an emphasis on the existing historic district and ensuring its maintained and THEN THREE PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE RELATED TO THE AVENUES FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND AREAS DESIGNATED FOR MODERATE HIGH DENSITY. SO THESE ARE AREAS, SORRY, I'LL JUST GO BACK TO THIS FOR REFERENCE BECAUSE IT WILL BE TOO HARD TO EXPLAIN. SO THIS LIGHTER COLOR OF BROWN TOWARDS THE LOWER AVENUES. That area is moderate high density residential and it currently is moderate high density residential. So in the proposed map, it's just applied to properties already designated as that. It doesn't introduce new areas for this designation. So I think there was maybe some confusion about the existing moderate high density residential. And then there is mixed opinions on mixed use. We have received some comments for people that asked why we didn't add more mixed use designations on other streets and the avenues, particularly corners and corridors. And the reason for that is because we have also policies in the housing section that focus on preserving existing housing. So if something's designated as mixed use, there's no requirement for them to also retain the residential. And so focusing on those comments that we heard before about this being a residential first community and existing or a commercial use should support that, that's how we landed upon the idea of just aligning existing zoning and then identifying some small areas for opportunity. for additional commercial uses. And then we have also heard that some people don't want any more commercial uses. Online we heard, in the online feedback we heard 20% of people said no more commercial uses. And then we've also heard that lack of neighborhood uses is the second most challenging thing in the avenues. So it is very mixed. People that have said that they don't want the mixed use have indicated part of that is because of the proximity to downtown and the ability to access services in those OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS. AND THEN THERE WAS ALSO SOME CONFUSION ABOUT ACTIVE GROUND FLOOR USES IN KEY LOCATIONS AND THIS WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE EARLIER ITEM WHERE THE PLAN DISCUSSED ACTIVE CORRIDORS ESSENTIALLY AND WHAT IT INTENDED TO SAY BUT UNFORTUNATELY WASN'T WHAT IT SAID AND HAS SINCE BEEN REVISED IS THAT the active ground floor uses or those key locations weren't intended to mean that entire corridor it was meant to mean the areas that are identified for mixed use on those corridors in terms of next steps again we're going to continue reviewing and refining the community plan and we are planning on going to the Landmark Commission these are tentative dates but we are tentatively planning to go in july for a public hearing and a recommendation with the landmark commission and then we would be back before the planning commission after that meeting and then to city council following that we are still working through some public comments not public comments department comments and we've received a number of comments from other city divisions and we are still working to coordinate all of those and we'll continue working to coordinate all of those and there's a summary of all the changes that have been made to the plan since its initial posting and then it's secondary posting when the staff report was posted last week that is all we have That's all we have. I don't know if we made it in 15 minutes, but we'd love to hear any questions or feedback that anyone has or open up the public hearing.

Any clarifying questions?

No clarifying questions.

then I will go ahead and open up for public comment we have some cards are we doing public comment tonight are we doing public comment both both okay excellent first from Mary Mahler please move map on page 77 blocks bound by C Street to H Street and 2nd to 3rd Avenue into moderate density, not moderate to high density. House here are one to three stories, not four to five stories tall. And design what can be done to coordinate with historic buildings. And then we have Jim Jenkin. You'll have five minutes.

This time for the avenues land use committee

Several of these topics are indicative of the very general nature of Plan Salt Lake and the need for its provisions to be specifically tailored to the subject community when you use it as a framework for a community plan. When this first came out land use committee members were uniformly concerned by the size and the complexity of the draft plan And its presentation format and we had concerns that these might limit community in access and engagement We are concerned about the lack of acknowledgement of the avenues community is a primarily residential neighborhood, which as you've heard is is being addressed. We have close ties to downtown and the University District. And the lack of this emphasis might cause issues where planned Salt Lake lacks clarity on land use priorities. We are concerned about insufficient acknowledgement of the avenues historic district as the primary driver of the desirable character of the lower and middle avenues. And we would love to see clear direction to the preservation of this character again to prevent questionable emphasis from other interpreters. We are concerned about the inclusion of reference to expanded housing options. As this proposal currently contains unjust provision for preferential treatment of a specific new development type over all others, and proposes an essentially random process for the establishment of setbacks in some cases. We are also rather concerned about the characterization of potential development on the LDS hospital site as regional due to infrastructure concerns about what the neighborhood can actually support. This is, of course, a moving target that will develop over probably a number of years as that property is developed as a former member of the transportation advisory board i am somewhat concerned about the discussion on transportation issues particularly the effect of our terrain which is a minor concern elsewhere but really affects Mass transit speed control and we would hope that we would find some better characterization and dialing in on those things in the plan We will continue to work with the plan team to address these and other issues They have been very forthcoming and we've had lots of Frank exchanges And so we anticipate that that will continue And I appreciate your service and your time Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this comment? Sarah, would you like to go ahead?

I appreciate all the work that the planning board has done, both you and the staff. Thanks. Can you state your name?

Can you just state your name for the record? State your name for the record.

Oh, I'm sorry. My name is William Littig. Thank you. L-I-T-T-I-G. Sometimes I fear that new staff members were trained by SimCity rather than the actual places that we live. I submitted a short letter to them yesterday because I think that they failed to realize that The majority below Seventh Avenue is Historic District. And in fact, it's the largest residential historic district between the Mississippi and San Francisco. And a lot of us intentionally have moved there. The other thing that has happened in our area has been that we've suffered from apartment conversion, which happened during both World Wars when many wives moved from the rural areas into the city and we saw subdivision of historic homes. And then we found also in the 60s and 70s Development was out of control. There was no landmarks to limit development. We came in. They came in. They bought homes. And the next thing we saw was another mansard-roofed 16-unit apartment. Or we saw even apartments that were built way out of scale. thank you for the land for historic landmark coming in and the the district really helped control the scale of things but i i think that sometimes the city doesn't realize how much density has been added and we haven't been recognized for it and we don't really want to suffer just because the city wants to see 10 more And then, yeah, would you like to go?

I'm going to put on my recognized community organization hat. So I think that means I have five minutes, right?

What community organization?

Downtown Community. I'm the chair of the Downtown Community Council.

Is that one of the? Yeah. OK, cool. Yeah, then you have five minutes.

Sorry, what did you say? Oh, I have five minutes? Great, thanks. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Emily Sloan Pace, and I serve as the chair of the Downtown Community Council. I want to first say I fully support the comments from my colleague, Jim, from the Greater Avenues Community Council. I want to also begin by acknowledging the work being done to proactively plan for Salt Lake City's future growth. I also want to raise what I believe is a central question we should be asking tonight. What does the public actually receive in return for high density redevelopment? Because growth alone is not a public benefit. More housing by itself does not automatically create stronger neighborhoods, especially if the infrastructure, public spaces, and civic amenities needed to support that growth never arrives alongside it. And that concern becomes especially important when we talk about a site as significant as the former LDS Hospital campus. This is not just another redevelopment parcel. It is one of the most important transition sites in Salt Lake City. What happens there will shape not only the avenues, but the broader urban core for decades. which is why the conversation cannot simply center on entitlement capacity building heights or maximizing development yield. The conversation also has to be about civic return. What permanent public value are we creating in exchange for this scale of redevelopment? Downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods continue adding residents rapidly while remaining underserved in terms of large scale public recreation and community infrastructure. We continue approving density while public recreation access, gathering space and wellness infrastructure lag behind population growth. That imbalance is becoming increasingly visible. Community organizations searching for places to gather. Families and apartments without backyards or shared community space. Air quality that means recreation options require private gym membership fees. People living closer together while having fewer places to actually build community. All of these needs are growing alongside the urban densification, but the public infrastructure supporting them has not kept pace. For that reason, the Downtown Community Council strongly encourages the city to pursue a meaningful civic component as part of the LDS hospital redevelopment framework, specifically a centrally located public recreation and wellness facility serving the avenues and the urban core. Not a token plaza, not privately controlled open space marketed as community benefit. Actual civic infrastructure for the citizens who live here rather than just more tax increases for entertainment districts and billionaires only parking garages. We need services for the people who live here. We need a county recreation center, indoor fitness space, aquatics, senior wellness programming, youth recreation, community meeting rooms, multi-generational public space, the kind of infrastructure that creates visible and lasting public value from redevelopment. Because a facility like this would do more than provide recreation. It would reduce pressure on already limited facilities elsewhere in the city. It would support aging in place for long-time residents. It would improve public health outcomes. It would create non-commercial gathering spaces in an increasingly privatized urban environment. And more importantly, it would help balance what will likely become substantive private residential intensification on that site. if we are going to add tens of thousands of residents to this area we also need to invest in the civic systems that allow people to live healthy connected lives there and i also want to emphasize this the avenues is not a blank canvas it is one of salt lake's oldest and most geographically constrained neighborhoods its steep topography historic fabric narrow streets and established urban form are not obstacles to work around they are the very qualities that make the neighborhood valuable. The avenues requires a contextual approach, one grounded in the realities of hillside infrastructure, historic character, pedestrian access, environmental constraints and long term livability. And just I suspect all of you are far too young to remember the Deseret Gym, but I learned to swim at the Deseret Gym. There used to be a community recreation center in the heart of downtown until the church wanted to build the conference center. This is not a crazy thing to ask for, and the LDS site seems like a fabulous place for it. So thank you so much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this topic? Good?

My name is Jared Brown. And earlier I told you my nickname was Downtown Jared Brown. And I got that nickname from not having a car and having a bicycle and a UTA bus pass. And I would ride the bus if I couldn't cycle. And I would miss activities if my friends were doing something in the south end of the valley. So that's how I got the nickname. It's like, if you don't give that guy enough heads up, he's not going to be able to make it. And I live in the lower avenues where I am so lucky and so fortunate to be able to walk to all these amenities that I have or ride my bike. And my fear is, I applaud everybody in this last meeting, thank you for not turning the 272 house into a commercial property. My wife and I have traveled out of the country and we've actually seen these play streets. They're bringing up play streets. And we came upon one that was so cool. It wasn't just kids playing in the park. It was actually some entertainment for adults. It was very cool, very community oriented. And what I have to say is... We need families to be able to move into these houses. We don't need another coffee shop. We don't. I'm really concerned about the MU2. We just gave that to the 140 B Street, and now they can have as big a signage they want. I mean, there's a lot of things that go into the MU2. WHAT WE NEED ARE FAMILIES AND MY FRIENDS ARE THE PEOPLE THAT OWN THE HOUSES ON MY BLOCK THAT I'VE GOTTEN TO KNOW AND I TRUST AND WHEN I'M OUT OF TOWN THEY CAN GRAB MY MAIL AND THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT BUILD A COMMUNITY, THE PEOPLE THAT STAY IN YOUR COMMUNITY, THE PEOPLE THAT INVEST IN YOUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. FOR THIS WE LEAVE THE PUBLIC COMMENT OPEN, CORRECT?

COMMENT OPEN, CORRECT?

THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. THEN IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT THEN IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO OR YOU WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO OR TOUCH ON THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN TOUCH ON THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN COMMENTS?

YEAH, THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS. SO I THINK JIM BROUGHT UP THE SO I THINK JIM BROUGHT UP THE REFERENCE TO EXPANDING HOUSING REFERENCE TO EXPANDING HOUSING OPTIONS. OPTIONS. AND I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT AND I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE LANGUAGE IN THE PLAN WASN'T THE LANGUAGE IN THE PLAN WASN'T MEANT TO REFERENCE THE EXISTING MEANT TO REFERENCE THE EXISTING INITIATIVE FOR EXPANDING HOUSING INITIATIVE FOR EXPANDING HOUSING OPTIONS. OPTIONS. IT WAS LITERALLY JUST TALKING IT WAS LITERALLY JUST TALKING ABOUT EXPANDING HOUSING OPTIONS ABOUT EXPANDING HOUSING OPTIONS BY INCREASING ALLOWING SMALLER BY INCREASING But we can certainly work on some wording there in terms of the similar name to the other process that's moving forward. The regional mixed use comment about the reference to regional mixed use. We did put something in the land use designation description for regional mixed use, and it says in the avenues, the regional mixed use designation reflects allowable building scale and intensity rather than a regional market draw, with development intended to function as an activity center serving the surrounding community. This land use designation applies to properties already designated for regional mixed use, such as those along South Temple, and also is applied to the center portion of the LDS Hospital campus, highlighting the opportunity for redevelopment with a broad mix of uses and integrated green and gathering space. One thing to note is that the existing development potential of the LDS Hospital campus could be developed up to 80 feet in height and could go through a design review quest for 120. So the regional mixed use designation doesn't really give them much more height potential than what could already be proposed on that site. Additionally, they could also go through the zoning incentives to reuse one of the buildings using either the building preservation incentives or affordable housing incentives for residential. And then finally, the high density residential comment. Again, that was one that I touched on on the slide where there are not any high density areas that are being proposed that don't already exist. THERE'S NO MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT NOW ON PAPER BUT IN REAL LIFE THERE IS MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHICH IS WHY WE ARE PROPOSING THE LOWER AVENUES BEFORE BELOW 7th AVENUE AS MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. WE ALSO REALIZE THERE'S SOME PROTECTIONS WITH THAT WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT WHICH IS WHY WE CHOSE THAT DIVIDING LINE. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE.

OK, great. And I will bring it back up to us for discussion.

I've got questions. So I guess I would start with, does the sort of moderate and moderate high density housing, does that envision the possibility of further, I guess, subdivision or division within existing housing or existing houses into apartments as is sort of historically tradition in many old Victorian areas? Because I know that there's a lot of places that are like that. Many of them are now legal non-conforming. Is there an opportunity to reopen that form of housing in this plan?

I THINK WE CAN SEE FROM THIS THAT IT'S ALREADY THERE. I THINK WE CAN SEE FROM THIS THAT IT'S ALREADY THERE. SO REOPENING IT IS JUST GOING SO REOPENING IT IS JUST GOING ALONG WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ALONG WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. PATTERN. THE EXISTING BLOCKS IN TERMS OF THE EXISTING BLOCKS IN TERMS OF MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MODERATE DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE 20 TO 40 DWELLING UNITS WOULD BE 20 TO 40 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. PER ACRE. AGAIN, NOT EVERY BLOCK IS GOING YOU CAN SEE ON THIS BLOCK, I MEAN, THERE'S NOT REALLY GOING TO MEAN, THERE'S NOT REALLY GOING TO MEAN, THERE'S NOT REALLY GOING TO BE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES. BE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES. BE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES. MAYBE AN ADU OR SOMETHING COULD MAYBE AN ADU OR SOMETHING COULD MAYBE AN ADU OR SOMETHING COULD FIT THERE, BUT MANY OF THESE FIT THERE, BUT MANY OF THESE FIT THERE, BUT MANY OF THESE HOUSES HAVE BEEN CONVERTED INTO HOUSES HAVE BEEN CONVERTED INTO HOUSES HAVE BEEN CONVERTED INTO MULTIPLE UNITS AND CURRENTLY ARE MULTIPLE UNITS AND CURRENTLY ARE MULTIPLE UNITS AND CURRENTLY ARE NON-CON

But this plan envisions making those conforming and thereby giving additional units the opportunity to potentially subdivide. Great. Thank you. I think that that is aligned with the historic development pattern of this kind of neighborhood nationwide. Transportation and mobility. You mentioned adding flex routes. I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED BY THAT LINE GIVEN THAT THE CURRENT EXISTING FLEX ROUTE ALREADY COVERS BASICALLY 100% OF THE AVENUES. IS THAT ACTUALLY ADDING FLEX ROUTES OR IS THAT ADDING FREQUENCY ON THE EXISTING FLEX ROUTE?

I'M GOING TO SAY EXPANDING THE FLEX ROUTE. WOULD BE MAKING IT BE MORE FREQUENT.

OKAY. IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO JUST SAY THAT RATHER THAN EXPANDING. I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS IN THE DOCUMENT ITSELF. I WOULD ALSO JUST NOTE THAT PUTTING ON A LITTLE BIT OF MY PUTTING ON A LITTLE BIT OF MY PUTTING ON A LITTLE BIT OF MY TRANSIT HAT, THERE'S SOME TRANSIT HAT, THERE'S SOME TRANSIT HAT, THERE'S SOME INTERNAL AMBIVALENCE ABOUT FLEX INTERNAL AMBIVALENCE ABOUT FLEX INTERNAL AMBIVALENCE ABOUT FLEX ROUTES WITHIN UTA PLANNING AND I ROUTES WITHIN UTA PLANNING AND I Maybe look into the possibility of expanding the concept to like either flex routes or an on-demand zone just like broadly What like evaluate options for that that upper? Area I know that there was an on-demand study a while ago. It didn't turn out very good but JUST GOING FORWARD, I DON'T KNOW IF LIKE THAT PARTICULAR FLEX IF LIKE THAT PARTICULAR FLEX ROUTE, INCREASING FREQUENCY ON ROUTE, INCREASING FREQUENCY ON THAT PARTICULAR FLEX ROUTE IS THAT PARTICULAR FLEX ROUTE IS GOING TO BE THE WAY FORWARD, GOING TO BE THE WAY FORWARD, BUT CERTAINLY THERE ARE A LOT BUT CERTAINLY THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO EVALUATE OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO EVALUATE SERVING THE UPPER AVENUES SERVING THE UPPER AVENUES WITH EFFECTIVE AND ACCESSIBLE WITH EFFECTIVE AND ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. I'M ALSO CURIOUS, I KNOW, AND MAYBE I'M STEPPING IN SOME CONTROVERSY HERE, BUT I WOULD APPRECIATE A REFERENCE TO PRESERVING ROUTE 209. I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME BACK AND FORTH, AND I THINK THAT GIVEN THE ULTIMATE OUTCOME OF THAT COMMUNITY COUNCIL MEETING, IT'S VALUABLE JUST TO HAVE THAT IT'S VALUABLE JUST TO HAVE THAT IT'S VALUABLE JUST TO HAVE THAT CLEAR THAT IT'S THE POLICY OF CLEAR THAT IT'S THE POLICY OF CLEAR THAT IT'S THE POLICY OF THE CITY IF THAT IS INDEED WHAT THE CITY IF THAT IS INDEED WHAT THE CITY IF THAT IS INDEED WHAT THE CITY FEELS LIKE SHOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE FEELS LIKE SHOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE FEELS LIKE SHOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE POLICY. Last thing and I know this is a little bit in contradiction with with previous votes when we hit may or may not have taken this evening but I do wonder if there's a way to talk about mixed-use development not as like these are the particular targeted sites for mixed-use development, but rather like saying You know, we want to preserve housing if there can be opportunities for infill mixed-use in specified corridors with limitations as to how much of a particular corridor gets converted to mixed use. rather than saying like, okay, here, here, here, and here is where we want to put mixed use, we instead say this corridor has X amount of mixed use density provided that it does not take up any existing housing stock. I don't know if that's an approach that's used anywhere in the national planning policy scene, but certainly I think that that could be a more interesting approach APPROACH RATHER THAN THE SPECIFIC SORT OF SPOT ZONING APPROACH RATHER THAN THE SPECIFIC SORT OF SPOT ZONING FOR COMMUNITY OR MIXED USE FOR COMMUNITY OR MIXED USE AREAS. AREAS.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. I DON'T REALLY HAVE MANY I DON'T REALLY HAVE MANY QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS. I WILL JUST COMMENT THAT I WILL I HAPPENED TO TAKE A VERY AMBITIOUS WALK ON FRIDAY FROM MY HOUSE IN 9th AND 9th UP TO THE UNIVERSITY AND THEN BEHIND THE UNIVERSITY ON THE FOOTHILLS PATHS AND THEN UP THROUGH THE TOMAHAWK NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEN UP OVER TO TERRACE HILLS AND THEN DOWN THROUGH THE AVENUES. at that time I hadn't spent any time with the agenda for this week and it's just it's funny that I should have done that and I just wanted to say that you know in my 15 or so years of experience with this neighborhood never having lived there but living near and by there I JUST THINK TO THE EXTENT I'VE SPENT TIME WITH THIS PLAN IT REALLY FEELS CONSISTENT WITH THE AVENUES THAT THAT I KNOW AND IT FEELS REFLECTIVE OF WHAT THAT COMMUNITY HAS BEEN AND CAN BE AND I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING AND AND ALL THE PUBLIC PROCESS AND INPUT THAT YOU GUYS ARE TAKING AND APPRECIATE YOUR DILIGENCE

I too took an ambitious walk this weekend. But up through the avenues, but mostly, it was mostly a drive and then a trail on top of the avenues. But it was like five miles. It was serious. It was okay. But I think for me, I'm going to echo everything that was said, but the commitment to trail access for the neighborhood is it's still one of the most surprising things and one of the things I love and reasons I choose to still live in Salt Lake and why I chose to live here in the first place but coming from the Midwest the neighborhood like this with all the historic nature and the character and the quality of it would feel far more exclusive and out of reach from just from a visiting and being there standpoint I would say that I THINK REFLECTED IN THE COMMENTS OF THE RESIDENTS AND MY TIME IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WALKING AROUND AND HIKING EVERYWHERE, IT IS A TESTAMENT TO LIKE ONE OF THE COOLEST PARTS OF SALT LAKE. SO I THINK THE PLAN FROM MY STANDPOINT REFLECTS THAT. I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF TOUCH POINTS. THERE'S A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY. BUT I THINK WITH THE RIGHT INPUT, I THINK WE'LL GET TO THE RIGHT PLACE.

I don't have any particular comments I wanted to bring up, so thank you guys for your work on this. And if someone would like to motion to table?

Sure. Based on the information presented and the discussion, I move that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to a future date. I'll second that.

All right. We have a motion and a second. We'll go ahead and vote.

Commissioner Barrett?

Yes.

Commissioner Leverett?

Yes.

COMMISSIONER ROSENFELD? COMMISSIONER ROSENFELD?

YES. YES. COMMISSIONER SCOTT?

COMMISSIONER SCOTT? YES.

YES. GREAT. GREAT. THANK YOU, GUYS. THANK YOU, GUYS. THANK YOU, GUYS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR WORKING SESSION WITH CLIMATE WORKING SESSION WITH CLIMATE FORWARD SLC. FORWARD SLC.

THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING. THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING. COULD WE TAKE A THREE-MINUTE COULD WE TAKE A THREE-MINUTE BIOBREAK?

BIOBREAK? SURE.

Thank you. you

for having us on this exciting evening. I'm Sophia Nicholas. I'm the Deputy Director of the Sustainability Department. This is Katherine Wiffles, our Senior Air Quality and Environmental Program Manager. And we are excited to talk to you about Climate Forward SLC. And I'll just say we'll try to keep it brief, and we're always happy to come back. This is the first briefing that you've had on this. I think before I even get started on this slide, I'll just say that we have not had an adopted climate plan in the city before. This is a first for us, and that's why we are coming to you today as the Planning Commission. We don't come to the Planning Commission very often, so excited to talk with you. So we're going to talk briefly about why we're here, what we've learned, and looking ahead. So for our policy guidance on climate thus far, hopefully you all know that we have, even though we don't have an adopted climate plan, we have done a lot and accomplished a lot in Salt Lake City over the last 20 years. A lot of that already rests on work that has come before the Planning Commission and that our city is doing across multiple other divisions and actions. HOWEVER, IN OUR WORK AS THE HOWEVER, IN OUR WORK AS THE HOWEVER, IN OUR WORK AS THE SUSTAINABILITY DEPARTMENT, WE SUSTAINABILITY DEPARTMENT, WE SUSTAINABILITY DEPARTMENT, WE ARE GUIDED OFTEN BY JOINT ARE GUIDED OFTEN BY JOINT ARE GUIDED OFTEN BY JOINT RESOLUTIONS, THE MOST PROMINENT RESOLUTIONS, THE MOST PROMINENT RESOLUTIONS, THE MOST PROMINENT ONES COMING FROM 2016 AND 2019 ONES COMING FROM 2016 AND 2019 ONES COMING FROM 2016 AND 2019 WHICH ESTABLISHED GOALS OF WHICH ESTABLISHED GOALS OF WHICH ESTABLISHED GOALS OF ACHIEVING 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY ACHIEVING 100% RENEWABLE ENERG And the reason we're coming with an adopted plan proposal at this point is because it feels like a good time to reaffirm our goals, look at various strategies to accomplish them, and to find next steps. That's what I just said, so I'm gonna skip that. So I'll just say here that we have built upon an EPA grant that the city received a few years ago where we needed to develop a climate plan on behalf of our metro area of Salt Lake County and Tooele County. So one of the things that we're doing as Salt Lake City coming out of that larger effort is to create strategies specific to Salt Lake City. and bring that public engagement process to our community. And we were excited to see that we had some good slides that were similar to the avenues discussion that you just had. This is all related to the Plants at Lake guiding principle number five of air quality. THAT ALREADY INCLUDES LANGUAGE AROUND REDUCING EMISSIONS AND CITYWIDE ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY 2040. SO CONNECTING TO THAT PLAN SALT LAKE GOAL AND WE ARE ALSO ALREADY TALKING ACROSS THE CITY INTERNAL TEAMS. THOSE OF THE DEPARTMENTS HAVE ALREADY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THESE PLANS. THEY'VE BEEN IN FRONT OF YOU. YOU'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH HOUSING SALT LAKE AND CONNECT re-imagine nature. These plans are informing our climate plan, and we also expect the climate plan to inform future element plans and other master plans that you will see in the future. And now I'll turn it over to Catherine.

Thanks, Sophia. So I'll just go over what we've, some of the work that we've done so far and what we've learned. We recently finished our existing conditions report. So this is a required step for an adopted plan, as you know. And as part of that report, we looked at our community profile, but we looked in depth at climate hazards and vulnerabilities across our community. We looked at our community greenhouse gas inventory. WE DID AN OUTREACH EFFORT AND THEN WE ALSO LOOKED AT OTHER POLICIES, PROGRAMS AND PLANS ACROSS THE CITY THAT HAVE A NEXUS WITH CLIMATE ACTION. AND THAT REPORT IS INCLUDED IN THE MEMO WE PROVIDED TO YOU WHEN WE INCLUDED SOME MORE DETAILED FINDINGS OF THAT REPORT IN THAT MEMO. BUT I'LL JUST TOUCH ON SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS FOR THIS PRESENTATION. The first one to bring up is that greenhouse gas emissions are declining. Between 2009 and 2024, we saw an 11% drop in greenhouse gas emissions, and that's primarily due to our cleaner energy grid. Per capita, our emissions declined by 25%, and that's, you know, a good indicator because it shows that we can decouple economic growth and population growth from emissions with the right policies in place so that's really good to see but we do need more a more aggressive approach and we need to accelerate the uptake of some of these solutions to help us get to our reduction goals THE OTHER IMPORTANT ASPECT IS A COMMUNITY DISPARITY. SO CLIMATE CHANGE IS ALREADY IMPACTING EVERYONE IN OUR COMMUNITY BUT DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE CITY WILL EXPERIENCE DIFFERENT THINGS AND HAVE DIFFERENT RISKS. SO FOR INSTANCE WEST SIDE NEIGHBORHOODS ALREADY THEY FACE DISPROPORTIONATE RISKS TO EXTREME HEAT, AIR POLLUTION EXPOSURE, FLOODING RISKS. DOWNTOWN EXPERIENCES INTENSE HEAT AND LIMITED ACCESS TO GREEN SPACE. EAST SIDE NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE TO DEAL WITH WILDFIRE AND FLOODING CONCERNS. BUT AS WE WOULD ANTICIPATE OUR LOWER INCOME RESIDENTS ARE MORE VULNERABLE TO ALL OF THOSE RISKS. due to a variety of factors. And we just need to keep that in mind as we start thinking about the actions and priorities for our plan, is how we can support the community members in most need. And this is just an example of the type of analysis and maps that we have in our existing conditions report. This shows the heat severity across the community. So with the red areas being the areas that experience more extreme heat compared to the average for the city. And 57% of the low income census tracts experience higher than average temperatures. So we have several of those maps and analysis in our existing conditions report, but just to give you a sense of how we're looking at this. and an overview on the community engagement efforts that we conducted last summer. We did an online public survey, we did several intercept surveys focusing on west side locations, tabling events, we conducted a business survey, and then we're also leveraging all the community input and stakeholder input that we received as part of the SL CLEAR effort, which Sophia mentioned. So where we're going next? So the key components of our plan, we are going to, you know, we're going to bring forward the 80% goal, reduction goal. This is going to continue to be our north star. It's an aggressive goal, but it's important for us to continue to reach for that. So we'll include mitigation strategies that are going to help reduce our emissions. we're going to have adaptation measures to respond to those climate impacts and then monitoring and reporting components as well. And just to highlight the mitigation and resiliency components of the plan. So mitigation is really important for us to reduce the emissions that are driving climate change, and that needs to continue to be a priority. But resiliency is just as important. We need to make sure that our community is prepared to address some of the, or to deal with some of the risks that are coming and are already here, and also that we can recover from those events. So we want to deal with mitigation so we don't end up in a really bad place, but we also need to think about what we need to do now for our community to be safe.

Wait, I don't know what happened, sorry.

Okay, so we've developed some key principles for our plan. First being urgency, we need to act now. Collective action, we all need to do our part. Residents, the city, business members. Partnerships, the city can't do this alone. We need to work together with partners across the city to help us get there. Transformation, we're looking for these large scale transformation ideas and opportunities, things that can really help us move the needle. PEOPLE CENTER, SO THAT'S THE EQUITY ASPECT, JUST MAKING SURE WE'RE RECOGNIZING THE DISPARITIES IN OUR COMMUNITY AND THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO EXPERIENCE. BUT ALSO MULTI-BENEFIT OUTCOMES, WE DON'T WANT TO JUST FOCUS ON GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION REDUCTIONS, WE ALSO NEED TO LOOK AT AIR QUALITY, AFFORDABILITY AND OTHER BENEFITS THAT OUR ACTIONS CAN BRING TO OUR COMMUNITY. AND THEN RESILIENCY, AS I ALREADY MENTIONED, THAT NEEDS TO BE A KEY COMPONENT OF OUR PLAN. and i didn't i guess i didn't mention this before but mitigation is something the city has worked on before resiliency is a bit of a new field for the city so we're we're trying to find a way to have our plan help us move in a more strategic and coordinated manner across city departments so SO LOOKING AHEAD, SO LIKE WE MENTIONED, WE DID A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THAT WAS COMPLETED IN THE FALL. WE PREPARED OUR EXISTING CONDITIONS REPORT. WINTER IS SPRING OF THIS YEAR. AND THEN RIGHT NOW WE ARE WORKING ON OUR PLAN. WE'RE DRAFTING OUR STRATEGIES. WE'RE TALKING TO STAKEHOLDERS AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS IN THE CITY TO HELP INFORM SOME OF THOSE ACTIONS THAT WE'LL INCLUDE IN OUR PLAN. And we're hoping to come to you and start going through the formal adoption process probably this winter, later this year. So that's all we have. Any questions?

Awesome. Thank you. Questions?

APPRECIATE THE GROUNDWORK YOU PUT INTO THIS. PUT INTO THIS. PUT INTO THIS. I AM CURIOUS, SO WHEN YOU'RE I AM CURIOUS, SO WHEN YOU'RE I AM CURIOUS, SO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT GREENHOUSE GAS TALKING ABOUT GREENHOUSE GAS TALKING ABOUT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS, IS THAT MOSTLY SCOPE ONE EMISSIONS, IS THAT MOSTLY SCOPE ONE EMISSIONS, IS THAT MOSTLY SCOPE ONE EMISSIONS, OR IS IT SCOPE TWO OR UP TO EMISSIONS, OR IS IT SCOPE TWO OR UP TO EMISSIONS, OR IS IT SCOPE TWO OR UP TO SCOPE THREE?

SCOPE THREE? SCOPE THREE? SCOPE ONE. SCOPE ONE. SCOPE ONE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

But it's not like the emissions from goods and services that are being used by residents?

Correct, yes. Yeah, so we... Yeah, it's primarily the emissions from... Where's that? Thanks. Thanks. OKAY. SO, YEAH, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS CHART, WE HAVE EMISSIONS ASSOCIATED WITH OUR ELECTRICITY SECTOR, NATURAL GAS, SO MOSTLY THE BUILDING SECTOR, AIR TRAVEL AND THEN ON-ROAD TRANSPORTATION AND THAT FOR SOLID WAYS. SO THESE ARE THE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE THE EMISSIONS GENERATED BY OUR COMMUNITY, SO BY THE ELECTRICITY AND FUELS USED IN OUR COMMUNITY.

APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. How do you intend to deal with the fact that we often are living in the context of a larger governmental body that is somewhat hostile to the concept of addressing and mitigating the risks of this existential threat? I think about transportation, if we're trying to reduce our carbon emissions, HPE, or SB 242, I think, the ban on our control of our own streets. That is going to get in the way. So how should we think about this in a plan that is formally produced by the city?

I think that, I mean I can't speak for all of your master plans and all the city's master plans, but I think there's an element of it's important to have goals and it's important to recognize science and facts and to have the city acknowledge those in our plans and as our goals and strategies that align with those plans. I think that as we've been working through the next versions of putting pen to paper with developing these strategies and incorporating all of the many things that are in, say, the Transportation Master Plan, WE'RE TRYING TO HIGHLIGHT WHAT THE CITY HAS WITHIN ITS REALM OF THE CITY HAS WITHIN ITS REALM OF THE CITY HAS WITHIN ITS REALM OF CONTROL AND INFLUENCE AND ALSO CONTROL AND INFLUENCE AND ALSO CONTROL AND INFLUENCE AND ALSO ACKNOWLEDGING WHERE WE DON'T. ACKNOWLEDGING WHERE WE DON'T. ACKNOWLEDGING WHERE WE DON'T. AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO SOLVE AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO SOLVE AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO SOLVE THOSE TENSIONS BUT I THINK THE THOSE TENSIONS BUT I THINK THE THOSE TENSIONS BUT I THINK THE PLAN WILL SIMPLY HIGHLIGHT WHAT PLAN WILL SIMPLY HIGHLIGHT WHAT PLAN WILL SIMPLY HIGHLIGHT WHAT THE CITY CAN DO AND WHERE OTHER THE CITY CAN DO AND WH

In the past you may your focus may have been maybe more leaning towards mitigation rather than resilience and I I think that's interesting I mean to some of Commissioner sort of to Commissioner Rosenfield's point You know a lot of the mitigation stuff is at moments large chunks of that are sort of out of our hands there are moments where CITY INTERESTS ALIGN WITH FEDERAL INTERESTS AND YOU FIND THAT YOU CAN SPRINT, YOU'VE GOT SUPPORT THROUGH FEDERAL GRANTS AND TAX INCENTIVES AND OTHER THINGS THAT ALIGN WITH YOUR GOALS AND YOU CAN DO MORE. BUT MY PERCEPTION IS THAT THE RESILIENCE KIND OF EFFORT IS MORE ALIGNED WITH WHAT CITIES ARE NATURALLY IN A POSITION TO DO. uh sort of regard like from administration to administration regardless of changes in those policy headwinds and i just think that it seems really important to me you know i the sort of stuff around trees wildfire mitigation cooling centers that's stuff that we're just really in a position to focus on and keep our foot on the pedal and so i just appreciate that shift in focus because i think it's it's really important right now as this year that we're living through is showing us. And this is all great. I really appreciate this work.

Thank you. And I'll just say that I think you're right in that the city has done a lot on resiliency and adaptation, but perhaps it hasn't been organized under the guise of climate. So of course, all of our drought and other public utilities master plans, I think the new focus on trees, the urban forestry action plan, Reimagine nature. I mean those all have a lot of components of climate resiliency and adaptation to them But this is from our perspective in the sustainability department. We're so focused on reducing emissions that this is an opportunity to try to have an umbrella around a lot of the work that the city is already doing and to identify where gaps exist where opportunities exist and ultimately as you mentioned with federal funding and other funding we're hoping to use this plan to position ourselves for the next big opportunities or small opportunities that come our way with funding

Small indulgence, if you had a magic wand, what's the biggest opportunity you would go after with incentives or something local, something here?

Yeah, that's a fun question. Well, we actually have one of the big programs that our department has been working on for over 10 years is called the Community Clean Energy Program or the Utah Renewable Communities Program. It's changed names a few times. And if you were to look at the pie chart of a simplified GHG emission map here, a big chunk of it comes from our electricity sector. So 10, 15 years ago, we said, OK, how can we actually move the needle on this? And we had the opportunity to develop a good partnership with Rocky Mountain Power, work with the state legislature to create a new enabling statute to allow us to have a say in bringing on more renewable energy to support our community. So I'm happy to say that that program has now gone through state the state regulators. It was approved in March. We're now working on Salt Lake City just adopted the ordinance to participate in it. We could come talk to you again about that entire program at some point if you were so interested. But I would say that that's maybe the biggest magic wand I could wave is that that program proceeds easily for everyone. But then once you've tackled the electricity sector, No big challenge there, of course. But once you've done that, I'd say, well, I don't know. You should answer that question.

Well, I think buildings is a big one. Not only it's a huge chunk of our emissions, but it's, you know, if I had a magic wand, that would be great because it's also a sector that is very difficult for us to influence. So I think if we could, you know, YOU KNOW, MOVE THE NEEDLE IN THAT SECTOR AND THIS IS SOMETHING WE'RE THINKING A LOT ABOUT RIGHT NOW IS WHAT WE CAN DO IN THE CITY AND, YOU KNOW, WITHIN OUR AUTHORITY TO DO SOMETHING THERE. SO IF I COULD JUST, YOU KNOW, MAKE IT HAPPEN, I THINK BUILDINGS WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT ONE. Just in general, you know, the technology is there for so many of these transitions, you know, with vehicles, with HVAC systems, just there are technology options available that are cost effective. So I think we're just at a good time for us to do that with so many of the options and the cost parity and how the costs have decreased for a lot of these technologies that are out there.

TO UNDERLINE THAT POINT ON TO UNDERLINE THAT POINT ON BUILDINGS, I WILL QUICKLY BUILDINGS, I WILL QUICKLY BUILDINGS, I WILL QUICKLY RELATE AN EXPERIENCE I HAD FIVE RELATE AN EXPERIENCE I HAD FIVE RELATE AN EXPERIENCE I HAD FIVE YEARS AGO I BOUGHT A HOUSE AND YEARS AGO I BOUGHT A HOUSE AND YEARS AGO I BOUGHT A HOUSE AND TRIED TO UPGRADE THE HVAC SYSTEM TRIED TO UPGRADE THE HVAC SYSTEM TRIED TO UPGRADE THE HVAC SYSTEM AND WAS TOLD REPEATEDLY BY I AND WAS TOLD REPEATEDLY BY I AND WAS TOLD REPEATEDLY BY I THINK THREE DIFFERENT THINK THREE DIFFERENT THINK THREE DIFFER and then a year later my mother-in-law did the same in her cabin at sundance and they put in an air source heat pump with no gas back up and there were no questions asked and so you know if my if i had been more educated to push back if the contractors had been more educated to know that like this you know then i wouldn't have you know i would have disconnected the gas to my furnace five years ago. Anyhow, so that's an education piece where the city could play a role, and I think that would be important.

Absolutely.

Yeah, I was also going to ask about building, because I know that it's really hard to track within any kind of given area, but I think something like 40% of the global emissions come from construction stuff. So I would be very interested in whatever you guys kind of come up with that maybe we could kind of try and get into local building code and stuff. So thank you guys for coming, though.

Yeah, thank you. Appreciate it. Thanks for your time.

All right. And that is all we have for the evening. Our next meeting is June 10th.

People in my life. My own daughter. Fortunately, someone did.