►
From YouTube: Salt Lake City Work Session - 9/21/2021
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Here's
how
motorcyclists
and
drivers
can
work
together
to
keep
everyone
safe
on
and
around
our
roadways.
Motorcyclists
wear
protective
gear
during
every
ride.
This
includes
an
approved
helmet
eye
protection,
jacket,
gloves
and
boots
make
sure
your
tires
are
inflated
to
the
right
pressure.
Pore
pressure
may
make
your
bike
more
difficult
to
maneuver
use
both
brakes,
although
front
brakes
alone
may
seem
to
be
enough.
Most
of
the
time.
The
best
way
to
achieve
maximum
braking
is
to
apply
both
brakes
fully
without
locking
either
wheel.
A
Take
an
extra
moment
to
look
for
motorcycles
when
turning
left
or
pulling
in
and
out
of
driveways
and
parking
lots
give
more
following
distance
when
behind
a
motorcycle
as
they
may
downshift.
Instead
of
braking
to
slow
down
this
means
their
brake
light
may
not
alert
you
to
their
deceleration
when
you
might
expect
it.
B
C
C
Council
meeting
to
help
reduce
the
transmission
of
coven
19,
we
have
returned
holding
our
meetings.
Virtually
this
return
to
online
meetings
follows
an
increase
in
coven,
19
cases
and
updated
mass
requirements.
We
are
closely
monitoring
the
situation
and
the
council
will
return
with
hybrid
or
in-person
meetings
when
appropriate
and
safer
for
the
public
and
city
employees.
C
As
many
of
you
know,
there
is
no
public
comment
during
this
work
session.
However,
please
join
us
remotely
tonight
at
7
pm
for
the
formal
meeting
to
share
any
comments.
Your
feedback
is
always
welcome
and
you
can
share
with
the
city
council
anytime
by
mailing
us
at
po
box,
145
476,
salt
lake
city,
utah,
84114
or
emailing
us
at
council.com,
at
slcgov.com,
or
by
calling
our
24-hour
phone
comment
line
at
801
535-7654.
C
We're
going
to
move
right
into
our
work
session,
beginning
with
item
number
one,
which
is
informational
updates
from
the
administration.
I
think
we've
got
the
mayor
here,
rachel
otto
awesome.
Thank
you,
mayor
mendenhall,
for
being
here,
and
I
believe
that
rachel
otto,
your
chief
of
staff,
as
well
as
lisa
schaefer,
the
ceo
of
the
city,
is
here
to
help
as
well
and
also
available
for
questions
is
jennifer
schumann,
the
can
deputy
director
and
michelle
hoon
who's
over
homeless
service
project
manager,
mayor.
D
D
D
D
D
There
is
a
vaccination
clinic
just
tomorrow,
we
talked
about
this
last
week
and
there
are
coats
and
shoes
available
for
kids
while
supplies
last.
We
do
this
every
year
and
it's
open
from
4
to
7
p.m.
At
rose
park
elementary
school
anybody,
12
and
older,
can
get
their
free
vaccination
that
day
pick
up
coats
and
shoes
for
any
of
the
kids
and
just
walk
up
no
appointment
necessary
thanks
to
our
partners
at
the
county.
Next
slide.
D
E
Hi
mayor,
I'm
on
the
line,
as
you
can
see
the
current
numbers
there
we
talk
about
each
week
with
the
resource
center
census,
pretty
steady
of
what
we've
seen
recently
you'll
see
the
average
is
90,
which
is
up
from
last
week.
E
Next
next
slide.
E
We
had
the
same
slide
last
week,
but
these
are
happening
this
week,
so
we
have
the
resource
fair
at
madison
park
off
of
north
temple
on
the
23rd
and
then
kayak
court
on
the
27th.
I
still
don't
have
a
location,
but
it
will
be
on
the
jordan
river
and
then
what's
new
again
is
this
friday?
Is
the
salt
lake
city,
justice
courts
have
opened
their
dockets
friday
morning?
E
Their
judges
will
see
high
utilizer
cases,
which
really
overlaps
with
a
lot
of
folks
in
the
resource
centers
and
are
unsheltered,
who
have
more
than
five
charges,
and
it's
very
helpful
again
to
ensure
there's
consistency
to
know
how
to
access
the
court
system
to
handle
these
issues
helps
the
core
process
things
more
quickly
and
efficiently.
So
I'm
really
excited
to
see
how
this
goes
they're
going
to
try
and
do
it
at
least
once
a
month
for
a
while
and
see
how
much
of
an
impact
they
can
make
in
a
positive
way.
E
I
don't
know
there's
another
slide,
but
I
do
have
one
more
update,
we'll
just
double
check
the
slides
again.
C
And
then
taylor,
if
you
wouldn't
mind
going
back
to
the
kids
slide,
I
think
we
missed
that
in
regards
to
covet
after
andrew
is
done.
E
We
had
a
request
from
council
members
about
some
outcome
measures
for
the
resource
centers.
I
think
it
was
success
measures
people
wanted
to
see
and
I
didn't
get
a
chance
to
get
them
into
the
slide
deck,
but
we
can
do
that
in
the
next
update
I'll,
give
them
to
you
verbally
right
now
and
explain
them
a
little
bit
for
this
is
out
of
the
statewide
homelessness
update,
that's
published
every
year
and
it's
online
for
anybody
who
wants
to
see
it
in
salt
lake
county.
E
We
had
just
under
7
000
people
experiencing
homelessness
in
the
resource
centers
last
year,
and
that
means
there's
duplicates
there.
Well,
there's
no
duplicates.
There
are
people
who
came
in
and
out
multiple
times,
but
if
you
can
get
a
sense
of
we've
got
about
a
thousand
beds
in
the
resource
centers,
and
we
saw
about
seven
times
that
many
people
come
through
those
beds.
It'll
give
you
a
bit
of
a
sense
of
the
scale
we're
looking
at
in
the
scope
of
what
we're
talking
about.
We
talk
about
folks
who
are
unstably,
housed
or
unhoused.
E
There's
a
question
about
in
the
resource
centers
when
people
leave
to
housing
a
successful
outcome.
What
does
that
look
like
how
many
people,
and
then
from
the
state
level?
Also
we
were
very
interested
in
seeing
how
many
people
come
back
into
the
resource
center
system
or
the
the
shelter
system
within
six
months
a
year
or
two
years.
That
shows
the
effectiveness
of
a
housing
placement
right.
E
If
somebody
leaves
to
a
permanent
housing
and
doesn't
come
back
in
two
years,
we
assume
they're
pretty
stable,
which
is
statistically
speaking,
very
reliable
if
they
come
back
within
those
shorter
time
frames.
Something's
gone
wrong
in
that
process,
funding
wise
the
the
apartment
itself
or
something
happened
right
so
in
the
emergency
shelters
in
2020
we
go
back
two
years
so
in
the
last
two
years.
E
Also
a
length
of
stay
in
those
resource
centers
tells
us
how
quickly
people
are
moving
out
into
housing
and
talks
a
little
bit
about
the
housing
options
available,
the
longer
somebody's
in
a
resource
center.
Looking
for
housing,
the
more
we
know
it's
hard
to
find
housing
out
there.
So
this
year
we
averaged
77
days
in
shelter
for
folks.
Overall
last
year
was
60
days.
E
We
know,
there's
been
a
big
increase
in
the
number
of
folks.
Looking
for
for
shelter
and
needs,
and
also
a
delay
in
the
number
of
folks
who
can
leave
into
housing,
there's
a
variety
of
reasons,
but
the
availability
of
housing
at
that
income
level
is
a
major
issue
in
in
this
in
this
discussion,
and
so
we
can
talk
more
about
that
as
we
go
forward,
but
that
might
give
you
a
primer
into
more
outcome
measures
that
we
can
share
more
frequently
with
you
about
the
resource
centers
in
the
system.
E
C
I
don't
see
any
questions
from
council
members
andrew
appreciate
you
being
here
and
always
being
willing
to
talk
about
the
issues
that
we
have
with
salt
lake
city
and
our
homeless
individuals.
But
let's
thank
you,
taylor.
You
just
went
straight
to
it
mayor.
I
know
you
wanted
to
jump
back
to
this.
D
Yeah
thanks
just
the
additional
slide
that
we
are
going
to
continue
to
bring
to
you
with
updates
294
kids,
school-age
kids
have
coveted
right
now,
that's
22
percent
of
all
the
cases
in
the
state
and
that's
about
1200
kids
by
age,
five
to
11.,
so
I'm
not
actually
the
294
school-aged
child
cases.
Somebody
might
need
to.
Let
me
know
exactly
what
that
number
is,
because
I
know
that
the
1207
is
for
age
5
to
11.
D
D
F
F
Please
next
slide.
Please
counsel.
This
week,
we'd
like
like
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
park
safety
in
salt
lake
city,
but
to
start
out
I
don't
think
people
realize
that
there
are
approximately
100
parks
of
various
size
within
the
city
limits.
They
know
of
the
big
park.
Sugar
house,
liberty,
pioneer
jordan,
but
there
are
pocket
parks,
totaling,
almost
100,
within
this
within
our
city.
F
F
Our
park
bike
squad
was
formed
in
2019
when
we
had
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
discussion
with
the
council
about
how
we
could
better
serve
our
parks
here
in
salt
lake
city.
F
E
F
This
squad
is
committed
to
proactive,
community-based
policing.
They
do
a
fantastic
job
working
within
the
parks
across
the
city
and
council
members.
As
you
and
your
as
you're
hearing
from
your
constituents,
our
parks
are
faced
with
a
wide
range
of
issues,
including
drug
use.
That's
both
use
selling
distribution,
illegal
camping
and
rare
occurrences
of
violence.
F
I
want
you
to
know
that
keeping
the
parks,
clear
of
criminal
activity
and
illegal
camps
from
taking
over
requires
it's
a
it's.
It's
a
constant
presence
of
not
only
the
officers
that
work
in
the
park
squad,
but
they're
also
augmented
with
the
other
park
squad
or
bike
squads
around
the
around
the
city.
The
pioneer
bike
squad,
the
central
bike
squad
and
a
liberty
bike
squad,
so
they
all
work
hand
in
glove
to
try
to
put
an
emphasis
in
the
parks
next
slide.
F
They're
busy
they're
busy
they
try
to
spend
a
lot
of
time
at
all
the
different
parks,
because
it's
really
it's
really
not
too
fair
just
to
to
put
them
into
you
know
certain
parks.
I
think
every
park
across
our
city
needs
the
presence,
the
visibility
of
having
officers
available.
So
here's
a
snapshot
on
august
26th
of
the
parks
that
they
patrolled
that
include
popperton
fairmont
liberty,
sugar
house
watch
wasatch
hollow
national
natural
area,
sunnyside
park,
salt
lake
cemetery
lindsay
gardens,
11th
avenue
pioneer
in
warm
springs,
so
they
do.
F
F
F
So
this
year
this
week,
based
on
what
the
the
data
shows
they've
handled
over
642,
more
calls
for
service
across
the
city,
and
if
you
look
right
below
that,
you
can
see
that
one
of
the
biggest
calls
that
they're
responding
to
are
transient
related
problem
calls.
F
No
councilmember,
no,
those
are
those
are
city-wide
okay,
but
it
should
be
noted
that
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
the
calls
do
originate
from
the
from
the
various
parks.
F
September
12th,
I
think
we
we
all
know
about
this.
The
situation
that
occurred
in
liberty
park
at
about
just
before
three
o'clock.
We
had
a
shooting
in
liberty
park
on
the
east
side,
a
suspect,
pulled
out
a
handgun
and
started
firing
rounds
if
it
hadn't
been
for
the
community
members
that,
were
there
calling
911
and
giving
us
great
information
on
the
suspect.
F
Well,
because
they
did
that,
we
were
able
to
apprehend
that
apprehend
that
suspect,
as
he
was
leaving
the
park,
he
had
made
it
across
the
northwest
corner
of
the
park.
When
officers
apprehended
him,
we
were
able
to
go
back
and
find
a
shell
casing.
We
are
able
to
take
a
gun
off
this
individual
and-
and
please
know
this
this-
this
person
was
on
probation
for
for
felonies.
F
He
was
charged
and
arrested
for
just
charging
a
firearm
and
being
a
restricted
person
in
possession
of
a
firearm,
but
I
can't
emphasize
enough
how
important
and
and
what
a
great
partner
the
communities
that
visit
these
parks
are
by
by
them
being
aware
of
the
situation
and
giving
us
that
immediate
information.
We
are
able
to
apprehend
that
that
individual
before
he
could
even
leave
the
park.
F
Now
this
is
an
ongoing
street
crimes
investigation
and
I
will
point
out
that
it
is
occurring
in
two
downtown
parks,
but
because
it's
ongoing
we've
pixelated
the
amount
of
drugs
that
you
see
there.
But
let
me
just
let
me
tell
you
that
is
a
lot
of
drugs
that,
if
had
not
our
officers
intercepted
it,
it
would
be
destined
for
the
streets
and
the
communities
of
salt
lake
city.
F
F
F
Like
I
said,
I
can't
be
too
specific
because
this
as
with
many
of
these
investigations,
they
spider
out
and
they
continue
to
grow.
But
I
want
you
to
know
that
the
officers
on
those
bike
squads
and
those
specialty
units
are
doing
a
fantastic
job
in
in
in
taking
down
those
that
would
sell
drugs
in
our
parks.
I
B
I
I
have
a
question
so
what
so,
when
so,
when
the
the
police
officers
are
able
to
to
obtain
this
from
the
activity,
what
triggers
a
it's,
a
phone
call
that
somebody
said
hey,
we
feel
like
there's
a
drug
deal
going
on
in
the
and
the
officers
arrived
at
this
at
the
right
time
and
they
were
able
to
size
this
or
or
how
does
it?
How
do
you
guys
find
that
right,
like
what's
my.
F
No,
no,
no
council,
member
voldemort,
you
know
what
our
I
I
keep
saying
this.
Our
biggest
and
best
partner
is
the
community
most.
The
crimes
that
we
solve
are
because
the
community
steps
up
and
says
something
if
they
see
something.
I
can't
reiterate
more
how
important
it
is
to
say
something
because,
from
these
small
tips,
small
things
that
they
see
they're,
paying
huge
dividends,
because
we
follow
up
on
those
and
many
of
these
lead
to
these
type
of
investigations
and
these
type
of
seizures
and,
more
importantly,
these
type
of
arrests.
E
F
And
I
think
it
was
just
yesterday
on
monday,
I
know
mayor
mendenhall
and
myself
stood
in
and
several
council
members
stood
with
us
in
pioneer
park
a
few
weeks
ago,
when
we
talked
about
expanding
our
focus
areas
in
the
downtown
area
to
include
well,
it's
always
included
toffer
park,
but
also
to
include
pioneer
park,
but
the
officers
that
were
working
these
focus
areas
just
yesterday
went
to
stop
a
suspicious
vehicle.
F
F
So
because
we
had
officers
in
this
air
in
these
areas
using
overtime
not
tied
to
the
radio
and
calls
for
service,
they
were
able
to
to
identify
that
type
of
vehicle
that
suspicious
activity
and
then
make
it
make
an
arrest.
So
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
these
focus
area
patrols
are
are
really
a
windfall
for
the
areas
downtown
and
not
only
keeping
the
the
camps
from
reestablishing,
but
also
proactive
police
work.
That
is
catching
individuals
like
this.
H
Chief
yeah
are
those
focus
areas
only
topher
park
and
pioneer
park,
or
do
those
extend
to
other
parks
that
are
seeing
increased,
encampments
and
drug
use?
That's.
F
Romano
right
now
is
it's
kind
of
based
with
the
discussions
with
andrew
johnston
in
the
ccp
program,
but
the
priority
has
been
the
the
area
7
south,
and
then
it
radiates
from
there
out
and
then
the
the
rio
grande
area
down
on
the
second
south
and
it
radiates
out
from
there.
So
they
they.
Those
are
the
the
areas,
but
also
it
goes
out,
as
is
some
of
those
encampments.
F
H
H
Aware
but
I'm
getting
a
ton
of
emails,
I'm
sure
you
are
as
well
about
the
park
and
jefferson
park
specifically,
but
others
throughout
district
5,
where
I
think
maybe
the
the
the
work
that
you're
doing
in
pioneer
park
and
tougher
park
is
quite
successful.
But
it's
but
we're
seeing
the
spill
over
into
district
five,
so
yeah.
Anything
we
can
do
to
expand
that
to
more
hot
spots
throughout
the
city
would
be
great.
F
The
quarterbacks
so
to
speak,
for
for
the
different
districts
are,
is
the
dclo
program,
the
district
community
liaison
officer
program.
You
have
officer
ellen
oliver
and
then
you
have
officer
bob
northgard
and
you
have
detective
nate
meinzer.
F
They
are
kind
of
the
quarterbacks,
and
so
that's
why
it's
so
important
that
if
people
are
seeing
crime
or
suspicious
activity
to
please
call
because
these
these
officers
can
can
help
coordinate
the
resources.
The
bike
squads,
the
street
investigations,
the
undercover
narcotic
operations
that
we
can
move
in
and
do
the
type
of
work
that
we've
been
doing
in
these
downtown
parks.
F
Any
questions
from
there
next
slide
and
then
I
just
wanted
to
give
you
a
quick
staffing
update
the
the
authorized
staffing
for
the
salt
lake
city.
Police
department
is
569.,
we
have
now
51
vacancies
and
our
staffing
is
5.
18.,
the
high
water
mark
a
few
months
ago
exceeded
70
officers,
so
we're
really
moving
in
the
right
direction.
F
F
They
there's
19
officers
they're
now
an
fto
and
we
plan
to
have
those
19
officers
out
in
our
communities.
Answering
calls
for
service
recruit
class
154.
There
are
21
officers
in
that
class.
They
started
in
august.
I
think
we
talked
about
that,
but
they're
slated
to
hit
the
streets
and
start
taking
calls
for
service
in
june
of
2022..
F
We
have
a
lateral
academy,
that's
starting
october
11th.
Now
laterals
are
already
police
officers,
so
they
don't
need
that
extensive
training
that
we
put
them
through
in
an
academy.
So
after
doing
a
two-week
in-house
academy,
they
will
be
taking
calls
for
service
in
our
community
the
the
first
of
november
of
this
year
and
then,
as
we
go
forward
from
there,
we
hope
to
hire
another
lateral
class
in
either
late
december
of
2021
or
first
of
the
year
2022,
and
we
hope
to
have
20
lateral
officers
and
again
lateral
officers.
F
F
We
hope
to
start
that
class
in
may
of
2022
and
again
that'll
be
30
officers.
So
we
really
are
on
a
good
trajectory
as
far
as
getting
officers
back
into
our
academies
and
then
ultimately
to
the
streets
and
then
as
of
right
now,
I
think
we
have
nine
rehires
that
have
come
back
to
the
department
and
I
anticipate
more
there
so
again.
Thank
you
very
much
and
any
questions.
H
Chief,
if
I
may,
how
did
those
numbers
on
that
last
slide?
There
are
those
reflected
at
all
in
the
51.
F
Current
vacancies,
the
ones
that
are
actually
higher
council
member
ferris,
the
recruit
class
153
that
19
that
21
and
those
are
accounted
for
in
the
the
the
ftes.
Those
aren't
the
vacancies,
because
they're
actually
higher
okay
and
so
the
lateral.
H
Class
and
beyond
are
not
yet
counterproductive.
Thank
you
clarify
that
thanks
councilmember,
to
clarify
that
there
are
51
vacancies,
but
there's
actually
closer
to
90.
What
is
it
97
officers
that
are
not
on
the
streets
currently
working,
so
so
we're
under
staffed
by
97
still
is
that
am
I
understanding
that
correctly
with
officers
that
can
actually
respond
to
calls.
F
C
Thank
you,
councilmember
mono.
That
was
actually
going
to
be
my
question
in
regards
to
the
the
vacancy
savings
or
the
unfilled
position.
So
I
wanted
to
get
that
clarified,
so
everybody
could
understand
that
we
still
are
under
staff
and
chief.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
hard
work
in
this
and
bringing
I
know
that
you
have
done
personal
endeavors
and
to
bring
back
some
of
those
officers
that
actually
had
left.
So
I
personally
want
to
thank
you
for
extending
those
phone
calls
and
making
that
happen
for
salt
lake
city.
C
I
don't
think
there's
anything
else
unless
anyone
wants
to
pipe
in
and
add
to
item
number
one
informational
update.
I.
C
H
Question
mr
chair
great:
let's
hear
a
council
member
or
mayor:
whoever
is
there
anything
that
the
council
can
do
to
support,
creating
better
making
our
parks
more
safe?
It's
something
I
can't
emphasize
how
much
I've
been
hearing
about
this
and,
if
there's
anything
that
that
any
support
you
need
from
us
or
any
policy
discussions
we
need
to
be
having.
Could
you
just
let
us
know
so
that
so
that
we
are
doing
everything
to
make
your
job
successful.
F
Councilman
romano,
thank
you
I
I
know
I
know
that's
the
goal.
Everybody's
goal
is
to
have
our
parks
as
safe
as
possible.
F
I
think
the
the
most
important
thing
is
is
to
be
tell
your
constituents
to
be
the
very
best
partner
they
can
for
us,
because,
through
their
their
eyes
and
ears,
they
really
help
us
identify
problems,
illegal
camps.
I
know
last
friday
that
we
did.
D
You
know
I'm
a
fan
of
bike
patrol
and
I
I'm
also
a
fan
of
other
pipe
park,
ranger
programmatic
concepts,
and
so
I
think
we
should
reinitiate
these
discussions
with
republic
lands.
Folks
as
well
in
conjunction
with
our
police
department,
and
while
we
continue
to
build
this
department's
staffing
levels
back
up
talking
about
the
opportunity
to
increase
laterals,
which
is
our
fastest
way
to
get
officers
trained.
Officers
on
the
street
also
talking
about
ways
to
grow
and
amplify
the
awesome
work,
bike
patrol
park,
ranger
program
and
then
in
new
iterations,
complementary
iterations.
I
So
that
that's
I
thank
you.
Thank
you
mayor.
I
think
yeah.
We
talked
about
that.
I
remember
way
back
when
I,
when
I
started
being
at
the
council,
so
that's
something
I
would
like
to
revive
the
the
the
ranger
I
I
also
love
the
patrols,
the
bike
patrols,
but
maybe
a
month
ago
or
two
months
ago
I
did
ask
the
council.
I
did
throw
the
idea,
or
I
mentioned
whatever
it
is.
I
What
else
can
we
do
to
help
our
police
department
while
they
get
this
51
vacancies
filled
up?
Obviously
you
know
it
takes
some
time,
but
there
are
pressing
issues
with
crime
in
our
parks-
and
I
did
say
council
maybe
should
we
think
about
outsourcing
public
safety.
I
Do
we
need
to
fund
the
outsource
fraud
and
then
hire
or
partner
up
with
unified
police
or
highway
patrols,
to
help
us
until
we're
able
to
fill
up
our
own
staffing
and
then
provide
the
level
of
service
that
we
need
to
provide,
so
I'm
throwing
it
out
there
again,
I'm
just
following
up
on
on
darren's
comment
about
what
else
can
we
do
to
help?
I
You
know
if
the
trend
continues,
as
is
I
feel
like
we
might.
You
know
not
need
to
do
that
until
we
are
able
to
hire
more
people.
The
calls
continue
happening.
Crime
is
still
out
there
happening,
so
I
will
be
in
favor
of
looking
at
some
funding
to
outsource
temporarily
so
that
our
residents
can
feel
safe
in
the
parks
of
salt
lake
city.
F
Council
members,
if
I
could
just
comment,
though,
that
the
very
same
thing
that
we're
experiencing
here
with
low
staffing,
the
majority
of
the
the
agencies,
when
you
mention
uhp
and
unified
and
a
lot
of
the
agencies
across
the
valley,
are
experiencing
the
same
thing.
So
I'm
open
to
any
suggestions,
but
I
think
you
have
the
best
police
department
in
in
the
state,
if
not
the
country
serving
this
city
right
now
so
give
it
will.
C
B
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
I
will
just
briefly
remind
you
that
tonight,
during
the
formal
meeting,
you'll
have
the
opportunity
to
vote
to
confirm
the
members
of
the
phase
two
of
the
racial
equity
and
policing
commission,
so
that
is
on
your
lineup
for
tonight
and
once
that's
done,
they'll
be
able
to
meet
again
and
continue
their
work.
B
I,
besides
that
I
will
just
turn
everything
over
to
coletta.
She
also
has
a
guest
today,
annette,
whose
last
time
is
escaping
me
keen
there
we
go.
A
J
Thank
you
count.
Thank
you,
alison
and
thank
you
city,
council
members,
for
allowing
me
time
today
to
update
you
on
a
few
items.
I
just
really
quickly
wanted
to.
Let
you
know
that
that
we
are
looking
to
hire
a
new
ada
coordinator.
The
posting
will
be
available
on
the
hr
website
within
the
next
two
weeks.
So
we
ask
that
those
who
are
interested
please
apply
on
our
human
resources
website,
also
just
a
quick
update
for
racial
equity
and
policing.
J
J
I
personally
want
to
thank
those
commissioners
who
served
on
the
commission
last
year,
but
cannot
return
due
to
other
time
commitments
and
if
advice
and
consent
goes
forward
this
evening,
the
rep
commission
would
like
to
meet
for
phase
two
on
september.
The
29th-
I
also
wanted
to
let
you
know,
city
council
members,
that
I
have
been
meeting
with
slcpd,
often
to
thoroughly
review
the
recommendations
from
phase
one
slcpd.
J
Thank
you
to
chief
brown
and
the
deputy
chiefs
they're
working
on
a
comprehensive
report
that
will
be
a
response
back
to
the
mayor.
You
city,
council,
members
and
also
the
rep
commissioners,
and
we
will
expect
to
transmit
that
report
very
soon.
So
I'll
keep
you
updated
on
the
timeline
for
that
report
and
then,
finally,
the
equity
plan,
so
keen
independent
research
team
is
currently
doing
a
disparity,
study
and
they're
engaging
with
internal
and
external
stakeholders
in
our
collaboration
or
in
our
collaborative
efforts
to
develop
a
citywide
equity
plan.
J
C
K
Perfect,
okay,
thank
you.
Well,
thank
you,
everybody!
I
appreciate
being
here
today
again,
thank
you
to
the
council
members
to
allison
and
coletta
and
to
the
mayor.
We
would
like
to
give
an
update
on
just
what
we're
doing
for
the
equity,
inclusion
and
belonging
plan.
K
Those
caleda
is
actually
sharing
those
with
different
departments,
so
they
can
give
us
feedback
on
the
memos
that
we
have
written,
and
so
that
will
actually
contribute
to
the
ultimate
eib
plan,
we're
also
in
the
process
of
working
with
coletta
on
developing
internal
and
and
external
stakeholder
groups,
so
that
we
can
get
both
internal
and
external
input
and
have
regular
input
from
these
groups.
K
We
have
drafted
a
virtual
workshop
instrument
which
we'll
be
sharing
with
about
200
or
so
community
members
community
stakeholders
that
have
been
identified
by
coletta's
department
as
well
as
augmented.
The
list
will
be
augmented
by
the
information
that
we
collect,
and
then
we
are
collecting
input
from
the
departments
not
only
on
the
on
the
individual
issues
that
we
have
written
memos
on,
but
also
coletta
has
been.
K
We
drafted
for
coletta,
a
a
matrix
that
will
give
us,
give
her
a
tool
to
work
with
the
departments
on
what
programs
they're
already
have
in
place
in
terms
of
equity
and
then
where
there
might
be
some
gaps.
How
they're
going
to
measure
success
and
and
then
we
will
be
following
through
with
each
one
of
those
departments
as
well.
Once
we
have
that
gather
that
information
and
and
we're
we're
working
with
today,
we
met
with
economic
development.
K
So
that
was
a
a
good
conversation
that
we
had
on
just
the
process
of
how
we're
going
to
move
forward
with
incorporating
different
departments
and
how
their
equity
plans
are
going
to
be.
What
we're
hoping
for
is
to
help
develop
some
consistency
of
growth
departments,
so
everybody's
in
the
same
place
by
the
end
of
the
study.
C
K
K
K
L
I
think
that's
actually
a
pretty
good
summary.
This
was
heard
by
the
city
council
a
while
back,
and
I
think
there
was
a
question
as
to
the
city
council
or
I'm
sorry.
The
planning
commission
made
a
kind
of
interesting
recommendation
and
it
was
basically
just
to
ask
the
city
council
to
consider.
L
Let
me
back
up
a
little
bit.
The
original
proposal
was
for
a
bit
of
a
larger
area
and
then,
when
it
was
routed
to
the
various
departments
and
divisions,
engineering
came
back
and
said,
it'd
be
nice
if
we
could
keep
at
least
six
foot
six
feet
from
back
of
curb.
So
in
case
we
want
to
put
in
a
future
sidewalk.
L
The
applicants
responded
to
that
and
shifted
their
requests
and
shrunk
it
down
so
that
that
extra
6p
would
be
included
in
the
right
of
way,
but
it
is
still
currently
fenced
off.
So
that
would
that
would
require
the
applicants
to
move
that
fence.
Back
planning.
Commission
looked
at
that
and
was
just
wondering.
I
think
it
was
kind
of
an
interesting
recommendation.
L
He
basically
said
just
to
ask
the
city
council
to
just
consider
vacating
the
entire
area
and
then
having
the
city
hold
an
easement
over
that
six
feet
of
space
and.
L
Part
of
the
original
recommendation
by
planning
staff,
but
there
is
definitely
some
issues
with
that
and
I
think
ryan
had
touched
on
that
as
a
report
about
from
the
attorney's
office
that
that
could
be
problematic.
So
the
planning
commission's
recommendations
to
basically
you
know
vacate
that
entire
portion.
C
M
Yes,
thank
you.
I
have
a
question
so
that
side
of
the
street,
I'm
looking
at
the
map.
The
east
side
of
the
street,
has
a
sidewalk,
the
west
side
of
the
street.
This
is
at
the
top
of
that
short
section
of
the
street
there
already
a
public
right-of-way
on
that
west
side
or
do
all
the
property
owners
own
the
land,
all
the
way
up
to
the
the
curb
the
other
three
remaining
houses
on
that
section.
L
They
it's
kind
of
a
similar
situation.
As
you
go
down
the
street,
the
the
property
owner's
own.
L
Kind
of
step
back
away
from
the
curb
line
from
what
I
remember
apologize,
I'm
pulling
this
up.
I
wasn't
prepared
for
that
question,
but
the
from
what
I
remember
as
you
move
further
south,
the
the
right
of
way
gets
kind
of
funky.
It
kind
of
moves
around
a
little
bit,
but.
M
Just
on
that
curve,
from
13th
avenue
to
14th
there's
four
houses.
One
house
is
the
one
that
we're
talking
about
right
now:
538,
but
the
three
houses
to
the
south
of
it.
Do
they
is
there
any
right-of-ways
on
that
one
I
mean
if
there's
no
right-of-ways
on
that
one,
then
I'm
not.
You
know.
Why
would
we
better
prove
this?
One
question.
L
L
L
C
And
to
kind
of
go
off
council
member
doing
a
little
bit,
I'm
pretty
sure
that
this
was
dr
kirk's
old
home,
but
all
on
the
west
side
of
8th
street.
Up
until
I
say,
11th
ave,
there
is
no.
There
is
no
sidewalk.
C
M
H
Mr
chair,
my
romano
thanks,
a
question:
is
it
it
feels
a
little
bit
messy
for
us
to
just
vacate
this
one
triangle
spot
that
currently
has
the,
because
it
currently
has
a
fence.
Why
would
we
not
continue
the
vacation
all
the
way
up
to
the
north
property
line
of
this
person's
property
so
that
it
continues
a
straight
line
rather
than
having
our
public
right-of-way
sort
of
jog
at
the
will
of
whatever
the
fences
happen
to
be?
It
just
feels
like.
H
If
we're
going
to
vacate
this,
we
should
vacate
all
the
way
along
that
east
edge
of
the
property
line,
and
really,
I
think
we
should
probably
do
it
for
the
whole
block
face,
so
we're
not
just
responding
to
sort
of
random,
whatever
a
person
may
have
put
a
fence
in
that
encroaching
the
public
right
of
way.
It
just
seems
like.
H
L
Well,
the
applicant
actually
has
to
pay
for
it,
so
that
might
be
part
of
the
issue
so
they're
requesting
the
portion
of
property
that
they
have
been
using
and
are
are
interested
in
purchasing
that
section.
So
if,
if
it
increased,
then
the
cost
would
also
increase.
K
This
is
the
only
one
I'm
aware
of
that
has
a
fence
that
is
out
over
the
city
property
and
is
the
fencing
area
is
being
used
as
part
of
the
applicant's
backyard.
So
that's
the
main
concern
they
had
a
no-cost
lease.
I
believe
it
was
for
a
10-year
period
to
use
this
area
and
then,
when
it
came
up
for
renewal,
that's
when
the
city
ordinance
changed
and
is
now
requiring
the
city
to
charge
for
exclusive
use
of
city
property.
K
The
options
are
to
enter
into
another
lease
with
the
applicants,
and
that
would
be
for
10
years
and
I
believe,
and
then
it
would
could
continue
on,
rather
than
do
that,
the
applicants
asked
if
they
would
be
able
to
just
purchase
the
land
from
the
city
and
know
their
cost.
It
would
be
a
one-time
expense
to
them
to
purchase
that
and
to
move
their
fence
in
the
six
feet,
and
then
they
would
own
the
property.
K
If
the
city
at
some
point
decided
to
put
in
sidewalks
along
that
lock
face,
they
would
work
with
the
individual
property
owners
to
move
or
change
their
landscaping.
So
the
city
would
have
access
to
that
area
and
potentially
do
a
similar
vacation
outside
of
the
sidewalk
area.
If
the
other
property
owners
were
interested
in
doing
that.
But
again,
as
my
my
understanding
is,
this
is
the
only
one
that's
fenced
off
and
is
part
of
the
applicant's
backyard.
C
So
brian
that
was
going
to
be
my
follow-up
call
a
question
to
you,
and
wayne
is
the
only
reason
the
city
is
pursuing.
This
is
because
it
is
fenced
off
currently
because
I
know
all
the
properties
south
of
that.
I
don't
think
I
have
fences
on
that
side
of
the
property.
L
Yeah,
I
think,
just
to
clarify
that
the
city
hasn't
pursued
this.
This
is
a
private
application
and-
and
it
used
to
be,
as
brian
mentioned,
things
were
a
lot
different
back
in
the
day
where,
where
our
property
division
would
actually
issue
revocable
permits-
and
there
are
basically
no
fee
revocable
permits.
L
So
we
have
a
number
of
these
throughout
the
city
where
folks
have
been
able
to
enter
into
these
revocable
permits
and
fence
off
a
portion
of
what
is
essentially
city
right
away.
The
real
estate
division
changed
their
policy
and
now
require
a
paid
lease
agreement
to
do
that,
and
so.
L
What
we
have
been
getting
over
the
last
quite
a
few
years,
these
requests
to
vacate
portions
of
the
right-of-way,
and
it's
because
of
you
know
that
that
change
in
policy,
where
you
know
rightly
so,
the
city
is
requiring
payment
of
the
use
of
city
property.
So
I
just
want
to
clarify
that
it's
not
a
city-initiated
thing.
This
is
a
private
application.
C
Wayne,
I
was
just
wondering
if
it
was
the
city
that
sparked
them
going
in
to
apply
for
this
vacation
because
of
the
their
lease
running
up.
So
that's
what
I
intended
by
that.
So
if
there
aren't
any
other
questions,
I'd
love
to
turn
it
over
to
the
applicant
to
have
them.
B
I
would
just
add
that,
and
if
I'm
remembering
the
other
properties
south
of
this
property
on
that
block,
I
don't
know
that
it.
There
are
a
bunch
of
other
obstacles
on
that
block.
That
would
prevent
us
from
putting
in
a
sidewalk
on
that
side.
B
So
I
don't
know
that
we're
like
losing
much
because
with
this
fence,
based
on
the
the,
I
guess,
lack
of
feasibility
of
making
a
sidewalk
there
through
the
other
properties
as
well,
and
there
is
a
sidewalk
on
the
other
side,
totally
yeah.
So.
B
C
Yep,
okay,
I
agree
with
you
chris
I
mean
councilmember
wharton,
let's
go
to
the
applicant.
N
Thank
you
to
the
council
and
everybody
for
listening
to
us,
my
I'm
justin,
and
this
is
my
wife
jody
miller.
We
live
at
the
property,
there's
a
lot
a
lot
to
try
and
respond
to.
As
I
was
listening
to
the
conversation,
what
I'm
not
certain
about
that
17
feet
if
that
runs
all
the
way
down
to
11th,
which
I
think
it
does.
N
There
are
two
other
properties
on
8th
street
between
our
house
and
11th
that
have
fences
all
the
way
into
the
city
into
the
city:
property.
That's
going
to
be
on
the
north
side
of
13th,
I'm
sorry
on
the
south
side
of
13th
and
h
and
then
additionally,
on
the
north
side
of
12th
and
h
both
have
the
exact
same
problem.
N
So
if
the,
if
the
17
feet
exists
all
the
way
down
to
11,
then
it's
not
just
us
so
for
whatever
that's
worth
and
then
just
to
add
a
little
more
color
to
that
description.
When
we
bought
this
house,
the
fence
was
already
there
and
like,
like
the
chairperson,
said,
this
is
dr
kirk's
old
home.
So
the
fence
was
already
there.
It
was
chain
link,
it
was.
It
was
poorly
maintained.
N
All
we
decided
to
do
was
tear
down
the
existing
fence
and
build
a
new
fence,
and
at
that
time
we
elected
to
get
the
permit
and
the
lease
and
that's
how
this
whole
thing
started.
Is
we
were
tearing
down
one
fence,
putting
up
a
new
one,
got
the
lease
and
then,
at
the
end
of
the
lease
we
received
the
notice
that
said:
hey,
you
can
no
longer
do
this
without
paying
for
it,
etc,
etc.
N
So
it
sort
of
feels
like
we're
being
singled
out.
Obviously
we're
not,
but
we
we
did
the
right
thing
by
getting
the
permit
when
the
fence
had
been
there
for
30
plus
years
prior
to
house
even
owning
the
home.
You
know
so
not
that
that's
obviously
there
are
things
that
rules
and
regulations,
but
that's
how
it
feels
from
our
perspective.
B
I'll
I'll
add
to
that
miller's
first
contacted
me
about
this
in
2018
and
it
this
has
taken
a
really
long
time
to
get
to
this
point
and
lots
of
consideration
of
lots
of
different
alternatives,
and
I
think
the
planning
commission
is,
you
know,
was
in
unanimous
agreement
that
this
is
the
best
way
to
resolve
this.
C
Thank
you,
councilmember
wharton,
any
other
questions.
Any
questions
for
the
applicant.
C
Okay,
I
see
this
scheduled
for
a
public
hearing
on
the
21st,
which
is
today
and
we'll
hold
the
hearing
to
accept
public
comment
on
october
19th
so
still
a
little
bit
out
there,
but
we're
on
our
way.
How
does
that
sound.
N
Well,
thank
you
so
much
for
listening
or
hearing
our
requests
and
we
appreciate
all
the
time.
C
Nope
we
appreciate
you
so
we're
gonna
move
on
to
item
number
four,
which
is
zoning
text,
amendments
for
off
street
parking.
It
is
currently
256,
so
we
still
have
plenty
of
time
on
this.
I'm
going
to
turn
the
time
over
to
russell
weeks.
C
Who
is
our
council
senior
advisor,
but
I
also
know
that
we
have
a
bunch
of
individuals
from
the
planning
department,
eric
james
senior
planner,
nick
norris,
our
planning
director
wayne
mills
will
join
us
again:
who's
the
planning
manager,
blake
thomas,
our
director
of,
can
and
our
transportation
division
director,
john
larson,
so
russell,
I'm
turning
it
over
to
you.
G
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
This,
this
item
is
what
today
is
sort
of
a
a
stop
and
check
with
the
council
interim
interim
step
to
keep
reaching
a
final
conclusion
on
this
off
street
parking.
G
The
council
members
met
in
small
groups
in
late
august
to
discuss
the
items
that
are
listed
here
that
are
listed
in
the
in
the
staff
report
and
in
the
planning
division
staff
report.
G
G
Eric
has
prepared
a
a
short
presentation
and
for
purposes
of
the
the
discussion
we
probably
ought
to
stick
with
with
the
the
the
draft
report
that
eric
prepared,
so
that
everyone
is
dealing
with
the
same
issues
as
they
arise
and
I'll
leave
that
the
rest
to
eric
to
to
start
the
conversation.
O
Okay
appreciate
it
thanks
russell
good
afternoon,
council
members,
so
apologize
this
hasn't
been
fully
updated.
We
weren't
quite
certain.
We
were
on
this
agenda,
but
I
will
go
through
this
very
briefly
and
then
russell's
asked
me
to
take
a
look
most
specifically
at
the
the
new
items
that
have
been
added
since
the
small
group
meetings
were
held.
So
next
slide.
O
So
we've
been
through
this
numerous
times,
what
we're
looking
at,
but
again
we're
talking
about
the
off
street
parking
and
specifically
to
update
minimum
and
maximums
permitted
alternatives,
and
then
the
design
of
parking
lots
so
next
slide.
O
So
this
just
talks
about
some
of
the
goals
and
the
the
major
overarching
topics
here,
I'm
not
going
to
go
through
each
one
of
them,
but,
needless
to
say,
we're
trying
to
improve
the
experience
in
salt
lake
is
a
place
for
people,
not
cars.
Next
slide.
O
So
the
key
updates,
of
course,
we've
got
this
whole
idea
of
these
parking
contacts,
which
is
the
idea
that
one
one
side
one
use
may
not
require
the
same
parking
in
a
certain
area
of
the
city
as
another.
So
there's
the
four
context-
and
these
are
just
some
of
the
major
topics-
the
major
updates
that
we've
done
throughout
the
chapter
and
that
you
can
see
there
on
next
slide,
which
brings
us
to
you
know
after
the
number
of
briefings
we've
held
the
small
group
meetings,
kind
of
says:
okay.
Well,
where
are
we
today?
O
we've
kind
of
come
through,
and
I
guess
this
is
part
of
you
know
just
an
ordinance
being
in
the
works
for
several
years,
and
some
just
you
know.
These
topics
are,
of
course,
are,
are
important
and
and
impact
a
lot
of
things
so
the
the
new
items-
maybe
we
can
go
to
do
we
do
you,
have
ability
to
pull
up
that
draft
document
I'm
still
sent
across
or
if
not,
I
can
share
my
screen.
O
Okay,
let
me
do
that.
Give
me
one
second,
no,
it's
not
letting
me
share
content,
it's
an
inactive
button
on
my
oh.
O
O
G
O
Okay,
so
the
three
new
items
are
are
highlighted
here
in
yellow
and
the
ones
kind
of
above
the
others
is
a
little
bit
more
of
a
discussion.
So
I
am
just
going
to
highlight
the
three
new
items
and
then
I'll
turn
it
back
over
to
russell
to
walk
through
the
discussion
on
the
remaining
items
and
he's
also
indicated
those
in
his
staff
report.
O
So
the
first
we
did
have
some
brief
discussion
on
this
item
during
the
small
group
meetings
or
at
least
identified
that
we
had
that
we
we
saw
as
an
issue
so
basically
that
there's
a
concern
that
proposed
parking
minimums
for
storage
and
where
housing
uses
are
too
high,
and
so
what
happened.
So
this
is
showing
what
is
in
your
proposal.
Currently
this
table
is
and
what
happened
is
this
is
calculated
in
a
little
different
manner
than
in
the
existing
ordinance.
O
You
know
we're
pushing
other
transportation
and
things
like
that.
So
in
this
table
we've
I've
just
highlighted
what
what's
in
your
current
proposal
and
basically
looking
at
some
potential
solutions.
O
You
know
they
could
just
go
to
all
having
no
minimum
parking
for
storage
and
warehousing
type
uses
in
all
contexts
and
the
other
is
you
know
we
come
up
with
some
other
minimum
number.
You
know
some
fractions
therein
or
some
other
way
to
figure
that
and
and
do
that
or
it
could
of
course
be
left
as
proposed
planning
staff
looking
at
it
feels
that
these
type
of
uses
largely
regulate
themselves,
there's
no
reason
for
them
to
build
excess
parking,
they're
going
to
look
at
their
specific
use.
O
How
well
it's
automated
the
size
of
their
products.
Things
like
that
and
they're
going
to
plan
parking
accordingly,
and
so
we
would
just
suggest
that
that
just
go
to
no
minimum
for
those
type
of
uses
so
russell.
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
talk
about
these
and
go
through
questions
right
now
or
you
just
want
me
to
show
them
or
what.
O
So
yeah,
if
there's
any
questions
or
comment
on
that,
that'd
be
great
to
talk
about
those
now.
O
Yeah
thanks
so
this
this
is
just
what's
existing
this
one
space
per
thousand
square
feet,
plus
one
space
per
fleet
vehicle
with
that
one
thousand
one
for
one
thousand
square
feet
at
a
minimum
when
you're
talking
about
a
warehouse
that
has
large
projects
or
products
or
something
like
that
or
you
know
it
has
a
lot
of
warehouse
space
we're
getting
some
that
are
a
million
square
feet.
O
I
mean
you
could
end
up
with
massive
amounts
of
parking,
and
so
again
these
are
this
just
super
high
and
we
said
it's
got
to
be
reduced,
so
we're
proposing
it
just
goes
down
to
no
minimum
and
let
them
self
regulate
that
that
would
be
a
comfortable,
safe
area.
To
do
that
and
we're
saying
it
could
happen
in
all
contexts
that
allow
these
type
of
uses.
G
Council
members,
that's
up
to
you,
we
had
hoped
you
know
we.
We
intended
this
just
to
be
a
summary
of
issues,
but
you
know
if
it's
your
call,
if
you
want
to,
if
you
want
to
straw,
pull
it,
that's
fine.
C
So
I
don't,
I
don't
see
any
it
necessary
for
us
to
straw
pull
it.
I
mean
if
there
are
any
reservations
when
we
go
through
it,
then
we
can
discuss
that
and
we'll
still
take
it
to
a
vote
as
we
go
to
the
the
formal
meetings,
but
I
don't
think
that
it's
necessary
for
us.
Unless
it's
you
know,
we
hear
a
bunch
of
comments
and
negative
feedback.
O
Okay,
great
so
with
that
maybe
I'll
move
on
to
this
next
new
item-
and
this
is
about
congregate,
care
facilities
and
you'll-
recall
that
a
number
of
months
ago
there
was
a
it
was
adopted
to
change,
and
you
can't
make
me
say
this
works
on
how
to
pronounce
that
elementary
uses
to
congregate
care,
and
so
again
this
is
largely
just
a
technicality
that
the
transmittal
you
had
showed
lma
scenery
uses
and
it
needs
to
be
changed,
congruent
care
facilities.
O
Now
in
that
congregate
care
facility
definition
that
was
adopted.
O
I
suppose
the
only
question
here
is,
if
it's
appropriate
in
in
the
new
context,
layout
and
previously
alien
masonry
uses
had
no
minimums
in
the
in
the
transit
context.
O
We've
kept
that
the
same,
but
you
know
just
this
is
straight
up,
as
was
proposed
in
that
text,
amendment
of
one
space
for
each
family,
plus
one
space
for
every
four
individual
bedrooms,
plus
one
space
for
every
two
support
staff
present
during
the
busiest
shift
and
that's
for
a
large
facility
and
for
a
small
facility,
three
spaces
per
facility
and
one
space
for
every
two
support
staff
during
the
busiest
shift.
O
So
unless
there
are
conversation
on,
maybe
that's
no
longer
appropriate
or
you
know
you
know
there
should
be
some
other
minimum
for
one
of
the
other
contexts.
This
would
just
be
a
technicality.
C
At
council
members
I
and
feel
free
to
speak
up,
because
I
can't
see
all
of
your
tiles.
If
you
have
any
comments
with
this
and
if
we
don't
have
any
comments,
we'll
just
we'll
just
move
on
eric
to
the
next
one.
I
Sorry
vice
chair
rogers,
I
have
one
question
for
eric
about.
I
mean
I
think
it's
fine,
it's
a
plus
one
space
for
every
two
support
staff
present
during
the
busiest
shifts
like
do.
We
need
to
be
that
specific
about
the
time,
because
then
we're
gonna
have
to
go
and
force,
and
you
know
it
it's
just
to
me.
It's
right.
Yeah.
O
And
that's
clearly,
you
know
that
would
be
really
hard
to
enforce
exactly
off
of
that,
maybe
that's
just
to
give
them
a
heads
up
and
how
are
we
going
to
know
when
they
submit
that
absolutely
it
could
be
simplified?
This
is
just
this
is
a
copy
and
paste
from
what
was
adopted
with
the
text,
the
previous
text
amendment,
so
that
is
something
could
be.
It
could
be
word
smith
differently.
P
O
Okay,
so
the
last
one,
that's
new
is
just
with
the
special
exceptions,
and
this
just
has
to
do
with.
Of
course,
you
know
you're
going
to
be
talking
about
special
exceptions.
Next
and
frankly,
it
just
depends
which
one
is
passed.
First,
if
the
parking
ordinance
passes
first,
then
there's
no
change
needed
if
special
exceptions
changes.
First,
we
have
one
minor
modification.
O
Currently
it
just
references,
they
both
have
the
same
standard
of
how
to
treat
two
parking
related
modifications,
one
for
front
yard
parking
and
one
for
storage
of
vehicles
without
a
hard
surface.
O
Just
currently
the
language
you
have
in
front
of
you
points
them
to
the
special
exception
process
which
may
be
going
away.
So
this
is
just
if
that
happens.
First,
we
need
to
clean
up
a
tiny
bit
of
language.
There
there's
no
other
changes
to
the
standards,
so
that's
it
and
that's
all
the
new
items,
so
everything
else
either
you've
seen
in
small
group
meetings
or
russell's
report.
G
Eric
could
I
prevail
on
you
to
to
since,
since
your
draft
is
up
on
the
screen,
could
you
walk
us
through
this
thing,
and
the
only
thing
that
I
have
to
say
really
is:
is
that
the
way
this
this
list
is
set
up
is
degree
of
difficulty
the
further
down
the
list?
You
go
the
easier.
The
decision
should
be.
That's
that's
about
it.
O
Okay,
fantastic
yeah.
Let's
do
that
so
the
first
concern
is
was
originally
brought
up
by
council,
remember,
mono,
and
it's
for
parking
lots
under
10
000
square
feet.
There's
a
concern
that
small
lots
between
five
and
ten
thousand
square
feet
along
certain
corridors
would
have
a
difficult
time
providing
parking
if
redeveloped.
O
So
we
already
have
a
provision
that
small
lots
under
5000
square
feet
for
commercial
or
multi-family,
don't
have
to
provide
parking,
but
it
was
brought
up
that
maybe
up
to
10
000
would
be
more
appropriate,
and
so
there
was
a
couple
potential
solutions
on
this
one
one
that
was
originally
presented
was
that
maybe
lots
between
five
and
ten
thousand
square
feet
provide
fifty
percent
of
required
parking.
O
There
was
the
recommendation
of
maybe
there's
just
no
minimum
parking
for
lots
under
ten
thousand
square
feet,
or
there
was
also
discussion
on,
rather
than
tying
it
to
lot
square
footage
to
tie
it
to
a
certain
building
size,
and
I
don't
know
that
we
came
up
with
a
certain
size
for
the
square
feet
of
building,
but
that
would
obviously
be
a
little
bit
more
consistent
with
our
other
regulations
of
looking
at
the
size
of
a
use
and
then
also
considered,
was
just
leaving
as
proposed
and
rely
on
reductions
that
are
already
found
in
the
ordinance
for
shared
parking
or
location,
near
transit,
or
things
like
that.
O
H
F
H
Earlier
part
of
the
staff
report-
or
I
think
it's
the
council
staff
portion
of
the
staff
report
there,
it
looks
like
we
have
some
reports
of
what
the
small
group
discussions
came
out
of
in
the
one
ignores.
I
think
this
is
the
one
that
I
was
in,
but
I
don't
remember
had
said
something
about
500
square
feet
of
building
nick.
Is
that
something
you
still
think
would
be
a
good
solution,
and
can
you
explain
that
a
little
bit
better
like
the
first
5
000
square
feet
is
exempt
and
then.
P
So
first
off
is
this
would
be
the
only
regulation
in
the
parking
chapter.
That's
based
off
the
lot
size,
so
it's
a
whole
new
way
to
it's
one,
it's
a
one-off
thing
and
it
exempts.
Basically,
if
you
were
to
change
that
to
10
000
square
feet,
it
basically
exempts
almost
every
residential
lot
in
the
city
from
ever
having
to
provide
parking.
P
Not
that
I
mean
from
a
planning
perspective.
That's
the
best
practice!
That's
we're
starting
to
see
around
the
around
the
world
really,
but
that's
a
significant
change
in
salt
lake
city,
and
so
I
I
think,
it's
better,
because
all
of
our
regulations
are
based
off
building
size,
we're
from
a
how
you
administer
the
code
and
read
the
code
and
apply
the
code,
it's
better
to
base
it
off
of
the
size
of
the
building,
because
on
a
10,
000
square
foot,
we
have
some
lots
down.
P
Whereas
if
you
go
into
some
of
our
other
zones,
you
may
only
have
a
two
or
three
thousand
square
foot
building
there
and
it's
not
there's
not
really
the
the
the
same
type
of
impact
and
it's
probably
okay
in
places
where
we
have
transit
and
everything
else.
But
you
know
in
the
in
the
areas
of
of
our
city
that
are
more
suburban
in
nature,
that
that
could
be
a
pretty
significant
impact.
P
So
I
think
when
it
comes
to
this,
I
would
prefer
the
regulation
to
focus
on
the
size
of
the
building
versus
the
size
of
the
lot
the
size
of
the
log.
I
mean
you
can.
Certainly
you
can
do
it,
but
I
would.
I
would
guess
that
close
to
50
of
the
lots
in
salt
lake
city
are
less
than
10
000
square
feet,
regardless
of
the
underlying
zone,
and
so
it
has
some
pretty
far-reaching
impacts.
If
you
were
to
increase
that
when
it's
at
5000,
it's
not
as
it's
not
as
impactful.
O
P
Right
and
and
the
the
hard
part
is
when
we
talk
about
commercial,
are
we
talking
about
commercial
zoning
districts
or
just
commercial
uses?
What,
if
it's,
not
a
commercial
use,
but
it's
not
a
residential
use
either,
and
so
there
some
of
the
languages
is
not
consistent
with
some
of
the
terms
that
we
use
throughout
our
code,
which
creates,
makes
it
harder
to
administer
and
apply
the
code.
P
So
I
think
whichever
route
is
taken,
we
probably
need
to
clean
up
the
wording
in
this
section
so
that
it
it's
more
clear
on
how
it
applies
and
where
it
applies.
H
Well,
I'd
be
supportive
of
moving
that
direction
and
not
tying
anything
to
the
lot
size.
If
that
cleans
up
the
ordinance
further,
I'm
not
sure
what
what
square
footage
of
building
like
is
it
the
first
five
thousand
square
feet
the
first
2500
square
feet?
I
think
that
would
be
something
I'd
look
to
your
technical
expertise
too,
but
that
does.
H
It'd
be
clean,
cleaner
and
a
little
bit
more
simple.
P
Yeah,
what
we
would
do
is
we
would
probably
have
to
look
at
some
of
our
typical
buildings
in
the
city.
We
can't
obviously
analyze
every
single
property
that
this
might
apply
to
to
decide
what
kind
of
size
of
building
is
on
there,
but
we
can
look
at
some
buildings
that
are
similar
in
scope
and
around
whatever
that
5
000
or
10
000
is
and
get
an
idea
of
what
it
might
mean
for
those
types
of
uses
and
buildings
of
that
size.
H
Well,
given
what
nick
just
said,
I
think
that
that
would
be
my
first
choice
and
my
second
choice
would
be
to
just
leave
it
as
proposed,
because
I
do
understand
that
concern
of
a
building
where
we
allow
a
lot
of
density
to
be
really
tall
and
have
a
lot
of
square
footage
with
no
parking.
So
I
guess
that's
where
I'm
at.
M
P
Well,
it
it
depends
on
on
how
far
down
a
path
we
go
right
if,
if
we're
switching
it
from
building
or
from
lot
to
building
and
we're
keeping
it
at
5
000
square
feet,
then
we
only
really
need
to
look
at
a
handful
of
examples
of
properties
that
have
that
size
of
building
on
it
to
see,
get
an
idea
of
what
what
the
council
can
expect.
What
the
community
can
expect
with
that
kind
of
of
a
provision.
If
we
have
to
go
deeper
than
that,
it's
it
probably
would
require
more
work.
P
And
if
that
were
the
case,
I
would
I
would
suggest,
leaving
it
leaving
it
as
is,
and
then
we
we
could
do
it
as
a
separate
type
of
thing.
But
you
know
it's
every
time
we
do
that.
It
means
it's
it's
one
new
project
that
is
in
the
queue
that's
preventing
us
from
doing
other
city,
initiated
projects
that
might
be
more
impactful
or
more
important
or
helping
help
the
city
achieve
bigger
goals
or
or
something
like
that.
P
So
I
think
I
would
prefer
to
be
able
to
take
a
look
at
it
and
do
a
little
bit
of
research
before
so
we
have
an
understanding
of
what
that
might
entail
and
whether
or
not
we
think
we
can
do
it
quickly
and
easily
or
if
it's
something
that's
going
to
require
more
time.
P
Well,
no,
my
preference
is
is
to
change
the
lot
to
the
building
size
because
I
think
the
building
size,
that's
how
all
of
our
other
parking
regulations
are
right.
So
understanding
what
that
means
is
we
would
want
to
provide.
We
want
to
provide
the
council
with
with
some
data
that
would
help
you
make
a
decision
regarding
that
and
if
we
can't
do
that,
then
it's
you
know.
P
If
it's
a
simple
regulation,
where
it's
just
lots
under
five,
then
I
would
suggest
we
keep
it
the
same,
because
that's
going
to
minimize
that
impact
outside
of
those
transit
contexts,
and
things
like
that
already
so
we'll
just
have
to
see
what,
when
we
do,
some
initial
research,
what
the
results
are
before
we
before
we
go
decide
if
we
need
to
go
down
and
do
more
more
of
an
analysis
of
that.
M
M
O
All
right,
so
the
next
is
about
the
concern
of
insufficient
parking
for
multi-family
developments
in
the
central
ninth
area,
and
so
this
one
there
was
quite
a
bit
of
discussion
just
because
it
there's
currently
not
a
very
good
mix
of
land
uses.
People
aren't
able
to
do
kind
of
those
activities
of
daily
living,
but
it's
got
some
of
the
best
transit
in
the
entire
city,
and
so
just.
O
O
There
was
just
two
solutions
that
kind
of
came
from
it:
one
some
wanted
to
include
some
parking
requirements
for
studio
or
one
bedroom
units
in
the
transit
context.
Another
just
wanted
to
leave
as
proposed
saying
that
there's
going
to
be
growing
pains,
but
that
eventually
it'll
even
out
and
people
will
be
able
to
use
the
transit
that
much
more
or
developers
as
this
land
is
kind
of
eaten
up
developers
will
put
in
appropriate
amounts
of
parking
in
their
projects.
O
Sounds
good,
so
the
next
one
had
to
do
with
parking
adjustments
which
were
in
your
proposal
are
capped
at
40,
so
basically,
there's
25
parking
reductions
for
multi-family
dwellings
that
include
affordable
or
senior
housing
and
then
an
additional
15
when
located
within
a
quarter
mile
of
frequency
bus
routes.
O
So
the
idea
was
just
is:
is
that
enough
of
a
reduction?
O
And
maybe
should
you
know,
senior
affordable
housing
be
granted
even
additional
reductions,
and
so
you
can
see
what
was
proposed
right
here,
kind
of
the
baseline
and
then
the
40
reductions
above
that.
But
there
was
some
conversation
of
just
to
leave
it
as
proposed
that
that
was
enough
of
a
reduction
when
combined
with
everything
else.
There
was
also
talk
of
allowing
those
40
percent
reductions
to
be
stacked
on
any
other
allowed
reductions,
and
so
there's
a
little
bit
of
discrepancy
here
between
russell's
staff
report
and
what
I've
got
written
here.
O
This
combined
80
percent
is
showing
the
you
know
the
25
and
the
15
plus
40
reductions
that
can
be
granted
anywhere
else
through
other
parking
alternatives
elsewhere
in
the
code.
So
I
guess
there's
some
question
whether
it
would
be
the
80
combined
reductions
or
65
percent.
You
know
by
subtracting
this
15
15
here,
but
staff's
recommendation
was
to
allow
up
to
those
80
reductions
for
senior,
affordable
housing.
O
Specifically
when
you
look
at
this
map
and
basically
the
the
concern
is
that
the
underlying
zoning
doesn't
really
match
what
is
envisioned
for
the
area,
and
so
the
kind
of
the
the
zoning
is
lagging
that
would
leave
the
ballpark
the
entire
ballpark
area
in
the
general
context,
which
is
our
most
permissive
parking,
so
it
allows
for
the
most
parking,
and
so
in
order
to
combat
that
in
at
least
a
part
and
and
line
it
up
a
little
bit
more
with.
O
What's
envisioned,
it
was
proposed
to
take
this
area
striped
in
purple
the
south
state
street
corridor
overlay
and
actually
include
it
in
the
neighborhood
center
context,
so
that
parking
minimums
and
things
like
that
would
would
generally
go
down
and
the
parking
would
be
a
little
bit
more
in
line
with,
what's
envisioned
for
the
future
development
there,
and
that
kind
of
pro
provides
kind
of
a
stop
gap
until
zoning
kind
of
catches
up.
H
Sure
I
just
came
up
with
a
just
thought
of
a
question
that
would
be
a
concern
in
this,
so
that
I
know
that
there
are
a
couple
parcels
in
the
south
straight
street
corridor
overlay
zone
that
are
not
corridor
commercial
that
like,
for
instance,
the
I
just
blanked
on
the
name
of
that
spirit,
restaurant,
that
we
re-zoned
what
was
it
called
the
one
on
13th
and
state
street
three
coachments?
H
We
that
one,
I
think
we
zoned
something
that
would
be
less
parking
than
the
neighborhood
center
context.
So
in
this
case,
which
is
it
the
underlying
zone
that.
P
P
If,
if
the
idea
is
that
in
this
case
we
don't
want
that
we'd
have
to
add
some
sort
of
qualifier
that
in
the
parking
chapter
that
says,
you
know
if
a
property's
in
the
ssc
overlay,
but
the
underlying
zoning
district
is
in
a
different
context
in
the
underlying
zoning
district.
If
it's
lesser
can
will
override
or
apply
or
it's
something
where
you
just
let
the
applicant
pick.
P
O
And
obviously
it
would
still
go
off
the
use
because
the
then
the
context
is
just
the
first
level
of
deciding
what
parking
counts
are
and
then
it
goes
down
to
the
use
and
so
frankly,
actually,
when
you
get
down
to
it,
looking
at
a
specific
use,
it
might
all
be
even
across
the
board.
You
know
we
have
to
see
how
that
would
shake
out
for
any
given
use,
because
sometimes
a
use
has
the
same
parking
requirements
in
neighborhood
center
as
it
does
in
urban
center
or
transit
or
general,
or
something
like
that.
O
So
sometimes
it
may
you
know
it
might
not
be
an
issue
at
all,
but
overall
and
planning
staff
was
comfortable
with
the
recommendation
to
put
the
overlay
in
the
neighborhood
center
context.
Any
other
questions
on
that.
One.
O
The
next
was
bike
parking
and
basically
the
concern
was
that
proposed:
minimum
required
bike
parking
was
too
low,
specifically
for
commercial
and
industrial
uses,
and
so
this
was
originally
brought
up
by
the
administration,
and
then
the
planning
office
in
public
mirrored
those
comments,
and
so
what's
this
is
what
was
currently
proposed
in
your
ordinance
was
for
commercial
use
as
120
000,
and
then
there
was
no
minimum
requirement
for
industrial
uses
in
any
of
the
context.
O
Being
looked
at
so
we're
proposed
commercial
users
go
down
one
per
ten
thousand
and
then
industrial
uses.
You
know,
they've
got
plenty
of
space
to
provide
bike
parking
and
that
supports
the
bike
lanes
and
everything
else
that's
putting
in
being
put
in
towards
those
type
of
uses.
So
this
is
just
substantially
higher
and
that's
what
administration
and
staff
recommended
and
it
seemed
to
be
pretty
in
the
small
group
discussions.
Everyone
seemed
to
agree
with
that.
O
Loading
births
again,
this
is
the
idea
that
a
multi-family
residential
development
needs
to
provide
an
area
for
people
moving
in
moving
out
repair
trucks,
plumbers
things
like
that,
and
so
this
was
the
proposed
threshold
that
you
have
in
your
ordinance
in
front
of
you,
the
number
of
dwelling
units
and
then
how
many
births
they
need
to
provide,
and
we
just
I'm
sorry
this
is
yeah.
So
this
was
just
way
too
high
administration
brought
this
up,
and
the
development
community
as
well
and
our
office
looked
at
it.
O
So
those
numbers
could
be
changed
in
any
direction.
An
administration
staff
recommendation
was
just
two
one.
You
want
to
increase
the
initial
threshold
up
to
80
units
and
then
and
then
have
a
bigger
gap.
80
to
200
units
just
provide
one
short
berth
greater
than
200
units,
just
one
additional
short
when
we
even
struck
out
for
200
units-
and
that's
just.
O
O
The
next
was
looking
at
parking
maximums
for
restaurant
uses
in
the
neighborhood
center
context.
This
was
raised
by
the
planning
office
in
your
ordinance.
You
have
a
proposal
for
a
maximum
of
seven
stalls
per
thousand
square
feet
for
restaurant
uses
universally
the.
When
we
went
through
our
the
proposed
changes,
the
the
consultant
we
were
working
with
recognized
and
we've
recognized
that
our
parking
maximums
for
restaurants
were
just
too
low,
and
so
they
were
proposed
to
be
increased.
O
But,
as
we
looked
at
it
and
kind
of
looked
at,
some
real
world
scenarios
felt
that
seven
spaces
for
per
thousand
really
could
change
the
character
in
some
of
the
neighborhood
centers.
If,
if
a
lot
of
too
much
parking
was
provided,
and
so
we've
recommended
that
that
be
reduced
from
seven
stalls
per
thousand
five
stalls
per
thousand
in
the
neighborhood
center
context,
and
that
seems
to
bring
things
a
little
bit
more
in
line
and
still
help
avoid
some
of
the
you
know.
O
Dilemma
in
the
neighborhood
center
context
for
parking
to
spill
out
into
the
neighborhoods
and
that's
a
constant
complaint
we
get,
but
that
felt
that
the
five
per
thousand
was
a
little
bit
better
balance
just
for
the
neighborhood
center
context.
So
it'd
move
up
at
this
transit
urban
center
context
standard.
So
comment
on
that.
One.
O
Hey
ada
parking,
there
was
some
question
in
the
early
briefings
about
88
parking,
that
small
parking
lots
would
not
be
providing
sufficient
ada
compliant
parking
stalls
and
basically
we
looked
at
that
contacted
the
ada
department
and
just
made
sure
we
were
consistent
with
all
national
ada
standards
and
that's
that
parking
lots
with
four
or
fewer
parking
spaces
are
not
required
to
identify
an
accessible
parking
space,
but
they
do
have
to
meet
the
dimensional
standards.
O
They
still
have
to
have
at
least
one
that
meets
the
dimensional
standards
and
that
is
for
van
van
ada
standards,
and
so
that's
just
consistent
with
national
standards,
like
I
mentioned,
and
so
we're
proposing
just
to
leave
it
as
is
and
be
consistent
with
the
nationwide
standards.
So
any
questions
on
that.
O
The
next
was
a
concern
raised
by
the
city
council
and
the
development
community
about
the
effective
date
of
any
of
these
changes,
and
the
idea
is
that
there
are
some
properties
that
are
going
to
be
pretty
substantially
impacted,
and
so,
if
these
changes
go
into
effect,
there's
some
that
will
have
you
know
been
very
far
into
the
design
process.
O
O
The
other
is
to
allow
a
certain
time
frame
in
which
applicants
can
follow
one
or
the
other,
and
our
attorney's
office
has
indicated
that
that's
doable
we're
proposing
that
to
be
a
four-month
period.
O
There's
not
a
specific
reason
for
that
other
than
that
kind
of
is
about
the
time
frame
that
if
we
don't
know
about
something
in
four
months,
they
are
probably
not
too
far
along
the
design
process
and-
and
we
don't
want
to
drag
it
out
forever.
So
if
they
had
a
complete
application
submitted,
maybe
they'd
be
locked
in
on
one
or
the
other
and
then
after
the
four
months
they
just
need
to
follow
the
new.
So
that's
what
we're
recommending
any
conversation
on
that
one.
B
O
O
Okay,
the
next
is
about
multi-family
parking,
maximums
and
there's
just
a
concern
that
they
may
be
too
high,
especially
in
the
transit
and
urban
center
contacts.
O
So
if
you
look
right
here
in
yellow
that
shows
what
they're
proposed
at-
and
we
admit
those
are
high
they're
a
little
lower
than
some
other-
you
know-
transit
ridge,
cities
that
we've
looked
at,
but
basically,
as
we've
looked
at
this,
we
we
feel
that
the
higher
land
prices
near
transit
would
would
ensure
that
you
know
people
were
not
providing
that
and
we've
kind
of
got
that
comment
from
the
development
community
that
they
never
want
to
provide
more
parking.
O
It
costs
them
a
lot
of
money
it
it
eats
away
at
their
bottom
line,
and
so
we
felt
comfortable
leaving
that
just
as
is
and
and
let
the
cost
of
land
kind
of
naturally
dictate
that
you
know.
Alternatively,
we
there
could
be
maximum
set
in
any
one
of
the
cons,
contacts,
so
comments
or
questions
on
that.
One.
O
Okay,
this
social
club
definition,
that's
just
a
technicality,
it's
not
and
that
definition
has
been
striked
from
land
uses
and
has
been
replaced
by
a
myriad
of
other
breweries
and
things
like
that,
and
so
we
just
need
to
get
rid
of
that
definition.
Everything
else
is
taken
care
of
that's
just
a
technicality
and
I
think
our
last
two
congress
care
facilities.
We've
talked
about
at
the
beginning
and
special
deception
language
we
talked
about
at
the
beginning.
So
if
there's
no
other
questions,
that
is
all
of
the
items
and
it's
340
on
the
dot.
C
Thanks
eric,
I
appreciate
you
being
extremely
thorough
council
members,
any
any
more
questions
for
this.
G
Just
to
double
check
mr
chair,
I
I
saw
you
know
I
my
notes
indicate
there
are
only
two
two
outstanding
items
and
one
is
the
one:
is
the
whether
to
go
to
building
size
instead
of
lot
size
and
the
other,
the
other
one
was
to
add
language
that
would
would
allow
a
developer
to
choose
between
the
between
an
overlay
zone
and
the
underlying
zone.
Is
that
the
way
you
all
see
it.
G
Well,
the
the
the
two
issues
that
that
that
that
I
heard
that
that
remained
to
be
done,
one
is
one-
is
the
determination,
the
little
study
on
whether
switching
from
a
lot
lot
size
to
building
size
on
the
smaller
lots.
That's
something
planning
wants
to
do
before
they
forward
before
they
forward
a
recommendation,
and
the
other
one
would
be
to
add
language
that
would
in
the
ballpark
area,
zoning.
That
would
would
add
language
that
would
allow
developers
to
choose
between
underlying
zoning
or
the
overlay
zone
in
terms
of
parking.
O
I'll
even
say,
on
the
second
item,
the
wordsmithing
I
mean
when
we
propose
a
when
we
get
any
updated
ordinance
language
that
would
just
be
taken
care
of
in
there
but
okay,
I
kind
of
see
it
more
as
just
this
study
on
switching
to
building
size.
O
G
C
Gets
to
russell
so
he
can
look
it
over
and
make
sure
that
that's
taken
care
of
before
we
we
go
on
to
approving
this
or
voting
on
it.
I
know
that
I
want
to
thank
the
planning
department
for
this.
It's
been
a
long
time
coming.
I
think
the
first
briefing
we
had
was
tuesday
february
16th
with
the
follow
up
in
april
and
then
the
one
today.
So
I
know
it's
been
back
and
forth
and
just
want
to
make
sure
that
this
ordinance
is
prepared.
C
C
That's
that's
how
I'm
looking
at
unless
council
member
any
council
members
want
to
argue
it
differently.
I
just
didn't
want
to
go
through
straw
polls.
Unless
you
know
there
were
a
bunch
of
negative
comments
and
I
didn't
get
a
single
one.
So.
C
C
We're
going
to
move
on
to
item
number
five,
which
is
a
text
amendment
eliminating
the
special
exception
process
from
the
zoning
ordinance
follow-up.
We
have
nick
norris
from
our
planning
our
planning
director,
who
is
here
as
well
as
blake
thomas
the
can
director
and
from
our
council
office
policy
analyst
nick
tarbet.
So
mr
tarbet,
I'm
gonna
turn
it
over
to
you
to
catch
us
up.
A
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
chair.
As
you
mentioned,
this
is
a
proposal
I'll
just
give
the
quick
background.
Since
it's
been,
we
had
a
briefing
in
july
on
this
in
a
public
hearing
on
august
17th.
This
is
the
proposal
to
remove
the
special
exception
process
from
the
zoning
ordinance
at
that
public
hearing
a
few
different
groups
spoke.
There
was
two
constituents
who
expressed
concerns
about
the
impact
exchanges
may
have
on
their
properties
next
to
businesses
that
have
outdoor
dining
and
then
verizon
wireless
also
submitted
some
comments.
A
The
council
asked
the
planning
staff
to
go
back
review
those
concerns
and
come
back
with
some
potential
options
for
the
council
to
consider
that
may
help
address
concerns.
The
residents
raised
also
verizon
submitted
their
comments
in
a
track
change
format
which
are
included
in
your
packets,
the
attorney's
office
and
planning
staff.
Looked
at
him.
They
don't
oppose
what
the
what
verizon
wireless
included.
So
if
the
council
is
supportive
of
including
those
in
the
final
draft,
we
can
do
that
so
with
that
recap
I'll
turn
the
time
over
to
nick
norris.
N
P
Okay,
I
wanted
to
walk
through
okay.
Hopefully
can
you
guys
see
that
that
share
yep?
Okay?
So
I
wanted
to
walk
through
what
the
current
code
allows
and
we've
already
gone
over
these
issues
nick
did,
but
what
the
current
code
process
is
for
outdoor
dining
and
what
the
proposal
does,
because
I
do
think
that
there's
some
confusion
in
in
that
so
currently
current
regulations.
P
Right
now,
outdoor
dining
in
every
zone
that
allows
a
restaurant
or
that
has
a
non-complying
restaurant,
so
a
zone
that
doesn't
currently
allow
restaurants
but
had
one
in
a
location,
and
it's
continuing
ever
since
outdoor
dining
is
allowed
by
right
in
that
buildable
area.
That
buildable
area
is
basically
the
area,
that's
remaining
on
a
lot
where
you
can
build
a
building
after
you
apply
the
required
setbacks
and
landscape
buffers,
so
there's
only
five
zoning
districts
that
require
a
special
exception.
P
Where
that
10
foot,
side,
yard
setback
would
be,
and
then
on.
The
right
side
is
that
setback.
The
left
side
is
the
buildable
area.
So
technically
in
that
buildable
area
right
now
and
legally
you
they
can
operate
after
dining
without
a
special
exception.
The
special
exception
is
only
for
situations
where
they
want
to
encroach
into
a
required
yard,
so
that
includes
the
front
yard,
the
side
yards,
a
corner,
side
yard
and
the
rear
yard,
and
right
now
it
is
so
outdoor
dining
in
general,
in
the
building
larry,
it's
it's
a
permitted
use.
P
If
the
restaurant
is
permitted,
it's
conditional
if
the
restaurant
is
conditional,
what
the
proposal
does
or
here's
the
current
regulation.
Sorry
for
the
outdoor
dining,
where
you
can
see
where
it's
permitted
on
the
left
side
of
that
bar
and
permitted,
if
approved,
has
a
special
exception
on
the
right
hand,
side,
and
this
is
a
cn
zone
properties.
P
So,
there's
five
zones,
like
I
said
the
residential
business,
the
rb,
which
is
primarily
located
along
1100
east,
the
rmu
35
and
the
rmu
45,
which
is
in
the
east,
downtown,
there's
a
few
in
the
avenues
and
it's
scattered
around
the
city.
But
it's
generally
not
a
big
block
of
properties
that
are
zoned
that
and
then
the
cn
and
the
mu.
The
cn
is
the
zone
that
is
the
most
integrated
into
our
neighborhoods.
P
So
if
you
think
about
you,
know
900
west
corridor,
most
of
those
business
districts
are
cn
in
cnn
or
cb,
so,
ninth
and
they're,
not
ninth
and
ninth,
but
15th
and
15th
the
17th
and
17th
east
1300,
south
20th,
21st
and
20th.
Well,
that's
that's
cb2!
So
we
just
don't
have
that
much
cn
some
of
it's
on
2100
south,
but
it's
really
scattered
and
that's
tends
to
be
the
location
where
outdoor
dining
has
the
most
interaction
with
residential
uses.
P
One
oddity
about
our
code
is
that
it
because
this
gets
back
to
what
we're
talking
about
with
that
last
item,
because
it
says
in
commercial
and
manufacturing
district
districts
it
leaves
out
a
bunch
of
different
districts
or
restaurants
are
also
allowed.
So
the
proposed
regulations
keeps
things
allowed
in
the
buildable
area.
That
stays,
as
is,
it
does
allow
it
in
a
required.
P
P
P
There's
a
couple
of
other
things.
That
change
in
here
is
that
the
10
foot
setback
applies
to
all
zones
when
next
to
residential,
even
if
the
zone
has
a
smaller
setback,
so
we
have
something
like
20
in
that
memo,
I
think
there's
like
20
something
different
zoning
districts
that
have
at
least
one
property
that
allows
a
restaurant
and
is
adjacent
to
a
residential
zone
so
in
outside
of
those
five.
P
We
are
also
changing
the
regulation
for
live
or
amplified
music
so-
and
this
is
one
that
we
probably
need
to
tweak
a
little
bit
because
we
actually
have
had
some
people
in
the
downtown
area
say
that
those
hours
don't
really
work
for
them
and
it
may
be
appropriate
for
the
downtown
area
to
have
different
hours,
then
restaurant
and
say
15th
and
15th,
but
right
now
the
code
relies
on
live
or
amplified
music
exceeding
the
basic
exceeding
the
health
department's
regulations
and
creating
a
nuisance.
P
This
actually
puts
a
prohibition
on
it
between
the
hours
of
9,
00
pm
and
9
a.m.
We
probably
want
to
add
a
caveat
there
that
says,
went
adjacent
to
a
residential
zone
so
that
we're
reducing
those
impacts
and
then,
if
there's
approval
through
a
conditional
use,
plan,
development
or
some
other
land
use
approval
that
that
happened
in
the
past.
Those
would
those
would
still
apply
as
well,
and
then
we
also
one
thing
that
we
didn't
do
that.
P
The
council
did
maybe
six
or
seven
years
ago
now
is
clarify
non-conforming
restaurants
to
make
sure
that
they're
treated
the
same
as
as
the
other
other
restaurants.
P
So,
in
the
in
the
memo
we
provided
there,
there
were.
We
basically
thought
there
were
five
options
and
the
council
can
do
anything
within
these
options.
You
can
prohibit
outdoor
dining
within
a
certain
distance.
You
can
increase
the
landscape
buffer.
Some
of
these
situations,
for
example,
in
the
cn
zone,
the
landscape
buffer,
is
only
seven
feet
in
in
depth.
Even
though
the
require
of
the
setback
is
ten
feet,
you
could
require
that
full
ten
feet
to
be
landscaped
that
doesn't
necessarily
minimize
the
noise.
P
It
does
soften
the
noise,
and
so
it
changes
it
changes
the
how
it's
perceived.
You
can
increase
the
setback
for
outdoor
dining,
which
would
still
allow
it
on
bigger
properties,
and
it
would
restrict
it
on
smaller
properties,
and
it
also
starts
to
further
to
impact
the
buildable
area
somewhat,
meaning
you
could
have.
You
could
still
have
to
expand
a
restaurant
or
build
a
restaurant
in
that
space.
You
just
couldn't
do
the
outdoor
portion
of
it
there.
P
So
I
went
over
the
things
to
consider
already
in
this
presentation
and
a
couple
other
things:
the
utility
boxes.
I
don't
have
the
language
in
here,
but
basically
it
clarifies
that
telecommunication
ground
mountain
boxes
are
also
included
as
a
utility
for
the
purpose
of
this
of
that
portion
of
the
section
and
then
one
other
thing
that
has
come
up
because
of
the
timing
of
of
a
couple
of
different
moving
pieces.
P
This
would
essentially
make
it
so
that
there's
no
home
day
cares,
and
so
we
are
working
on
a
proposal
to
update
our
daycare
requirements
with
the
goal
of
expanding,
where
descartes
day
cares
can
go
in
the
city
so
that
we
are
a
more
livable
city
and
more
supportive
of
those
people
who
need
that
service.
P
But
for
the
interim
we
would
probably
recommend
that
this
be
changed,
that
language
be
changed
from
special
exception
to
a
conditional
use
and
then
there's
a
series
of
standards
in
this
section
that
I'll
relate
to
that
would
relate
as
well
there's
a
few
references
to
special
exceptions
in
there.
That
would
also
come
out.
H
H
The
way
in
my
conversations
with,
I
think,
the
two
constituents
that
have
been
speaking
the
most
loudly
about
the
outdoor
dining
special
exceptions
are
both
are
both
in
my
district
and
so
had
conversations
and
read
through
lots
of
emails
and
the
way
that
I'm
understanding
it
is
that
their
concerns.
H
The
only
way
to
really
reduce
their
concerns
or
to
mitigate
their
concerns
would
be
to
not
allow
special
not
allow
outdoor
dining
adjacent
to
residential
zoning
districts
at
all,
even
within
the
buildable
envelope.
And
so
I
think
that
the
policy
question
that
that
leads
me
to
is
are
the
benefits
of
outdoor
dining
both
to
local
businesses
and,
as
in
terms
of
those
businesses
becoming
like
neighborhood
gathering
spaces.
I
think
they're.
H
I
think
the
benefits
exist
to
the
local
business
and
to
the
neighborhood
as
a
whole
for
having
outdoor
dining
allowed
in
these
zones,
but
it
sort
of
comes
on
the
back
of
negative
impacts
to
one
specific
resident.
So
do
we
weigh
the
benefits
to
the
broader
neighborhood
and
the
business
above
the
impact
so
that
in
the
immediately
adjacent
resident,
or
do
we
protect
the
immediately
adjacent
resident
at
the
expense
of
the
the
local
businesses
and
the
broader
neighborhood
context?
H
And
I
that's
a
discussion
that
I
guess
I'd
open
up
to
the
council
to
see
where
where
people
are
at,
but
I
to
me
and
all
of
the
things
that
nick
norris
and
thank
you
for
doing
that.
Nick,
I
think
of
all
those
things,
those
possible
suggestions.
None
of
them
actually
mitigate
the
concerns
of
my
constituents.
So
it's
do.
We
disallow
it
all
together
to
mitigate
those
concerns,
or
do
we
just
realize
that
that's
an
unfortunate
trade-off.
C
Nick
just
to
follow
up,
I
guess-
and
it
probably
is
to
councilman
romano's
point
how
many
restaurants
are
currently
affected.
By
this
I
mean
I
know
that
some
of
them
want
to
do
outdoor
dining,
but
I
mean
if
they
already
know
the
ordinance,
they
know
what
they're
zoned
in
and
how
they're
you
know
next
to
residential
neighborhoods.
How
does
I
mean
if
we
don't
do
anything?
C
P
We
can't
apply
a
zoning
regulation
retroactively,
so
if
there's
legally
existing
outdoor
dining,
they
have
a
right
to
continue
that
until
that
outdoor
dining
ceases
to
exist.
C
C
My
follow
up
question
is,
you
know,
I'm
all
in
favor
of
making
it
more
a
gathering
spot
and
that
type
of
thing,
but
what
about
looking
at
a
conditional
use
for
those
surround?
I
know
we
just
are
looking
at
that.
We
just
did
the
heights
for
fences
and
stuff
what
what
about
looking
at.
C
You
know
the
increasing
that,
for
that
condition,
if
there
is
outdoor,
dining
and
being
able
to
protect
somebody's
privacy,
I
know
you
know
most
people
purchase
their
homes
because
they
like
the
way
where
they
live
right
and
they
want
to
be
able
to
continue
to
enjoy
that
use
of
their
property,
and
I'm
afraid
this
is
going
to
impact
that
you
know
currently
with
people
who
have
purchased
their
homes
in
these
areas.
Knowing
those
things.
P
C
P
So
the
the
what
the
benefit
of
the
conditional
use
process
is
because
it
is
detrimental
impact
based.
P
If
someone
can
demons
reasonably
demonstrate
that
there's
a
high
likelihood
that
there's
a
reasonable
impact,
then
the
planning
commission
can
consider
ways
to
mitigate
that
and
if
they
can't
be
mitigated,
then
the
planning
commission
does
have
the
authority
to
deny
a
conditional
use.
The
the
hard
part
about
it
is
that
under
state
code
and
based
on
previous
case
law
mitigation
means
just
reduce.
P
It
does
not
mean
eliminate,
and
so
that's
where
it's,
where
it's
challenging
and
in
many
cases
those
those
impacts
can
be
mitigated
simply
by
requiring
a
certain
type
of
fence
at
a
certain
height
or
a
certain
amount
of
landscaping
along
that
fence,
because
that
would
reduce
it.
It
wouldn't
eliminate.
J
P
C
My
concern
still
is
for
those
individuals
that
purchase
their
homes
and
then
having
this
change
and
have
them
be
impacted.
So
that's
something
that's
going
to
weigh
on
me
and
then
I
don't
know
if
that's
fair,
to
say
that
you
know
does
the
is
it
the
future?
Does
it
outweigh
what
they're
currently
doing?
I
don't
think
that's
fair.
I
think
that's
kind
of
big
brother
overseeing
and
overstepping
what
they're.
C
A
Yes,
sorry
do
we
have
a
few
more
minutes
before
we
go
we'd
like
to
just
get
nailed
down
some
of
the
specifics.
If
you
would
be
okay
with
that
sure,
I
think
one
of
them,
then,
is
the
music
in
the
downtown
zones
the
when
it's
allowed
nick.
You
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
it
sounded
like
the
nine
to
nine
may
be
difficult
for
some
of
the
downtown
businesses.
So
if
the
council
could
would
be
interested
in
changing
that
time
frame.
P
So
the
idea,
the
idea
behind
that
would
be
that
you
would
change
that.
That
restriction
would
would
apply
when
you're
either
next
to
a
residential
zone
or
within
a
certain
distance
of
a
residential
zone.
I
mean
meaning.
You
know
if
you're
on
you
know,
400
south,
if
you're
a
restaurant
on
400,
south
and
300
east,
you
may
be
far
away
and
if
you
have
a
rooftop
patio
or
something
it
may
be
perfectly
okay
for
you
to
have
music
and
without
without
many
impacts,
whereas.
L
P
You
are
out
in
15th
and
15th,
or
we
can
use
the
the
properties
in
in
question
that
some
of
the
neighbors
have
complained
about
or
some
of
the
neighbors
in
the
avenues
that
have
complained
about
it.
They
would
have
different
requirements
because
of
the
proximity
of
the
residential
uses.
C
I
You
know
than
than
potentially
commercial
or
you
know,
and
so,
as
we
have
all
this
multi
family
housing
coming
online,
it
can
be,
it
can
be
a
nuisance
for
the
nate
for
the
neighbors.
I
I
live
very
close
to
the
tabernacle,
which
is
no
longer
there,
but
it
was.
It
did
have
an
impact
when
people
were.
You
know
loud
music
was
there
until
one
in
the
morning
and
and
sometimes
passed
it
with
it
with
the
folks
congregating
outside.
I
So
I
did
receive
complaints
and
I
also
experienced
it.
But
again
I
I
chose
to
leave
downtown
I
you
know
I've
always
tried
to
live
down
salt
lake
city-
I
I
know
what
I'm
getting
myself
into,
but
I
can
see
how
it
could
be
in
fall
to
a
lot
of
people
so.
C
M
B
M
M
Well,
because
I
mean
that's
the
hard
part
about
downtown,
you
know
the
residential
is
at
the
apartment,
building
or
a
single
family
home,
and
you
know
downtown's
going
to
have
a
lot
of
people
there,
but
you
are
living
downtown.
The
reason
why
you
look
at
downtown
is
because
you're
close
to
a
lot
of
amenities
and
one
of
the
issues
about
amenities,
is
it's
going
to
be
a
little
bit
louder.
I
mean
you
just
have
louder
traffic.
M
M
C
B
To
a
vibrant
economy
in
the
downtown
area
is
having
that
nightlife
as
well.
We've
often
complained
about
how
half
of
salt
lake
city
disappears
after
business
hours
and
the
only
way
to
offset
that
and
gain
the
tax
base
that
we
need
to
maintain
our
city
to
the
level
that
we
wish.
P
P
I
P
It
so
it's
it's
something
that
is
some
has
sometimes
been
applied
as
a
condition
for
outdoor
dining
through
past
planning,
commission
approvals
and
that's
so
that's
based
on
almost
always
near
residential
uses,
and
so
it's
when
we
were
crafting
these
regulations,
we
we
relied
heavily
on
the
actions
that
the
planning
commission
has
taken
over
the
past
or
well
really
for
decades
on
outdoor
dining
and,
and
that
was
a
common
provision.
P
And
so
when
we
wrote
it,
we
really
were
focused
on
the
neighborhoods
and
then
just
recently
it
was
brought
to
our
attention
that
that
that
impacts-
everything
from
you
know
bars
in
industrial
areas
to
bars
downtown
to
downtown
restaurants
and,
and
things
like
that,
and
so
it
it
made
us,
you
know,
say,
wait
a
minute.
That's
right!
P
That's
that's,
probably
a
little
overly
restrictive,
because
you
know
agreeing
with
what
the
council
members
say
said
earlier
was
you
know
when
people
are
making
a
choice
to
live,
downtown,
they're,
they're,
choosing
everything
that
comes
with
living
downtown
and
you
know
it's.
You
know
it's
just.
It
is
different
than
if
you're
in
a
in
a
neighborhood
that
has
a
corner
restaurant
and
that's
about
the
extent
of
your
commercial
activities.
P
I
don't
know
I
think
we'd
have
to
look.
I
think
it's
important
to
note
that
no,
the
health
department,
noise
regulations
would
still
apply.
We've
had
a
you
know,
just
to
be
blunt.
We've
had
a
hard
time,
relying
on
health
department
to
enforcer,
to
enforce
our
noise
ordinance.
Just
like
everybody
else,
you
know
they.
P
They
have
a
limited
amount
of
resources
and
time
and
things
like
that,
and
when
these
things
are,
violations
tend
to
be
when
most
people
aren't
working
and
so
it
it
creates
an
issue
but
yeah,
that's
that
would
still
apply,
and
I
don't
know
that
necessarily
what
if
we
would
just
rely
on
the
on
what
the
noise
ordinance
says
as
far
as
newton
has
noise
or
if
we
would
apply
some
standard
there-
and
I
just
don't
know-
I
mean
most
restaurants
or
bars
at
least
and
once
once
they
can
no
longer
start
selling
alcohol.
P
P
So
so
we
would
do
it
based
off
of
zoning
district,
so
basically
it
wouldn't
just
be
downtown.
It
would
have
so
the
the
the
9
pm
to
9
a.m.
Restriction
would
apply
more
than
likely,
if
you're,
within
a
certain
radius
of
a
residential
zoning
district,
so
that
that
gives
the
it
accounts
for
other
situations
as
well,
but
that
that
radius,
that
distance,
you
know,
maybe
a
couple
hundred
feet,
but
that
gives
that
gives
the
the
noise
a
chance
to
be
absorbed
by
all
the
other
buildings
and
trees
and
and
background
noise.
I
No,
no,
the
question
what
the
thought
that
I'm
having
is
like
I
said
earlier,
like
you
know,
if
we
residential
years
will
continue
growing
downtown.
So
at
some
point,
if
we're
that
restrictive,
then
we
want
you
know
a
lot
of
restaurants
and
a
lot
of
bars
etc.
Might
not
be
able
to.
You
know,
operate
and
then
we're
what
council
member
ferris
said,
then
we're
we
wanted
a
vibrant
downtown,
but
now
all
of
a
sudden,
too
close
to
residential
and
they're
not
allowed.
I
So
I'm
you
know,
I'm
I'm
in
the
middle,
like
I
don't
I
don't
know
yet.
What's
you
know
what
will
be
best
so.
C
So
unless
I
hear
anything
other-
let's,
let's
I
don't
want
to
say
kick
it
to
nick
norris.
But
let's
have
him
come
back
with
a
suggestion,
timing
for
this,
the
downtown
area-
and
we
can
look
at
changing
that,
I'm
comfortable
with
the
the
residential
neighborhoods
like
we
discussed
nine
to
nine,
but
I
think
that
I
think
the
council
members
are
right.
We
need
to
look
at
extending
that
for
the
downtown
area,
so
we
hear
light
rail.
You
know
one
of
the
biggest
complaints
is
over
by
the
gateway.
C
You
know
then,
there's
over
there,
the
dakota
lofts
there
are
people
living
there
and
that's
a
really
loud
area
for
that
that
exchange
for
light
rail.
So.
B
Mr
chair
sorry,
mr
chair,
I
just
add
that
I
am
also
like
I'm
also
in
favor
of
going
later,
so
just
to
help
inform
the
discussion
and
to
have
it
come
back.
Both
nicks.
A
A
Okay
and
then
the
final
one
is
the
verizon
wireless
edits.
If
the
council
is
okay
with
that.
C
L
C
Yeah
we're
going
to
move
on
to
a
couple
of
board
appointments
board
appointment
number:
six:
is
the
police
civilian
review
board
with
chuck
cravannik
chuck?
Let's
hear
why
you
want
to
serve
on
the
police
civilian
review
board
and
welcome
thanks
for
coming
earlier,
too
and
accommodating
us
for
our
schedule
today.
B
Okay,
I've
been
interested
in
qui
in
quite
a
while
for
quite
a
while
in
the
police.
Civilian
review
board
it,
and
it
really
is
just
wanting
to
be
involved
in
the
community
and
knowing
what
goes
on
I
actually
a
year
or
two
ago
I
participated
in
the
citizens
police
academy
just
to
because
I've
I
found
it
fascinating,
a
lot
of
the
the
conflict
that
was
kind
of
happening
between
police
and
the
community,
and
I
just
wanted
to
educate
myself
and
learn
more
about
it.
B
And
from
that
experience
I
really
learned
a
lot
of
what
a
difficult
job
it
is,
but
what
an
important
job
it
is,
and
so
that
led
me
to
instead
of
protesting
in
the
streets
it
was
I
just
found.
This
was
a
way
to
serve
the
community
in
a
productive
way.
C
C
Willing
to
stick
through
it,
you
know
it's
an
important
board
and
it's
changed
over
the
years
and
it's
you
know
you
have
a
huge
impact
now.
So
we
appreciate
you
check.
Are
there
any
questions
for
chuck
you're
going
to
be
on
the
consent
agenda?
Tonight
you
don't
have
to
tune
in.
It
sounds
like
everybody's
in
favor
of
your
your
appointment.
We
just
want
you
to
know.
We
appreciate
your
willingness
to
serve
again
and
and
serve
salt
lake
city.
Specifically,
as
you
serve
on
the
police
civilian
review
board.
C
You
can
see
that
the
council
is
looking
at
and
has
made
some
significant
changes
to
the
police
department
and
are
always
looking
for
ways
to
be
more
progressive
and
be
more
advanced
in
training
and
and
throughout
the
the
police
department.
So
we've
got
a
great
police
chief
and
have
police
officers
coming
back
on
board
which
we're
grateful
for,
and
this
council
is
willing
and
committed
to
to
making
sure
that
it's
properly
funded.
So
thanks
chuck.
C
We
have
one
more
board
appointment
this
evening
or
this
afternoon
it's
the
city
and
county
building,
conservancy
and
use
committee
with
kathy
davis,
and
I
know
kathy
was
here
earlier,
so
I
just
want
to
thank
her
again
for
joining
us
earlier
and
accommodating
our
schedule.
We've
got
a
closed
session
after
this
and
just
want
to
thank
you
kathy
and
tell
us
why
you
want
to
serve
on
this
great
board
and
and
preserve
and
protect
that
great
building
that
council
member
of
aldemaros
is
sitting
in.
B
Well,
I
I'm
actually
on
the
salt
lake
city
arts
council
board
and
that
it's
required
that
a
member
of
the
salt
lake
city
arts
council,
be
on
the
board
of
the
city
and
county
building
conservation
and
use
committee.
So
I
volunteered
to
be
that
person
the
board.
The
ark
arts
council
board
uses
washington
square
quite
a
bit
for
some
of
its
events
like
living
traditions,
and
so
I'd
like
to
be
involved
in
some
of
that.
B
I'm
also
a
history
major
many
years
ago,
and
when
I
was
in
college
and
I
used
to
live
in
a
home
that
was
built
in
1928.
B
I
have
a
great
affinity
for
older
homes,
but
so
I
know
a
lot
of
what
goes
into
you
know,
updating
things
and
I
just
like
to
be
involved
with
the
with
the
city
and
county
building.
C
C
Well,
thank
you.
It's
just
made
full
circle
kathy
way
to
go,
so
I
appreciate
your
willingness
to
serve
and,
like
I
said,
to
chuck
you're
on
the
consent
agenda
this
evening
and
no
need
to
tune
in
we've
had
a
full
agenda
this
evening,
but
you're
on
that
consent
agenda
for
approval.
We
appreciate
you.
C
Yep,
let's
see,
we've
got
some
informational.
A
C
Council
members
that
are
tentative
but
we're
not
we're
gonna
move
on
to
that.
So
we've
got
report
of
the
chair
and
vice
chair.
My
heart
goes
out
to
amy
right
now.
You
know
she's
a
she's
been
a
great
support
for
the
council
and
leader
and
just
want
her
to
know
that
we're
all
thinking
about
her
and
throwing
our
love
to
her.
Looking
for
item
number
11,
the
report
and
announcements
from
the
executive
director
cindy
gus
jensen.
C
Well,
that's
kind
of
spectacular,
then:
isn't
it
yep
okay?
Well,
there
is
a
closed
session
scheduled
for
advice
of
council
and
deployment
of
security
personnel
friendly
reminder
to
everyone
to
be
sure
that
they
are
in
a
closed
area
in
a
room
by
themselves
during
the
closed
session.
So
I'll
look
for
a
motion
for
us
to
go
into
that
closed
session.
C
C
B
M
M
B
C
B
And
anyone,
let
us
know
if
you
haven't
received
that
link
just
send
me
a
text
thanks.