Nearly 1,000 people are on a waitlist to live in an apartment complex located just a mile from the proposed Dakota Pacific Real Estate development at the Park City Tech Center. Among them is a woman who’s been anxiously awaiting her move-in date since 2018.
Jeff Lamb, the property manager of Liberty Peak Apartments, said long waits are the reality for many in the workforce because of the limited supply of affordable housing in Summit County. The actual number on the list fluctuates as people take themselves off, he said, estimating it’s been this way for about four years.
Lamb personally spoke in favor of the Dakota Pacific project during a public hearing on Wednesday despite the competition the development would likely bring; citing the high demand and decreasing availability of units he’s seen since he started at the complex.
“I’ve had record-low turnover. It’s the lowest it’s ever been, around 20%. And the list just keeps getting longer. The people who moved out only did so to buy deed-restricted housing,” Lamb said in an interview after the Summit County Council meeting. “There’s a need, and we need it here. [The Dakota Pacific development] wouldn’t put a dent in me.”
This week’s meeting, like those in the past, was stacked in favor of those opposed to Dakota Pacific’s plans to create 727 residential units as part of its proposed 1.3 million-square-foot development. But unlike previous discussions, there appeared to be more people willing to show support for the project on Wednesday.
Many supporters did not comment on the development firm or its link to S.B. 84, the controversial legislation that would take away local control and could force the County Council to approve the proposed amendments to the 2008 development agreement – which limits what can be built there to mostly research and tech-related office buildings.
Instead, many of them were sympathetic to the struggles of the working class.
Pinebrook resident Joe Newcomb recognized the need to “curtail large-scale developments” in some parts of Summit County, but he indicated the Dakota Pacific development could fit well along S.R. 224. He also criticized people who are opposed to the project because of the diversity its affordable housing component could promote.
“We’re not well-served by building more sprawl here, that’s the source of our traffic problems,” Newcomb said during the public hearing. “It’s not people who live here that can take the bus. It’s people driving in from Salt Lake City, from Kamas, from Tooele and parts beyond – and that’s because they can’t find places to live here.”
Park City resident Helen Nadel, a member of the Mountainlands Community Housing Trust resource advisory committee, agreed. She did not endorse the Dakota Pacific project – and even criticized the overreach of the state Legislature – but Nadel proclaimed support for affordable and attainable housing.
“There’s a desperate need for housing as we all know … the 1,106 units of existing affordable housing don’t meet the needs of the workforce and it certainly does not meet the needs of our community-builders, either: teachers, firefighters, police officers,” she said.
Nadel continued, “The very serious traffic problem that we have, I would submit as a housing problem as well. There are a full 20,000 people who work in Summit County who commute in every day to their jobs in the county. Sixty percent of workers in the county and 85% of the workers in Park City commute from outside the county. We desperately need more housing for people who work in the county to alleviate the traffic crisis of commuting in.”
Nadel added that many people support the project because of the area’s limited housing supply, but said they could not speak for many reasons, including travel times from outside of Summit County back into Park City, barriers such as childcare or feeling intimidated by those opposed to the development.
Dakota Pacific CEO Marc Stanworth also said “aggressive opposition” prevented many others from speaking in favor of the Tech Center project. County Council Chair Roger Armstrong supported the statement, saying county staffers have received multiple comments from people supportive of the development who are fearful of speaking up. Although the majority of residents appear to be against it.
Lamb said he was not hesitant to share his perspective, but he understood why others might be. Still, he felt the atmosphere this week was overall friendlier than the first public hearing on March 1.
Traffic, the location of the development and Dakota Pacific’s connection to S.B. 84 remained the top concerns for speakers on Wednesday. Attendance was slightly more than the previous meeting, with at least 300 people in person and 200 online. Around 1,000 people attended a similar hearing in December of 2021.
The County Council is scheduled to meet next Wednesday for a final discussion and possible vote on the Dakota Pacific project. Armstrong said county officials declined a request from the development firm to postpone the verdict, as two of its senior members will be out of the country, because he felt it was important to make a final decision.