The Salt Lake City Council on Tuesday heard from a local EMT who provided off-duty emergency aid to a shooting victim during the No Kings protest, and took comment from members of the public on a package of proposed reforms to mixed-use zoning.

No Kings Shooting
During the public comment portion of the meeting, the City Council heard from Jansen Reese, an EMT who was off duty while attending the No Kings rally in Salt Lake City on June 14. While the event saw thousands of participants take to the streets in protest of President Donald Trump, the demonstration was overshadowed by the tragic death of Arthur “Afa” Ah Loo, who was killed by a stray bullet during the confusion around a perceived gun threat.

Reese said that she and a trauma nurse raced to the site of the shooting after hearing gunfire, where they provided emergency aid to Ah Loo.

“We treated Afa under the threat of an active shooter and worked for nearly 15 minutes before SWAT medics and an ambulance arrived,” Reese said. “After he was evacuated, we had to sit yards from the scene where we had worked on him, covered in blood and blinded by the red and blue flashing lights for almost three hours while we awaited questioning.”

Reese used her personal trauma kit to treat Ah Loo, which was then taken into evidence. She decided to speak before the Council after being told the Police Department would not be replacing her trauma kit because she chose to help Ah Loo “on her own time.”

“To try to save a life and not stand by and let someone die in the streets—both EMS first responders and police share the same mission,” Reese said. “I’m not asking for a medal, or even recognition. I’m asking for the replacement gear so we can be prepared to do the same, should there be another community member in need.”

Councilmember Chris Wharton expressed the Council’s intention to resolve the issue, and led the members of the council in a round of applause for Reese’s efforts.

Mixed-Use Zoning
In other Council business, rezoning remained a topic of contention. The Council is currently seeking to simplify and consolidate the more than 20 zoning categories that exist in the city, with an emphasis on bolstering the “mixed-use” regulations that allow for residential and commercial spaces to exist within a single development or neighborhood node.

Critics of the changes claim that consolidation would exacerbate traffic congestion and the loss of historic buildings in residential neighborhoods. The proposal has drawn the particular ire of Sugar House residents who are weary of the yearslong construction around multi-family housing and infrastructure modernization.

“We can absorb some height in some places, but not in every inch of the Sugar House Business District,” said resident Judy Short.

Short took issue with the proposed “M11” zoning category, which would allow for buildings up to 125 feet high, or approximately 11 stories. She felt further density in Sugar House would compound existing parking and traffic issues, and argued that a mix of M5 and M8 zoning—with a maximum height of 55 feet and 85 feet, respectively—would be more appropriate for the area.

Elizabeth Watson brought a stack of letters from Sugar House residents in opposition to further development. She also displayed a reference photo of a 10-story building near the University of Utah campus to show how new and larger buildings could contrast to Sugar House’s current average building size.

Watson echoed Short’s sentiments, and called upon Councilmember Sarah Young—who represents Sugar House—to take action.

“It seems like nobody has been listening,” Watson said. “We’ve been saying for years and years—‘no.’”

While Sugar House residents protested the oversimplification of mixed-use zones, other residents saw rezoning as an opportunity to further streamline the regulations for historic properties.

Resident Ben Engle said that distinctions between historic properties were confusing and left historic landmarks—like his own home in the Hollywood Condominiums on 100 South —vulnerable. He said that a miscommunication between developers nearly led to the use of a backhoe adjacent to fragile sandstone foundations.

“It was more that the city was making a kerfuffle because apparently the permitting couldn’t be changed, even though the contractor was willing to change,” Engle said. “The city process is often difficult.”

Engle felt streamlined zoning specifically around historic properties would allow developers to clearly understand and enact plans for historic projects and complete work safely.

“I think it’s a good opportunity and I really applaud all the work you and the city staff are doing,” he said.

Fellow resident Cindy Cromer owns two historic properties in the Central City historic district. She stated that the proposed zoning ordinance would create unnecessary division amongst such properties.

The city currently recognizes both Local Landmark Sites and National Register Sites, similarly recognizing both Local Historic Districts and National Historic Districts. Cromer feared her local historic properties would be at the whim of neighboring developers and urged the council to create equal regulations for all historic properties.

“You’ve created, with this ordinance, two classes of historic properties,” Cromer said. “Those that are city-registered sites—there are 166 of them—and those that will have a guarantee of setbacks and step backs when new development occurs. My properties in the Central City Historic District have no such guarantees.”