HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/02/2021 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
February 2,2021 Tuesday 2:06 PM
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City
Emergency Proclamation.
SLCCouncil.com
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
(See separate agenda)
Welcome and public meeting rules
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters.The public is welcome to listen.Items scheduled on the
Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and /or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance or
availability of speakers.
Please note:Dates not identified in the FYI -Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined.Item start times and
durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion.
Generated:14:07:36
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Chair’s determination
that conducting the City Council meeting at a physical location presents a
substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the anchor
location.
The Salt Lake City Council Chair has determined that conducting a meeting at an anchor
location under the current state of public health emergency constitutes a substantial risk to the
health and safety of those who may attend in person.For these reasons,the Council Meeting
will not have a physical location at the City and County Building and all attendees will connect
remotely.
Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings.We want to make sure
everyone interested in the City Council meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most
comfortable.If you are interested in watching the City Council meetings,they are available on
the following platforms:
•Facebook Live:www.facebook.com/slcCouncil/
•YouTube:www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
•Web Agenda:www.slc.gov/council/agendas/
•SLCtv Channel 17 Live:www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Formal Meeting for the Public Hearings or
general comment period,you may do so through the Webex platform.To learn how to connect
through Webex,or if you need call-in phone options,please visit our website or call us at
801-535-7607 to learn more.
As always,if you would like to provide feedback or comment,please call us or send us an email:
•24-Hour comment line:801-535-7654
•council.comments@slcgov.com
More info and resources can be found at:www.slc.gov/council/contact-us/
Upcoming meetings and meeting information can be found
here:www.slc.gov/council/agendas/
We welcome and encourage your comments!We have Council staff monitoring inboxes and
voicemail,as always,to receive and share your comments with Council Members.All agenda-
related and general comments received in the Council office are shared with the Council
Members and added to the public meeting record.View comments by visiting the Council Virtual
Meeting Comments page.
Work Session Items
1.Informational:Updates from the Administration ~2:00 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive an update from the Administration on major items or projects,including
but not limited to:
•Local Emergencies for COVID-19,the March 2020 Earthquake,and the September 2020
Windstorm;
•Updates on relieving the condition of people experiencing homelessness;
•Police Department work,projects,and staffing,etc.;and
•Other projects or updates.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
2.Informational:Updates on Racial Equity and Policing ~2:30 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will hold a discussion about recent efforts on various projects City staff are working
on related to racial equity and policing in the City.The conversation may include issues of
community concern about race,equity,and justice in relation to law enforcement policies,
procedures,budget,and ordinances.Discussion may include:
•An update or report on the Commission on Racial Equity in Policing;and
•Other project updates or discussion.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
3.Informational:State Legislative Briefing ~2:50 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will be briefed by the Administration about issues affecting the City that may arise
during the 2021 Utah State Legislative Session.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,January 12,2021 and Tuesday,February 2,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
4.Ordinance*:Zoning Amendments at Lincoln Street and 200 South ~3:10 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will be briefed about a request to amend the zoning map and Central Community
Master Plan for properties located at 159 South Lincoln Street,949 East,955 East,959 East and
963 East 200 South.The requested rezone would change the properties from R-2 (Single and
Two-Family Residential)to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential)zoning
district.The Master Plan amendment would change the properties from Low Density Residential
to Medium Density Residential.The proposal would allow the applicant more flexibility to
develop future multi-family residential housing than what is currently allowed.Consideration
may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics.
Other sections of Title 21A –Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition.
*The Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation,therefore an ordinance has
not been drafted.If the Council decides to approve the zone amendment,an ordinance would be
drafted and considered for approval.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,March 2,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,March 16,2021
5.Ordinance:Zoning Amendments at Approximately 2903 South Highland
Drive ~3:30 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the Sugar House Master Plan and Zoning
Map for property at 2903 South Highland Drive.The property is currently “split zoned.”The
applicant is requesting the eastern portion of the property be changed from Low Density
Residential to Low Intensity –Mixed Use in the Sugar House Master Plan.The applicant is also
requesting a zoning change on the eastern portion of the property from the current R-1-7000
(Single-Family Residential)to CB (Community Business)in order to match zoning on the western
portion.If approved,the changes would allow for potential future development of the
site.Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar
characteristics.Other sections of Title 21A –Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,March 2,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,March 16,2021
6.Resolution:Awarding U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD)Coronavirus Aid,Relief,and Economic Security (CARES)Act Grant
Funds Follow-up
~3:50 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about funding recommendations from resident advisory
boards and the Mayor and approving an interlocal agreement between the City and the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).This agreement allocates and awards funding
to those applicants.Community partners submitted applications for one-time pandemic response
funding from Community Development Block Grant (CDBG-CV),Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG-
CV)and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)grants.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,January 19,2021 and Tuesday,February 2,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 16,2021
7.Tentative Break ~4:20 p.m.
20 min.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -n/a
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
8.Ordinance:Rezone at 1301 and 1321 South State Street ~4:40 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to rezone the properties at 1301 and 1321 South
State Street.The proposal would change the properties from CC (Corridor Commercial)to FB-
UN2 (Form Base Urban Neighborhood 2)and amend the table of the zoning ordinance to
include additional land area eligible for additional building height.The applicant requested the
rezone because the FB-UN2 zoning district better aligns with potential use of the corner lot and
potential for a new mixed-use building,which would replace existing buildings on the
parcels.Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with
similar characteristics.Other sections of Title 21A –Zoning may also be amended as part of this
petition.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,March 2,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,March 16,2021
9.Ordinance:Free Metered Parking for Salt Lake City Green Vehicles ~5:00 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will be briefed about a proposal that would amend section 12.56.205 of the Salt
Lake City Code with changes to the Salt Lake City Green Vehicle Parking Program,increasing
the number of vehicles eligible for the free metered parking.The intent of the proposal is to
return the ordinance to 2006 eligibility criteria,which would include a broader range of energy
efficient vehicles.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -TBD
Hold hearing to accept public comment -TBD
TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD
10.Informational:Water and Snowpack Report ~5:20 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing from the Department of Public Utilities about the status of
water runoff,snowpack and water supply projections.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a
11.Board Appointment:Bicycle Advisory Committee –Rachel Manko ~5:40 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will interview Rachel Manko prior to considering appointment to the Bicycle
Advisory Committee for a term ending February 2,2024.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,February 2,2021
Standing Items
12.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
13.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director
Report of the Executive Director,including a review of Council information items and
announcements.The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City
Council business,including but not limited to;
•Limit/Avoid In-person Meeting with Council Staff Attendance;
•Grant Holding Account Items for Budget Amendment No.7 for Fiscal Year 2020-21;and
•Scheduling Items.
14.Tentative Closed Session
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session.A closed meeting
described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including,but not
limited to:
a.discussion of the character,professional competence,or physical or mental
health of an individual;
b.strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c.strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d.strategy sessions to discuss the purchase,exchange,or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares,if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration;or
(ii)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
e.strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property,including any form of a
water right or water shares,if:
(i)public discussion of the transaction would:
(A)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration;or
(B)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the
best possible terms;
(ii)the public body previously gave public notice that the property would
be offered for sale;and
(iii)the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f.discussion regarding deployment of security personnel,devices,or systems;
and
g.investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged
pursuant to Utah Code §78B-1-137,and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the
pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m.on _____________________,the undersigned,duly appointed City Recorder,
does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1)posted on the Utah Public Notice Website
created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701,and (2)a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake
Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated
interest.
CINDY LOU TRISHMAN
SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER
Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda,including but not
limited to adoption,rejection,amendment,addition of conditions and variations of options
discussed.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation,which may include alternate
formats,interpreters,and other auxiliary aids and services.Please make requests at least two business days
in advance.To make a request,please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com,
801-535-7600,or relay service 711.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:February 2, 2021
RE: Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments for properties at
159 South Lincoln Street, 949 East, 955 East 959 East, and 963 East 200 South
PLNPCM2019-00683 and PLNPCM2019-00684
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map and Central Community Master
Plan future land use map for properties located at 159 South Lincoln Street, 949 East, 955 East, 959 East,
and 963 East 200 South from the current R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate
Density Multi-Family Residential) zoning. The master plan amendment request is to change from Low
Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for the parcels. The property owners are requesting
these changes to allow more flexibility to develop future multi-family housing with greater density and
height than currently allowed on the parcels under existing zoning.
The subject parcels are within the Central City National Historic District (NHD) (Bryant Neighborhood).
Structures on subject parcels fronting 200 South are considered contributing to the NHD. The structure at
159 South Lincoln Street is not considered contributing to the Historic District. Though several of the
subject parcels are considered contributing to the NHD, there are not any City preservation regulations.
NHDs are incentive based historic districts that grant financial incentives to property owners for
restoration or rehabilitation of historic structures.
A total of nine dwelling units are recognized by Salt Lake City within the five subject properties:
1. 159 South Lincoln Street is recognized as a single-family dwelling
2. 949 East 200 South is recognized as a duplex
3. 955 East 200 South is recognized as a triplex
4. 959 East 200 South is recognized as a single-family dwelling
5. 963 East 200 South is recognized as a duplex
Item Schedule:
Briefing: February 2, 2021
Set Date: February 2, 2021
Public Hearing: March 2, 2021
Potential Action: March 16, 2021
Page | 2
Images of the subject parcels are found on pages 23-36 of the Administration’s transmittal.
The East Central North neighborhood (between 700 East and University Street from South Temple to 900
South) includes a mix of land uses. Surrounding properties are single-family residential, low scale multi-
family residential and moderate scale multi-family residential. The Central Community Master Plan
designated the subject properties as Low Density Residential to preserve existing low-density residential
uses and residential character of this neighborhood. More intense land uses are generally located closer to
700 East while smaller scale and less intense residential uses are farther east toward 1000 East.
Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous negative
recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments. Because
the Planning Commission recommended denial of the petitions an ordinance has not been provided. If the
City Council approves the zoning change and master plan amendments, an ordinance will be requested
from the Attorney’s Office for Council approval.
Aerial image showing location of the subject properties
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments, determine if the
Council supports the Planning Commission’s negative recommendation.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.The Council may wish to ask what changes, if any, were made as a result of the public process
since the February 12, 2020 Planning Commission meeting.
2.Rezoning these properties to RMF-35 will substantially increase the value and allow the
applicant to put more housing units on these parcels. The Council may wish to ask if any
affordable units are included in the proposed development and at what percentage of AMI.
Page | 3
3.Recently the Council has had policy discussions about the impacts to naturally occurring
affordable housing units when properties are rezoned in order to building more, newer
housing. The Council may wish to review this petition with that context in mind.
a.The Council may wish to ask the Administration for an update on how soon
amendments to the Housing Loss Mitigation ordinance will be started.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Five key issues were identified through Planning’s analysis of the proposed project. A summary of each is
below. See pages 16-19 of the Administration’s transmittal for the complete analysis.
Issue 1 - Existing Master Plan Policies for the Area and the Proposed Zoning
The subject properties are located within the Central Community Master Plan adopted in 2005. The Master
Plan’s Future Land Use Map designates the subject properties as Low Density Residential (1-15 dwelling
units per acre). The applicant’s request is to modify the future land use designation to Medium Density
Residential (15-30 dwelling units per acre).
It is Planning staff’s opinion the master plan amendment generally does not align with the goals or policy
statements within the Central Community Master Pan. They further stated current R-2 zoning aligns with
the current designation on the future land use map at 10 dwelling units per acre. The proposed
amendments would double the permitted number of dwelling units under the future land use designation
and the allotment under current R-2 zoning.
Issue 2 - R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) and RMF-35 (Moderate Density)
Comparison
The current R-2 zoning designation requires a minimum 5,000 square foot lot size for a single-family
structure and 8,000 square feet for a duplex. These minimum lot requirements protect existing properties
from increased density. Redevelopment under current zoning is unlikely and existing structures will likely
remain.
RMF-35 zoning introduces land uses not allowed under the current R-2 zoning including single-family
attached and multi-family. Per unit square footage is decreased for developments under RMF-35 zoning. If
approved, Planning staff believes the proposed amendments would be directly correlated to potential
demolition of existing structures.
Issue 3 – National Historic Districts and Historic Preservation
Structures on the subject properties were constructed prior to the turn of the twentieth century and as
stated above, are listed within the Central City National Historic District (NHD) (Bryant Neighborhood).
NHDs are designated through the National Park Service and recognize unique architecture, character and
development patterns of a specific area.
Issue 4 – Public Opinion and Neighborhood Concerns
Planning staff received significant public input about proposed amendments to the subject properties.
Comments generally fall within one of the following four categories:
1.Current condition of the subject properties. The suggestion is neglect and deferred maintenance
caused the properties to deteriorate. If the property owner doesn’t maintain existing structures, will
they maintain new structures with additional dwelling units?
2.Loss of existing multi-family housing. Concern current tenants will be displaced by proposed
redevelopment of the properties. Older housing stock is often more affordable than new, market
rate housing.
Page | 4
3.Loss of structures contributing to the National Historic District. Demolitions are not prohibited,
but neighbors are concerned about losing historic structures and future redevelopment of the
parcels.
4.Master Plan Changes. The Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map designates the
subject properties as Low Density. Commenters stated without a compelling case to change, the
Map should remain as it is.
All public comments and petitions received by Planning staff are included in Attachment H (pages 75-356
of the Administration’s transmittal). Public comments received by the Council Office will be forwarded to
Council Members.
Issue 5 - Environmental Impact and Air Quality
Planning staff found the proposed amendments are both conflicting and in line with environmental
concerns and air quality impacts. If approved by the Council, density would be increased within an
environment with existing infrastructure. This potential increased density is located next to rapid bus
transit and within walking distance of Trax. On the other hand, the proposed amendments could result in
demolition of existing housing. It is Planning staff’s opinion this potential demolition would be a loss of
embodied energy and could negatively impact air quality.
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment G of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 72-74 of the Administration’s transmittal)
outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal.
Planning staff found this proposal generally does not comply with three of the five applicable standards.
They are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for full details.
1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and
policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents.
Finding: The proposal is not consistent with the goals and policies or specific designation on the
Future Land Use Map. Master Plan Future Land Use Map amendment is not supported by
policies in the master plan.
2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning
ordinance.
Finding: The proposed Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments conflict with the purpose
statement of the zoning ordinance.
3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties.
Finding: The proposed zoning and master plan amendments would negatively affect adjacent
properties as a result of the increase in scale and intensity.
4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any
applicable overlay zoning district which may impose additional standards.
Finding: Future development would need to comply with applicable overlays.
5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but
not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm
water drainage systems, water supplies and wastewater and refuse collection.
Finding: City services can be provided to the site.
Page | 5
PUBLIC PROCESS
• Notice of the project was sent to the Chair of the East Central Community Council August 9, 2019.
• Planning staff attended the East Central Community Council meeting September 18, 2019.
• Planning Staff hosted an Open House at the Tenth East Senior Center October 7, 2019.
• The East Central Community Council (ECCC) provided a formal letter dated January 20, 2020
expressing opposition to the project. The letter is included on 79-83 of the Administration’s
transmittal.
• Planning Staff attended the East Liberty Park Community Organization meeting held on January 23,
2020 to answer questions about the project.
• Planning Commission agenda posted to website, notice mailed to property owners within 300 feet of
the subject properties, and notice posted on subject properties January 30, 2020.
• The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on February 12, 2020. By unanimous vote, the
Planning Commission forwarded a negative recommendation to the City Council.
Zoning Map & Master Plan Amendment159 S. Lincoln, 949 E. 955 E., 959 E., and
963 E. 200 S.
•Zoning Map Amendment R-2 (Single and Two-Family
Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Residential)
•Master Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential
(1-15 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density
Residential (15-30 dwelling units per acre)
949 E. 200 S 955 E. 200 S
959 E. 200 S
963 E. 200 S
159 S. Lincoln 159 S. Lincoln
Comparison of R-2 and RMF-35
R-2 (Single and Two-Family)RMF-35 (Moderate Density)
Zoning Map & Master Plan Amendment
159 S. Lincoln, 949 E. 955 E., 959 E., and
963 E. 200 S.
East Central Community Council on September 19, 2019
(115 people in attendance).
Open House held on October 7, 2019.
Planning Commission Hearing, February 12, 2020.
•The Planning Commission forwarded a negative
recommendation to the City Council for the master plan
and zoning map amendments.
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Marcia L. White
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
Date Received:
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council:
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 04/30/2020
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Marcia L. White, Director Department of Community & Neighborhoods
SUBJECT: PLNPCM2019-00683 and PLNPCM2019-00684 – Zoning Map and Master Plan
Amendments for 159 South Lincoln, 949 East, 955 East, 959 East, and 963 East 200 South
STAFF CONTACT: Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, (801) 535-7930
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Only
RECOMMENDATION: The City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning
Commission and deny the requested zoning map amendment from R-2 (Single and Two-Family
Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) zoning and the Master
Plan Amendment for Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential for 159 South
Lincoln, 949 East, 955 East, 959 East and 963 East 200 South. Since the Planning Commission
recommended denial of the petitions, an Ordinance has not been provided. If the City Council
wishes to approve the zone change and master plan amendments, an ordinance will be requested
from the Attorney’s Office for City Council approval.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Graham Gilbert, representing the property owners, is requesting that the City amend the zoning
map and associated future land use map for the properties located at 159 South Lincoln, 949
East, 955 East, 959 East and 963 East 200 South. The intent of the request is to change the
zoning of the property to allow more flexibility to develop future multi-family residential
housing.
The following petitions are associated with this request:
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
April 30, 2020
5/8/2020
a. Master Plan Amendment – Amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use
Map from Low Density Residential (1-15 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density
Residential (15-30 dwelling units per acre). Case number PLNPCM2019-00684
b. Zoning Map Amendment – The properties are currently zoned R-2 (Single and Two-
Family Residential). The applicants are requesting to amend the zoning map designation
from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density
Residential). Case Number PLNPCM2019-00683
The applications include five subject properties located at 159 South Lincoln, 949 East, 955 East,
959 East and 963 East 200 South. The subject properties are located within the Central City
National Historic District (Bryant Neighborhood). With the exception of 159 South Lincoln, all
of the structures are considered to be contributing to the National Historic District. In regard to
the existing uses, the five subject properties have a total of nine recognized dwelling units. Salt
Lake City recognizes the following uses in each building:
1. 159 South Lincoln is recognized as a single-family dwelling
2. 949 East 200 South is recognized as a duplex
3. 955 East 200 South is recognized as a triplex
4. 959 East 200 South is recognized as a single-family dwelling
5. 963 East 200 South is recognized as a duplex
In regard to the requested master plan amendment, the Central Community Master Plan
designated the subject properties as Low Density Residential to preserve the existing low density
residential uses and the residential character of this neighborhood. Higher density housing is
encouraged in East Downtown, Downtown, Gateway and Transit Station Development Zoning to
decrease the pressure on established neighborhoods to meet the housing needs for the city. In
addition to the master plan amendment, the applicant requested a zoning map amendment from
the existing R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-
Family Residential). Exhibit 3b, Attachment D, illustrates the comparison between the R-2 and
the RMF-35 zoning districts.
For specific information regarding the proposal, please refer to the Planning Commission Staff
Report found in Exhibit 3.B.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
The applicant submitted their petition to amend the zoning map and the Central
Community Master Plan on July 19, 2019.
Early notification and Recognized Community Organization Notification was sent on
August 9, 2019. Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject properties
received an early notification.
The East Central Community Council held a meeting on September 19, 2019.
The proposal was presented at a City Planning Division Open House on October 7, 2019.
Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject properties received a notice
of the Open House.
On February 12, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously
forwarded a negative recommendation to the City Council to deny the proposal.
The Planning Commission discussed the following points:
The difference between the R-2 and the RMF-35
The role and purpose of the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map
The Five Year Housing Plan
Whether a case had been substantiated that the existing and current zoning was
inappropriate
EXHIBITS:
1)CHRONOLOGY
2)NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3)PLANNING COMMISSION – February 12, 2020
a)Mailed and Newspaper Notice
b)Staff Report
c)Agenda/Minutes
d)Staff Presentation Slides
e)Applicant Presentation Slides
f)Additional Written Public Comments
4)ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITIONS
5)MAILING LIST
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1)CHRONOLOGY
2)NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
3)PLANNING COMMISSION – FEBRUARY 12, 2020 PUBLIC HEARING
a)MAILED AND NEWSPAPER NOTICE
b)STAFF REPORT
c)AGENDA/MINUTES
d)STAFF PRESENTATION SLIDES
e)APPLICANT PRESENTATION SLIDES
f)ADDITIONAL WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS
4)ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITIONS
5)MAILING LIST
1) CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petitions: PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684
July 19, 2019 Graham Gilbert, representing the property owners, submits Zoning Map
and Master Plan Amendment
July 30, 2019 Petition assigned to Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, for staff analysis
and processing.
August 8, 2019 Petitions routed to applicable Divisions and Departments for review.
August 9, 2019 Notice sent to Recognized Community Organization (East Central
Community Council) informing them of the petitions.
September 18, 2019 Staff attended the East Central Community Council Meeting.
Approximately 115 people were in attendance.
October 7, 2019 Staff held an Open House at the East Senior Center.
January 30, 2020 Planning Commission Agenda posted to website and mailed to property
owners within 300 feet of subject properties.
January 30, 2020 Staff posted the subject properties with a notice of a public hearing.
February 12, 2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing.
2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL
HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2019-00683 &
PLNPCM2019-00684 - A request by Graham Gilbert, on behalf of the property owners, to
amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map for the following
properties: 159 S. Lincoln St., 949 E., 955 E., 959 E., and 963 E. 200 S. The request includes an
amendment to the Central Community Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential
(1-15 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units per acre).
The applicant is requesting to amend the Zoning Map for these properties from R-2 (Single
and Two-Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential). The
master plan and zoning map amendments are requested to allow more residential housing
units than what is currently allowed. The subject property is located within District 4,
represented by Ana Valdemoros.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive
comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City
Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held:
DATE:
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Room 315
City & County Building
451 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call
Kelsey Lindquist at 801-535-7930 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday or via e-mail at kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com.
The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests
for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other
auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make
a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535-
7600, or relay service 711.
3) PLANNING COMMISSION
a) Mailing Notice
January 30, 2020
Salt Lake City Planning Division
451 S State Street, Room 406, PO Box 145480, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5480
Salt Lake City Planning Commission Wednesday, February 12, 2020, 5:30 p.m.
City and County Building 451 S State Street, Room 326
A public hearing will be held on the following matter. Comments from the Applicant, City Staff
and the public will be taken .
Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment for 159 S. Lincoln, 949 E .• 955 E .• 959 E .• 963 E. 200 S. -Graham
Gilbert, on behalf of the property owners, is requesting to amend the Central Community Future Land Use Map
and the Zoning Map. The request includes an amendment to the Central Community Future Land Use Map from
Low Density Residential ( 1-15 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density Residential ( 15-30 dwelling units per
acre). The applicant is requesting to amend the Zoning Map for these properties from R-2 (Single and Two-
Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential). The master plan and zoning map
amendments are requested to allp_w more residential housing units than what is currently allowed. The subject
property is located within District 4 , represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: Kelsey Lindquist at (801)
535-7930 or kelsey.lindquist@slcg.ov.com) Case Numbers PLNPCM2019-00683 and PLNPCM2019-00684
Salt Lake C ity Corporation complies with all ADA guidelines. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodations no later than 48
hours in advance in order to attend this meeting. Accommodations may include: alternative formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids . Th is is an accessible
facility. For additional meeting information, please sec www.slcgov.com or call 801-535-7757; TOO 535-6220.
II US POSTAGE)) PITNEY BOWES
Current Occupant
1009 E 200 S
Salt Lake City UT 84102
(
.
.
,,,... . ., ...,_ ....
~-,,~~ ~.-..---ZIP 84116 $ 000 500
02 m •
0001403342JAN 31 2020
I
f"eTJ"'~ TO S~NO::'.F \ r l~ s L :: ;: r '=-r = N,.. ~.DD~ c: s !:~
JrA!_S ~c ~CRWAFD -........ . ,.., ... ' ... -----,..-....... .-.... "'"'" F.r L ") t:> -U \o:I -! 11. ... :l -.:> ..L -~ .J..
\
I
4770 S. 5600 W.
WE ST VALLEY CITY. UTAH 84 11 8
FED.TAX l.D.# 87 -0 2 17663
801-204-6910
PROOF OF PUBLICATION CUSTOMER'S COPY
I CUSTOMER AME AND ADDRESS
PLANNING D IVISI ON,
ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
PO BOX I 45480
SALT LAKE C ITY UT 84 11 4
I ACCO UNT NAME
PLANNING DIVISION ,
I TELEPHONE
8015357759
I PUBLICATI ON SCH EDU LE
ST ART 0210 I /2020 END 0210 I /2020
I CUSTOM ER REFERENCE NUMBER
PC 02 .12 Pub lic Hearing
I CAPT ION
I ORD ER #
0001281623
ACCOUNT NUMBER
9001394298
DATE
2131202 0
INVOICE NUMBER
Notice of Public Hearing On Wednesday, February 12 , 2020 , the Salt Lake City Planning 1
SI ZE
40 LINES 2 COLUMN(S)
ITI M ES I TOTAL COST
2 105.00
AFF IDAVIT OF PUBLI CATION
Notice of N>llc Heamg
On Wednesday, f'<>bruory 1 2 2020, 1he Soll l.ol<e City
Plomlng Comnission will hold o ptbli<: hearing to con -
sid<tr making re<cmnendotlons to 1he City CO<JnCil re•
gordlng 1he following petitions,
1 • l.a$ia NOl> and Noster Plan Mw1dmn for 159 S.
lhml. 949 E., ·955 E., 959 E., 963 E. 200 S. -Gra-
ham Gilbert, on beholf of the property owners, is re-
questing to amend the Central Corrmxiity Future Land
Use Mop and the Zoning Mop. The request includes on
amendment to the Central Corrmxiity Future Land Use
Mop from Low Density ReS1dent1al ( 1-1 5 d welling 1A1its
per acre) to Medi'"" Density Residential (15-30 dwell-
1ng IA1its per acre). The applicant is requesting to
amend the Zoning Mop for ihitse rropertie• from R-2
(Single and Two-Fomilr, Residential to RMF-35 (Moder-
ate Density Mu lli -Fam1ly Residential). The master plan
and zoning mop amendments are requested to allow
more residential housing 1A1its tllon wnot i• airrentl)' al-
lowed. The subject property is located within District 4,
r~resented by Ano Valdemoros. (Staff Contact, Ke1!se
Undqvlst at (801 J 535-7930 or kel~3qui ~>,~~ P0ol'CM2019
The Pllblic hearing will begin at 5,30 p.m. in room 326
of the City C01A1ty Building, 45 1 South State Street
Soll Lake Oty, VT. '
The City & County Building is an aocessible facility.
People with disabilities may make requests for reason-
able acoorrrnodotion, whidl may include allemate for-
mats, Interpreters, and o'fher auxiliary aids and serv-
ices. Please make requests at least two bu>iness days
in advance. To make a request, please contact the
Planning Off.ce at 801-535-7757, or relay service
711.
1281623 l.t'AXIJ'
AS NEWSPAP ER AGENCY COM PANY. LLC dba UTAH MEDI A GROUP LEGAL BOOKER. I CERT IFY TH AT T H E ATTACHED
A D VERTI SEMENT OF Notice of Public Hearing On Wednesday, February 12, 2020, the Salt Lake C ity Planning Commission will hold a public
hearing to consider making recommendations FOR PLANNING DIVISION, WA S PUBLI SH ED BY T l-IE NEWS PAP ER AGENCY COMPANY,
LLC dba UTAH MEDI A GROUP. AGENT FOR DE SERET NEWS AND T HE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE. DAILY NEWSPAP ERS PRI NTED JN T H E
ENG LISH LANGUAGE WITH GENE RAL C IR CULATION IN UTAH, AND PUB LISHED IN SALT LAKE C ITY. SALT LAKE COUN TY IN T HE
STATE OF UTAH . NOTICE JS ALSO PO STED ON UTA HLEGALS.COM ON T H E SAME DAY AS T H E FIR ST NEWSPAPER PUB LICATION
DATE AND REMAINS ON UTAHLEGALS.COM INDEFIN ITELY. COMPLIES WITH U TA H DIGITAL SIGNATURE A CT UTAH CO DE 46-2-101:
46-3-104 .
PU BLI SH ED ON Start 02/01 /2020 End 02/0 I /2020
DATE 2/3/2020 SI GNATURE ------------
STATE OF UTAH
COUNTY OF ---=SA'-=L ·._r..-L'-'A-..K ... E __
SU BSC RIBED AN D SWORN TO BEFO RE M E ON THIS 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY IN THE Y EAR 2020
BY L ORAINE GUDMUNDSON.
NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE
4) PLANNING COMMISSION
b) Staff Report
February 12, 2020
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Kelsey Lindquist (801) 535-7930
Date: February 12, 2020
Re: PLNPCM2019-00683 and PLNPCM2019-00684
Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 159 S. Lincoln, 949 E., 955 E., 959 E., 963 E. 200 S.
PARCEL ID: 16-05-135-010-0000, 16-05-135-011-0000, 16-05-135-012-0000,
16-05-135-013-0000, 16-05-135-014-0000
MASTER PLAN: Central Community Master Plan
ZONING DISTRICT: R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential)
REQUEST: Graham Gilbert, on behalf of the property owners, is requesting to amend the
Central Community Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map for the following
properties: 159 S. Lincoln, 949 E., 955 E., 959 E., 963 E. 200 S. The request includes an
amendment to the Central Community Future Land Use Map from Low Density
Residential (1-15 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling
units per acre). Additionally, the applicant is requesting to amend the Zoning Map for
these properties from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate
Density Multi-Family Residential). The master plan and zoning map amendments are
requested to allow more residential units than what is currently allowed. All subject
properties have existing residential uses ranging from a single-family home to a multi-
family building.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report and the factors to consider
for Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council regarding this proposal.
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Zoning and Future Land Use Map
B.Property Photographs
C.Application with Proposed Site Plan and Elevations
D.Existing Conditions
E.R-2 and RMF-35 Zoning Comparison
F.Master Plan Analysis
G.Analysis of Standards
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 1 February 12, 2020
H. Public Process and Comments
I. Department Comments
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is requesting to change the zoning and amend the Central Community Master Plan for
five parcels that total .682 acres. The amendments are requested in order to construct a multi-family
building with a greater density and height than the existing zoning district would permit. The applicant
has submitted a development proposal to Planning Staff; however, the development proposal is not
the subject of review per this request. The Planning Commission must review the master plan
amendment and rezone according to the development potential allowable under the proposed master
plan and zoning designations regardless of the proposed development plan.
The proposal involves two requests: (1) to amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land
Use Map from Low Density Residential (1-15 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density Residential
(15-30 dwelling units per acre) and (2) to amend the zoning map designation from R-2 (Single and
Two-Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Residential).
Aerial of Subject Properties
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 2 February 12, 2020
Aerial of Zoning of Surrounding Properties
Existing Land Uses
The subject properties are located within the East Central North Neighborhood of the Central
Community Master Plan area, and is described as follows:
The East Central North neighborhood is located between 700 East and University Street
from South Temple to 900 South. Major high traffic streets traverse the area in both east-
west and north-south directions, 700, 900 and 1300 East; 100, 400, 500, 600, 800 and
900 South. There are a wide variety of land uses from single-family dwellings to high-rise
apartments, small commercial developments, office and major institutions. (Central
Community Master Plan)
The East Central North Neighborhood contains a variety of land uses throughout the area. The
primary land uses that surround the subject properties, include the following uses: single-family
residential, low scale multi-family residential and moderate scale multi-family residential. A multi-
family structure is located along 200 South, as well as 1000 East. The intensity of the land uses
fluctuates along 200 South. Generally, the more intense uses are located closer to the 700 East
corridor with smaller scaled and less intense residential uses moving east towards 1000 East.
The subject properties are located within the R-2 (Single and Two-Family) residential zoning
district. The subject properties contain current residential uses and range in the number of units
within each structure. In total, the five subject properties contain 9 units. The City recognizes the
following uses within each structure:
1. 159 S. Lincoln is recognized as a single-family
2. 949 E. 200 S is recognized as a duplex
3. 955 E. 200 S. is recognized as a triplex
4. 959 E. 200 S. is recognized as a single-family
5. 963 E. 200 S. is recognized as a duplex
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 3 February 12, 2020
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
Character of the Surrounding Area and Community
The character of the surrounding area and the community includes historic and non-historic single
and multi-family structures. The existing character includes structures that were constructed as single-
family dwellings and later converted to multi-family, single-family structures, as well as larger scale
multi-family complexes. The scale along 200 South varies from single to multi-story structures.
Additionally, 200 South contains deep park strips with old growth trees and a landscaped center
median that runs east to west.
Lincoln Street differs in character and scale from 200 South. Lincoln Street includes low scale single
family structures. Larger multi-family structures are located on the northern portion of Lincoln
Street towards 100 South.
Access and Transportation Network
Four of the five properties are accessed from 200 South, which is currently a heavily utilized corridor
to the University of Utah and to Downtown. 200 South currently contains transportation options
that service the East Central North neighborhood. The subject properties are within walking
distance to both fixed transit and rapid bus transit.
KEY ISSUES:
The key issues listed below have been identified through the analysis of the project, neighbor and
community input and department review comments.
1. Existing Master Plan Policies for the Area and the Proposed Zoning
2. Comparison of R-2 (Single and Two-Family) and RMF-35 (Moderate Density)
3. National Historic Districts and Historic Preservation
4. Public Opinion and Neighborhood Concerns
5. Environmental Impact and Air Quality
Issue 1 – Existing Master Plan Policies for the Area and the Proposed Zoning
The subject properties are located within the Central Community Master Plan, which was adopted
in 2005. The Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map designates the subject
properties as Low Density Residential (1-15 dwelling units per acre). The applicant is requesting to
modify the future land use designation to Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units per
acre). The Central Community Master Plan provides the following definitions for the existing land
use designation and the proposed amendment:
Existing Land Use Designation
Low Density Residential (1-15 dwelling units per acre): This land use designation
allows moderate sized lots (i.e. 3,000-10,000 square feet) where single-family detached
homes are the dominant land use. Low-density includes single-family attached and
detached dwellings as permissible on a single residential lot subject to zoning.
Approximately one third of the Central Community is occupied by single-family residences
on lots ranging from 3,000 to 10,000 square feet in size.
Proposed Land Use Designation
Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units per acre): This land use
designation allows single-family, duplexes, triplexes, four-plexes, townhouses, and
apartments. Medium-density residential structures include attached dwelling units and
apartment structures. This mix of residential land use is noticeable in the areas between
South Temple and 800 South from 300 East to 900 East and areas between 1300 S and
1700 South from 200 West to Main Street.
In addition to the definitions of the current and proposed designation, the Central Community
Master Plan provides Residential Land Use Goals and Residential Land Use Policies that are
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 4 February 12, 2020
applicable to this request. Staff has included a section within this issue; however, for the full analysis
of the applicable policy statements and goals found within the adopted guiding documents, please
refer to Attachment F.
Central Community Master Plan Residential Land Use Goals:
• Ensure preservation of low-density residential neighborhoods
• Encourage the creation and maintenance of a variety of housing opportunities that meet
social needs and income levels of a diverse population
• Ensure that new development is compatible with existing neighborhoods in terms of scale,
character and density
• Encourage a variety of housing types for higher density multi-family housing in
appropriate areas such as East Downtown, the Central Business District, the Gateway area,
and near downtown light rail stations to satisfy housing demand
Central Community Master Plan Residential Land Use Policies:
• RLU 1.0 Based on the Future Land Use Map, use residential zoning to establish and
maintain a variety of housing opportunities that meet social needs and income levels of
a diverse population.
• RLU 1.1 Preserve low-density residential areas and keep them from being replaced by
higher density residential and commercial uses.
• RLU 1.2 Provide opportunities for medium-density housing in areas between the
Central Business District and lower-density neighborhoods and in areas where small
multi-family dwellings are compatible.
• RLU1.6 Encourage coordination between the future land use map, zoning ordinance,
and the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan.
• RLU 2.0 Preserve and protect existing single-and multi-family residential dwellings
within the Central Community through codes, regulations and design review.
• RLU 2.1 Preserve housing stock through incentives and code enforcement by
implementing the Salt Lake Community Housing.
The Central Community Master Plan designated the subject properties as Low Density Residential
to preserve the existing low density residential uses and residential character of this neighborhood.
Higher density housing is encouraged in East Downtown, Downtown, Gateway and Transit Station
Development Zoning to decrease the pressure on established neighborhoods to meet the housing
needs for the City.
The requested master plan amendment generally does not align with the goals or policy statements
within the Central Community Master Plan. Additionally, the existing R-2 zoning designation does
align with the current designation found on the future land use map at 10 dwelling units per acre.
The proposed amendments would double the permitted number of units under the future land use
designation and the allotment under the current R-2 zoning. As seen in the matrix, found in
Attachment D, Staff acknowledges that there are some policy statements that align with the
proposal. However, the majority of the applicable policy statements and goals conflict with the
proposed amendments. There may be a need to further evaluate the Central Community Master
Plan according to City wide goals; however, in this case, there are specific policies and goals that do
not support the proposals.
Issue 2 – R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) and RMF-35 (Moderate Density)
Comparison
Attachment D contains a summary of both zoning districts and a visualization of what could be
constructed. This section focuses on the key differences between the R-2 and the RMF-35 zoning
districts. Discussed below, the identified key differences between the R-2 and the RMF-35, include:
the permitted land uses and density.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 5 February 12, 2020
The subject properties are currently zoned R-2. The R-2 zoning district permits single and two-
family uses. The R-2 requires a minimum of 5,000 square feet for a single-family structure and
8,000 square feet for a duplex. The minimum lot area required for a development in the R-2 district
protects the existing properties from increasing in density. The redevelopment under the existing
zoning is unlikely and the existing properties are likely to remain.
However, the RMF-35 introduces additional land uses that are not permitted within the R-2 zoning
district, these include: single-family attached and multi-family. Additionally, the square footage
required per unit decreases for development within the RMF-35. If approved, the proposed
amendments would permit an increase from the existing 9 units to 15 units. The increase in density
would be directly correlated to the potential demolition of the existing structures and the loss of the
existing units.
Issue 3 – National Historic Districts and Historic Preservation
The subject properties were constructed prior to the turn of the century, and are listed within the
Central City National Historic District (Bryant Neighborhood). All of the properties, with the
exception of 159 S. Lincoln Street, are considered to be contributing structures to the National
Historic District. National Historic Districts recognize the unique architecture, character and
development pattern of a specific area. NHDs are designated through the National Park Service and
do not have any City preservation regulations. NHDs are incentive based historic districts that grant
financial incentives to property owners to restore or rehab a historic structure.
Issue 4 – Public Opinion and Neighborhood Concerns
The proposed amendments have garnered public interest and concern. Through the public
engagement process, Staff has received a significant amount of public comments. The public
comments generally express concerns over the existing condition of the subject properties. The
neighborhood suggests that the subject properties have been neglected and maintenance has been
deferred, which has caused the existing state of the properties.
There are additional concerns that reflect the existing multi-family use. There are concerns that
address the loss of existing housing and the replacement with market rate housing. The fear is that
the existing tenants would be displaced by the amendments and redevelopment of the subject
properties. Older housing stock is generally at a lower cost than new market rate housing.
Additionally, the community has expressed concern with derailing from the adopted Central
Community Master Plan. The Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map designates
the subject properties as Low Density and without a compelling case, it should remain as such.
Additional concerns reflect the loss of the existing structures. The neighborhood is a national
historic district, which does not prohibit demolitions; however, the neighborhood is concerned by
the loss of the structures and the future redevelopment of the parcels.
All of the public comments and petitions can be found in Attachment F.
Issue 5 – Environmental Impact and Air Quality
The proposed amendments are both conflicting and in line with environmental concerns and air
quality impacts. The proposed amendments, if approved, would increase density within an
environment with existing infrastructure. Additionally, the increase of density is located next to rapid
bus transit and within walking distance to Trax. However, the proposed amendments could result in
the demolition of existing housing. The demolition of the existing structures would be a loss of existing
embodied energy and could be impactful to the existing air quality.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed zoning and master plan amendment would facilitate the development of a multi-family
residential building on the subject properties. The master plan’s general policies and objectives for this
area do no support the higher density development. The master plans call for stability for the lower
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 6 February 12, 2020
density designations. The subject properties are adjacent to low density residential to the east, west
and north. The proposed RMF-35 zoning district would result in a development that is not compatible
in terms of height, massing and scale of the adjacent properties. As such, staff does not recommend
changing the zoning or the master plan’s associated future land use map.
NEXT STEPS:
With a recommendation of approval or denial for the zoning and master plan amendments, the
proposal will be sent to the City Council for a final decision by that body.
If the zoning and master plan amendments are approved by the City Council, the properties could be
developed for any use allowed in the RMF-35 zone on the properties. A list of uses allowed by the zone
is located in Attachment D. Any development would need to obtain a building permit and would need
to comply with the necessary zoning standards.
If the zoning and master plan amendments are denied by the City Council, the properties at 159
Lincoln, 949 E. 200 S, 955 E. 200 S., 959 E. 200 S., and 963 E. 200 S. will remain R-2. With this
zoning, the property could be developed for any use allowed in the R-2 zoning district. A list of the uses
allowed by the zone is located in Attachment D.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 7 February 12, 2020
ATTACHMENT A: ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE
MAP
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 8 February 12, 2020
Haxton PlLindenAve Banks CtWest CtStrongs CtMarkeaAve
Laker CtBueno Ave
800 EHanover Pl
Linden Ave
100 S
200 S
300 S
200 S
100 S
200 S
100 S
400 S800 E300 S
400 SIowa St300 S
400 S 1000 EDooley Ct800 E900 EMcClelland St900 EWindsor St1000 ELincoln St1000 EMenlo Ave
RO RMF-35
UIPLRMF-35RMF-75
RMF-30 RMF-45
RMF-35 RMF-35
R-2 R-2SR-3
SR-3
RMF-45
R-2RMF-35
CN
R-2
R-2
SR-3 SR-3 PLRMF-35
R-2RMF-30
RMF-35 CN
UI
RMF-35 R-2
SR-3 SR-3
R-2
RMF-30TSA-UN-T
OSRMF-45
RMF-35
R-2
200 S
300 S800 E1100 EG StH StI StJ StK StL StM StN StO StP StQ StR StS St1st Ave 2nd Ave
3rd Ave
600 E1000 E1200 E900 ESouth Temple St
700 E100 S
400 S
500 S
¯Salt Lake City Planning Division, 1/29/2020
Legend
Subject Property
Parcels
Zoning Districts
OS Open Space
CN Neighborhood Commercial
CS Community Shopping
SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential
R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential
RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential
RMF-35 ModerateDensity Multi-Family Residential
RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential
RMF-75 High Density Multi-Family Residential
RO Residential/Office
TSA-UN-C Urban Neighborhood- Core
TSA-UN-T Urban Neighborhood- Transition
UI Urban Institutional
PL Public Lands
Vicinity Zoning Map
0 190 380 570 76095FeetPLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 9 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 10 February 12, 2020
ATTACHMENT B: PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPHS
Photo of 949 E. 200 S.
Photo of 955 E. 200 S.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 11 February 12, 2020
Photo of 959 E. 200 S.
Photo of 963 E. 200 S.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 12 February 12, 2020
Perspective of 959, 955, and 949 E. 200 S.
Photo of Lincoln Street Elevation of 949 E. 200 S.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 13 February 12, 2020
Photo of 159 S. Lincoln St.
Photo of the Parking Lot of 949 E. 200 S.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 14 February 12, 2020
ATTACHMENT C: APPLICATION INFORMATION WITH
PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 15 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 16 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 17 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 18 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 19 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 20 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 21 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 22 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 23 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068424February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068425February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 26 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 27 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 28 February 12, 2020
Applicant Response to
Community’s Written Concerns
Case Numbers
PLNPCM2019-00683 and PLNPCM2019-00684
February 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 29 February 12, 2020
Content
•Statistics of Community Response
•Summary of Written Concerns
•Response to Community’s Written Concerns
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 30 February 12, 2020
Statistics of Community Response
•Total letters written: 35
•Unique households: 24
•11 duplicate letters or multiple letters from same household
•Letters from individuals within District 4: 26
•6 letters from individuals who do not live within the District Boundaries
•Letters in agreement: 2
•Both within 1 block of proposed location
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 31 February 12, 2020
Summary of Written Concerns
•35 Letters expressed concerns that can be summarized to 7 issues
1.Concerns that current infrastructure will not support the additional 7 units
2.Don’t want increased density in neighborhood
3.Desire to keep existing structures
4.Concerns of affordable housing
5.Concerns of aesthetic fit in neighborhood
6.Concerns project will cause neighborhood to lose value, increase in taxes and rent
7.Concerns with current landlords managing redeveloped property
•Proposal Applicant written response to those concerns can be found in
following slides.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 32 February 12, 2020
1. Concerns that current infrastructure will not
support the additional 7 units
Concerns:
1.Concerns of impact to existing sewer, streets, and existing
infrastructure with additional 7 units
2.Concerns of traffic and parking on 200 South
3.University of Utah students parking on 200 South
4.Concerns of "trash"
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 33 February 12, 2020
Response to:
Concerns that current infrastructure will not support the
additional 7 units
•The City’s completed Design Review did not deem existing infrastructure or traffic would be significantly impacted.
•Proposal gives 2-car garage spaces per unit (there is currently no garage spaces) with the exception of a 1-bedroom unit, which has a 1-car garage, and an additional 4 visitor spaces. In addition to ample parking for all residents on property, the proposal also has bike racks for residents and visitors to encourage alternative transportation.
•While this proposal cannot change the behaviors of University of Utah students parking on 200 South, all tenants and their visitors will have parking space within the private property.
•Each unit would have it's own garbage and recycling bin, similar to all other residents in the neighborhood. The difference is that rather than putting bins on the street, they would put it outside their garages within property.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 34 February 12, 2020
2. Don’t want increased density in neighborhood
Concerns:
1.Don't want to live amongst massive large apartment building
2.This neighborhood should not be the location of increased
density housing.
3.Suggestion to tear existing homes down and build duplexes or
homes instead
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 35 February 12, 2020
Response to:
Don’t want increased density in neighborhood
•It has been stated that the City’s policy is to create more density in this area to accommodate growth.
•There are already existing apartment complexes just 3 plots north, as
well as, across 200 South that have been there for decades.
•With City policy to increase density, thoughtful resource management is necessary which is why we are committed to focusing on energy efficient materials and appliances in this new build. As a result it will be
much more energy efficient than current existing buildings.
•Current R-2 zoning allows for 7 units of redevelopment. This option takes current 9-units to 7-units, eliminating (2) in City’s housing stock and without a unit designated for Affordable Housing as in the current proposal.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 36 February 12, 2020
3. Desire to keep existing structures
Concerns:
1.These buildings should be sold to people who will restore and
repair these homes
2.Desire to keep for sentimental reasons
3.Denial of request based on desire to extend the historic district
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 37 February 12, 2020
Response to:
Desire to keep existing structures
•This private property is not for sale. Additionally, Applicants
looked into updating the dwellings with more family-friendly floor
plans. To update to where desired, the City would require the
units to meet current seismic code. A Structural Engineering
Report was commissioned for all 5 buildings and the
recommendation is to build new dwellings. Additionally, by
building new, a more energy-efficient solution is available.
•Denial of a proposal because of a hoped-for neighborhood -
designation that has an unforeseen future is unreasonable.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 38 February 12, 2020
4. Concerns of affordable housing
Concerns:
1.Preservation of Affordable and Equitable Housing
2.This new development will further inflate rent and housing
crisis.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 39 February 12, 2020
Response to:
Concerns of affordable housing
•The current 9 units are not Section 8 housing. Applicants are willing to designate a brand-new 3-bedroom home as an Affordable Housing unit with approval of proposal.
•Approval of proposal will further support the Housing Plan with additional housing stock (9 units to 16 units) with an additional designated affordable housing unit. If remained R-2, properties would be redeveloped to 7 market value rent units, losing (2) housing stock units.
•Applicants are interested in working with Housing Authority to help existing tenants find alternative housing situations.
•Contradicting the notion that new development inflates rents and exacerbates the housing crisis, Salt Lake City Planning Director, Nick Norris, says low-density and single-family zoning has been a major barrier to making housing more affordable https://www.kuer.org/post/zoning-heart-salt-lakes-affordable-housing-woes#stream/0
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 40 February 12, 2020
5. Concerns of aesthetic fit in neighborhood
1.Concern of height of proposed buildings
2.Concern that a conceptual plan has been submitted and changes
will be made that will deviate significantly from what is in
proposal
3.There are no backyards in town homes
4.Disagreement of spot-zoning
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 41 February 12, 2020
Response to:
Concerns of aesthetic fit in neighborhood
•The proposed dwellings do not exceed in height of the properties on 200S. The building will not be taller, will have more green space than existing properties, and covered parking for all tenants
•Applicants have been open to comments and working with the community. Many comments have been incorporated - brick rather than stone and stucco, architectural elements, front porches along 200 south to encourage neighborhood engagement. Applicants are willing to sign development plan if approved to an RMF35 so that no major deviations are made.
•While most of the block is zoned R-2, many of the buildings are non-conforming R-2. Directly adjacent to the proposed project on 1000 East are several commercial office and medical buildings. On Lincoln street, two houses away, is a large apartment complex. This request is not a significant deviation to what is already existing on the block.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 42 February 12, 2020
6. Neighborhood losing value, increases in taxes
and rent with this proposal
1.Property taxes will increase
2.Rent will increase
3.Property value will decrease
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 43 February 12, 2020
Response to:
Neighborhood losing value, increases in taxes and rent with
this proposal
•According to Movoto.com1, Salt Lake City property taxes are determined by the state’s, county’s, and city’s approved budgets
divided by the total tax base to arrive at the property tax rate. From there, the property’s value is multiplied by the property tax rate for each of the taxable government functions,
and not by small redevelopment projects.
•Area rents are determined by supply and demand. With more supply of market-rate units, there is less indication of higher rents.
•It is believed by many real estate professionals that a redeveloped property will add value than what is currently in place.
1https://www.movoto.com/foundation/property-taxes/salt-lake-city-property-tax-how-does-it-compare-to-other-major-cities/
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 44 February 12, 2020
7. Concerns with current landlords managing
redeveloped property
1.Concerns of property maintenance with redeveloped properties
since current properties are not well maintained
2.Accusations of land-banking
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 45 February 12, 2020
Response to:
Concerns with current landlords
•Applicants are new owners that have experience in property
management and will be handling the operations of the new
proposed units.
•A third-party professional Property Management Company will be
used to screen tenants and maintain the properties.
•These 5 properties were deemed uninhabitable by the City when
purchased 30 years ago.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 46 February 12, 2020
ATTACHMENT D: EXISTING CONDITIONS
The subject properties located at 159 S. Lincoln, 949 E., 955 E., 959 E., 963 E. 200 S. are zoned R-2 (Single and
Two-Family Residential) zoning district.
Existing Zoning and Uses in the Immediate Vicinity:
East: To the east of the subject properties is a commercial structure, which is zoned R-2. A multi-unit residential
structure is located to the north east of the subject properties.
West: To the west of the subject properties are low scale residential structures and are zoned R-2.
South: To the south of the subject properties are low scale residential structures and are zoned R-2.
North: To the north of the subject properties are low scale residential structures, multi-family structure and a
commercial use. The zoning includes R-2 and RMF-35.
R-2
(Single
and
Two
Family
)
Minimum
Lot Area:
5,000 square
feet for
single-family
dwellings
Twin Homes:
4,000 square
feet per
dwelling.
Two-Family:
8,000
Minimum
Lot Width:
Single
Family: 50
feet
Twin Home:
25 Feet
Two-
Family: 50
Feet
Maximum
Building
Height:
1. Twenty
eight feet
(28’)
2. Average
3. 20’ for
flat roofs
Minimum Yard:
1. Front Yard: Average of
the front yard for all
principal buildings.
2. Corner Side Yard: 10’
3. Interior Side Yard: Twin
Homes: No side yard is
required along one side
lot line. A ten foot side
yard is required along the
other.
Other: 4’ and 10’
4. Rear Yard: 25% of the lot
depth, but not less than
15’ and need not exceed
25’.
Building
Coverage: 45% of
the lot for two-
family dwellings
and 40% for single-
family.
159 S.
Lincoln
Complies:
6,455 square
feet
Complies:
50 Feet
Approximately
1 Story
Front: Approximately 22’
Interior: Approximately
8’ and 0’
Rear: Approximately 60’
Approximately 25%
949 E.
200 S.
Legal
complying:
5,227
Legal
complying:
35 Feet
Approximately
2.5 Stories
Front Yard: Approximately 27’
Corner: Approximately 14’
Interior: Approximately 1’
Rear: Approximately 59’
Approximately
34%
955 E.
200 S.
Legal
complying:
5,161 square
feet
Legal
complying:
35 Feet
Approximately
2.5 Stories
Front: Approximately 26’
Interior: Approximately 1’ and 1’
Rear: Approximately 30’
Approximately
46%
959 E.
200 S.
Complies:
5,227 square
feet
Legal
complying:
35 Feet
Approximately
3 Stories
Front: Approximately 29’
Interior: Approximately 1’
and 1’
Approximately 25%
963 E.
200 S.
Legal
Noncomplyin
g: 7,758
square feet
Legal
Noncomplyi
ng: 47 Feet
Approximately
1.5 Stories
Front: Approximately 26’
Interior: Approximately 12’ and 1’
Rear: Approximately 60’
Approximately
22%
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 47 February 12, 2020
21A.33.020: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Use
Permitted And Conditional
Uses By District
R-2 RMF-35
Accessory use, except those that are otherwise specifically regulated
elsewhere in this title
P P
Adaptive reuse of a landmark site C8 C8
Alcohol, bar establishment (2,500 square feet or less in floor area)
Alcohol, brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in floor area)
Alcohol, tavern (2,500 square feet or less in floor area)
Animal, veterinary office
Art gallery
Artisan food production (2,500 square feet or less in floor area)
Bed and breakfast inn
Bed and breakfast manor
Clinic (medical, dental)
Commercial food preparation
Community garden C P
Community recreation center C
Crematorium
Daycare center, adult
Daycare center, child C22 C22
Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P22 P22
Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P22 P22
Dwelling, accessory guest and servant's quarter
Dwelling, accessory unit P P
Dwelling, assisted living facility (large) C
Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity) C P
Dwelling, assisted living facility (small) P
Dwelling; dormitory, fraternity, sorority
Dwelling, group home (large)14 C
Dwelling, group home (small)15 P P
Dwelling, manufactured home P P
Dwelling, multi-family P
Dwelling, residential support (large)16
Dwelling, residential support (small)17 C
Dwelling, rooming (boarding) house
Dwelling, single-family (attached) P
Dwelling, single-family (detached) P P
Dwelling, twin home and two-family P2 P
Eleemosynary facility C C
Financial institution
Funeral home
Governmental facility C C
Home occupation P24 P24
Laboratory (medical, dental, optical)
Library
Mixed use development
Mobile food business (operation on private property)
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 48 February 12, 2020
Use
Permitted And Conditional
Uses By District
R-2 RMF-35
Municipal service use, including City utility use and police and fire
station
C C
Museum
Nursing care facility
Office, excluding medical and dental clinic and office
Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P P
Park P P
Parking, off site (to support nonconforming uses in a residential zone
or uses in the CN or CB Zones)
Parking, park and ride lot shared with existing use P P
Place of worship on lots less than 4 acres in size C C
Reception center
Recreation (indoor)
Restaurant
Restaurant with drive-through facility
Retail goods establishment
Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop with outdoor
retail sales area
Retail service establishment
School, music conservatory
School, professional and vocational
School, seminary and religious institute C C
Seasonal farm stand
Studio, art
Temporary use of closed schools and churches C23
Theater, live performance
Theater, movie
Urban farm P P
Utility, building or structure P5 P5
Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole P5 P5
Wireless telecommunications facility (see section 21A.40.090, table
21A.40.090E of this title)
Qualifying provisions:
1. A single apartment unit may be located above first floor retail/office.
2. Provided that no more than 2 two-family buildings are located adjacent to one another and no more than 3 such
dwellings are located along the same block face (within subdivisions approved after April 12, 1995).
3. Must contain retail component for on-site food sales.
4. Reserved.
5. See subsection 21A.02.050B of this title for utility regulations.
6. Building additions on lots less than 20,000 square feet for office uses may not exceed 50 percent of the
building's footprint. Building additions greater than 50 percent of the building's footprint or new office building
construction are subject to a design review.
7. Subject to conformance to the provisions in section 21A.02.050 of this title.
8. Subject to conformance with the provisions of subsection 21A.24.010S of this title.
9. Subject to conformance with the provisions in section 21A.36.300, "Alcohol Related Establishments", of this
title.
10. In the RB Zoning District, the total square footage, including patio space, shall not exceed 2,200 square feet in
total. Total square footage will include a maximum 1,750 square feet of floor space within a business and a
maximum of 450 square feet in an outdoor patio area.
11. Accessory guest or servant's quarters must be located within the buildable area on the lot.
12. Subject to conformance with the provisions of section 21A.36.150 of this title.
13. Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District.
14. No large group home shall be located within 800 feet of another group home.
15. No small group home shall be located within 800 feet of another group home.
16. No large residential support shall be located within 800 feet of another residential support.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 49 February 12, 2020
17. No small residential support shall be located within 800 feet of another residential support.
18. Large group homes established in the RB and RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor.
19. Small group homes established in the RB and RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor.
20. Large residential support established in RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor.
21. Small residential support established in RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor.
22. Subject to section 21A.36.130 of this title.
23. Subject to section 21A.36.170 of this title.
24. Subject to section 21A.36.030 of this title.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 50 February 12, 2020
ATTACHMENT E: R-2 and RMF-35 COMPARISON
The following illustrations summarize the lot and bulk standards for both the R-2 (Single and
Two-Family Residential) and the RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family) zoning districts.
Both summaries include existing examples of what could be constructed under the applicable
zoning districts. For additional information on the R-2 and the RMF-35, please refer to Issue
2.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 51 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 52 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 53 February 12, 2020
ATTACHMENT F: MASTER PLAN ANALYSIS
The subject properties located at 159 S. Lincoln, 949 E., 955 E., 959 E., and 963 E. 200 S. are
located wtihin the Central Community Master Plan. Staff also reviewed Plan Salt Lake and the 5
Year Housing Plan to review the proposed amendments. All applicable master plan policies and
goals are stated within the attached matrix.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 54 February 12, 2020
The Central Community Master Plan, Plan Salt Lake and the 5 Year Housing Plan have been analyzed against the proposed master plan
amendment for 159 Lincoln, 949 E., 955 E., 959 E., and 963 E. 200 S. The analysis is reflected by the following colors:
Consistent with the Master Plan
Not Consistent with the Master Plan
Neutral
Central Community Master Plan
Residential Land Use Goals Staff Analysis of Master Plan Amendment
Encourage the creation and maintenance of a
variety of housing opportunities that meet social
needs and income levels of a diverse population.
The proposed amendments could result in the demolition of existing housing
within the East Central neighborhood.
Older existing housing units are generally more affordable and attainable
than new market rate housing.
The rezone and master plan amendment could allow for additional density
and housing.
Ensure preservation of low-density residential
neighborhoods.
The proposed amendments would change the future land use and zoning to
medium-density residential, which could result in the demolition of the
existing low-density residential land uses.
Ensure that new development is compatible
with existing neighborhoods in terms of scale,
character and density.
The proposed amendments could result in the demolition of existing
structures that contribute to the character of the neighborhood. The proposed
RMF-35 zone has limited standards that would ensure that new development
is compatible with the character of the neighborhood.
Community Input on Residential Land
Uses
Proposed Amendment
Higher density housing replacing characteristic
lower density structures.
a. The community does not support the
demolition of lower-density residences
in order to build multi-family
structures. Residents prefer to protect
the existing residential character and
prevent construction of multiple family
dwellings in low-density
This proposal is in direct conflict with this statement.
The proposal would encourage the demolition of existing lower density
residences by allowing medium density multi-family development.
While the proposal is not high density, it is an increase in density which
would exceed 15 dwelling units per acre.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 55 February 12, 2020
neighborhoods, especially those
exceeding 15 dwelling units per acre.
Residential Land Use Policies Proposed Amendments
RLU 1.0 Based on the Future Land Use Map, use
residential zoning to establish and maintain a
variety of housing opportunities that meet social
needs and income levels of a diverse population.
Generally, older housing stock tends to be more affordable than new
development and the existing properties provide housing to a variety of
income levels.
The proposed amendments would allow for the redevelopment of the subject
properties with higher density, which would displace the current residences.
However, if approved, the RMF-35 would permit more units than what is
currently allowed under the R-2.
RLU 1.1 Preserve low-density residential areas
and keep them from being replaced by higher
density residential and commercial uses.
These properties are designated as low-density. The proposal would allow for
the replacement of the existing residential structures with higher density
residential uses.
The Central Community Master Plan has identified many areas where
medium and high density housing is appropriate. Those areas are anticipated
to be redeveloped with the proposed density noted on the master plan. These
properties are not anticipated to increase in density.
RLU 1.2 Provide opportunities for medium -
density housing in areas between the Central
Business District and lower-density
neighborhoods and in areas where small multi-
family dwellings are compatible.
The proposed zone would be considered to be medium-density: however,
there are currently areas identified in the master plan and zoning map that
allow for medium density housing.
RLU 1.6 Encourage coordination between the
Future Land Use Map, zoning ordinance, and the
Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan.
Salt Lake City has adopted a new 5 Year Housing Plan, which encourages
growth and additional density. The 5 Year Housing Plan is analyzed in the
following pages and as evidenced, there is a non-consistent policy for the
amendments.
The proposed amendments are not in coordination of the Future Land Use
Map or the zoning map, which is the reason for the proposed amendments.
RLU 2.0 Preserve and protect existing single-
and multi-family residential dwellings within the
Central Community through codes, regulations
and design review.
The proposal would encourage the demolition and redevelopment of the
subject property because it would allow additional density.
RLU 2.1 Preserve housing stock through
incentives and code enforcement by
implementing the Salt Lake Community Housing
Plan.
The amendment would encourage the demolition of existing housing stock.
However, the proposal could add to the housing stock in the community.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 56 February 12, 2020
Historic Preservation Policies Proposed Amendments
HP 1.0 Central Community gives high priority to
the preservation of historic structures and
development patterns.
The proposal would encourage the demolition of 4 contributing structures
within the Bennion National Historic District.
HP 1.2 Ensure that zoning is conducive to
preservation of significant and contributing
structures or properties.
The proposed zoning amendment could encourage the demolition of
contributing structures on the National Register.
Plan Salt Lake
Plan Salt Lake City is a City wide master plan that addresses growth, housing and preservation. This master plan is broad and
not property specific.
Plan Salt Lake Proposed Amendments
Neighborhoods/Neighborhoods that provide a
safe environment opportunity for social
interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing
of the community therein.
Maintain neighborhood stability and
character.
Support neighborhoods and districts in
carrying out the City’s collective Vision.
Support neighborhood identity and
diversity.
Support policies that provides people a
choice to stay in their home and
neighborhood as they grow older and
household demographics change.
The amendments would encourage the demolition of structures that
contribute to the neighborhood character.
The community was heavily involved in the Master Planning of the subject
area. The Future Land Use Map designates the subject properties as low
Density.
The structures are located within a national historic district. The community
master plan is supportive of preservation of community character and the
preservation of the diversity of housing.
The amendments could displace the people living within the units.
Growth/Growing responsibly, while providing
people with choices about where they live, how
they live, and how they get around.
Locate new development in areas with
existing infrastructure and amenities,
such as transit and transportation
corridors.
Encourage a mix of land uses.
Promote infill and redevelopment of
underutilized land.
The proposed development is located in an area with existing infrastructure
and amenities. 200 South has recently become a rapid bus line.
The amendments could create a similar land use, as seen within the
neighborhood. The community is dispersed with low and medium density
residential.
The proposal is not infill. The land is not underutilized. It provides existing
housing.
The amendments could accommodate the increased population.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 57 February 12, 2020
Accommodate and promote an increase
in the City’s population.
Housing/Access to a wide variety of housing
types for all income levels throughout the city,
providing the basic human need for safety and
responding to changing demographics.
“Almost half of the total housing units in Salt
Lake are single-family detached dwellings. While
preserving the existing housing stock will
continue to be a priority for Salt Lake City, over
the next 25 years, it will be critical for us to
encourage and support a diversity of new
housing options and types with a range of
densities throughout the City to best meet the
changing population.
Ensure access to affordable housing city
wide (including rental and very low
income).
Increase the number of medium density
housing types and options.
Encourage housing options that
accommodate aging in place.
Direct new growth toward areas with
existing infrastructure and services that
have the potential to be people-oriented.
Enable moderate density increases
within existing neighborhoods where
appropriate.
Promote energy efficient housing and
rehabilitation of existing housing stock.
Promote high density residential in areas
serviced by transit.
The existing structures are older, which are generally more affordable.
The proposal would increase the number of medium density housing types
and options through the loss of existing housing.
The new development is located within an area of the city with existing
infrastructure and services.
This would be a moderate density increase within an existing neighborhood.
The increase in density is not clearly appropriate. Throughout all of the
analyzed plans there are both policy statements that are consistent and not
consistent with the requested amendments.
The applicants have stated that the new construction would be “efficient”;
however, there would be a loss of embodied energy. Rehabilitation of the
existing structures is preferable.
This area is serviced by a rapid transit bus. Bus schedules are subject to
change.
Beautiful City/A beautiful city that is people
focused.
Reinforce and preserve neighborhood
and district character and a strong sense
of place.
The proposed amendments would encourage the demolition and
redevelopment of existing structure that add to the character of the
neighborhood. The amendments would not reinforce or preserve
neighborhood or district character.
Preservation/Maintaining places that provide a
foundation for the City to affirm our past.
1. The amendments would encourage the demolition of the structures.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 58 February 12, 2020
1. Preserve and enhance neighborhood and
district character.
2. Retain areas and structures of historic
and architectural value.
3. Balance preservation with flexibility for
change and growth.
2. The 5 structures are located within a National Historic District. Retention is
encouraged and incentivized.
3. The structures are located within a National Historic District. National
districts incentivize preservation through tax credit programs. Property
owners have the ability and flexibility to alter their properties. The proposed
amendments would encourage the demolition and redevelopment of existing
structures. Growth is needed, but through compatible and appropriate
development that is supported in the community master plans.
Five Year Housing Plan
Five Year Housing Plan Proposed Amendments
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and
zoning regulations to reflect the affordability
needs of a growing, pioneering city.
The proposal includes the rezone and master plan amendment of an
established neighborhood. While the neighborhood could potentially contain
additional density, the proposal would eliminate existing affordable and
diverse housing.
In summary, the analyzed adopted Master Plan documents provide some supportive, neutral and non-supportive policy statements in regard to the
proposed amendments. The supportive and neutral policy statements, which are color coded above, support growth and development. However,
there is a number of non-supportive policy statements that are in direct conflict with the proposed amendments. These policies address
compatibility, appropriate density for specific areas of the City and preservation of existing housing stock. The lack of the majority of supporting
policies is why Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 59 February 12, 2020
ATTACHMENT G: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
B. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the
following:
Standard Findings Rationale
1. Whether a proposed map
amendment is consistent
with the purposes, goals,
objectives, and policies of
the City as stated through
its various adopted
planning documents;
The proposal is not
consistent with the goals and
policies or specific
designation on the Future
Land Use Map. Master Plan
Future Land Use Map
amendment is not supported
by policies in the master
plan.
Please see the matrix in
Attachment F. The requested
master plan amendment generally
does not align with the goals or
policy statements within the
Central Community Master Plan.
Additionally, the existing R-2
zoning designation does align with
the current designation found on
the future land use map at 10
dwelling units per acre. The
proposed amendments would
double the permitted number of
units under the future land use
designation and the allotment
under the current R-2 zoning.
As stated in the matrix, found in
Attachment F, Staff acknowledges
that there are some policy
statements that align with the
proposal. However, the majority of
the applicable policy statements
and goals conflict with the
proposed amendments. There
may be a need to further evaluate
the Central Community Master
Plan according to City wide goals;
however, in this case, there are
specific policies and goals that do
not support the proposals.
2. Whether a proposed map
amendment furthers the
specific purpose
statements of the zoning
ordinance;
The proposed Master Plan
and Zoning Map
Amendments conflict with
the purpose statement of the
zoning ordinance.
21A.02.030: The purpose of this
title is to promote the health,
safety, morals, convenience,
order, prosperity and welfare of
the present and future inhabitants
of Salt Lake City, to implement
the adopted plans of the City, and
to carry out the purposes of the
Municipal Land Use Development
and Management Act, title 10,
chapter 9, of the Utah Code.
The proposal does not promote
the order and welfare of the
community because it is not
consistent with the adopted
community plan. The
amendments do not implement
the adopted plans of the City.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 60 February 12, 2020
3. The extent to which a
proposed map
amendment will affect
adjacent properties;
The proposed zoning and
master plan amendments
would negatively affect
adjacent properties as a
result of the increase in scale
and intensity.
As discussed in Issue 2, if the
properties were to be rezoned to
RMF-35, a 15 unit multi-family
building could potentially be
constructed. The building could
reach 35 feet in height with
smaller setbacks and an increased
lot coverage allowance. This would
decrease the amount of open
space on the parcels. Additionally,
the RMF-35 doesn’t require or
contain any design standards or
review. The lack of design
standards could permit an out of
context and character structure to
be constructed.
Attachment E contains a summary
of both zoning districts and a
visualization of what could be
constructed. The R-2 zoning
district provides more compatible
setbacks, lot coverage and height
limitations in relation to the
existing context, which contains
lower scaled residential structures.
The RMF-35 designation would
permit the number of dwelling
units proposed by the applicant.
However, there is an impactful
difference between the level of
development that would be
allowed under the current R-2 and
the RMF-35.
4. Whether a proposed map
amendment is consistent
with the purposes and
provisions of any
applicable overlay zoning
district which may
impose additional
standards; and
Future development would
need to comply with
applicable overlays.
Subject properties are located
within the Ground Water Source
Protection Overlay. Public
Utilities would require additional
standards for future development
of the properties.
5. The adequacy of public
facilities and services
intended to serve the
subject property,
including, but not limited
to, roadways, parks and
recreational facilities,
police and fire protection,
schools, storm water
drainage systems, water
supplies, and wastewater
and refuse collection.
City services can be provided
to the site
The subject property is located
within a built environment where
public facilities and services
already exist. An increase in the
number of dwelling units
permitted under the RMF-35 may
require upgrading the utilities and
drainage systems. However, such
upgrades would be required for
any new larger use on the
property through the building
permit process.
No concerns were received from
other City departments regarding
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 61 February 12, 2020
the zoning amendment or the
potential for additional
development intensity/density on
these properties.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 62 February 12, 2020
ATTACHMENT H: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
The applications were received on July 19, 2019.
The applications were routed on August 8, 2019.
Early notification and Recognized Community Organization Notification was sent on August 9, 2019.
Staff attended the East Central Community Council on September 19, 2019. East Central Community
Council counted 115 people in attendance. The following questions, concerns and items were discussed:
•History of the subject properties
•Concerns about neighborhood impacts.
•Concerns about how many individuals live within the structures
•Some individuals expressed the need for additional housing units within the neighborhood
•What is the energy target of the proposed development
•Parking concerns with the proximity to the University of Utah
•Concerns about garbage pickup
•The City should focus on protecting the R-2
•Concerns about the existing state of the structures
•Questions about the current rent from the tenants
•Concerns about the motivation of the proposals
•Comments about increasing housing stock and should increase affordability
•Concerns about the impact of RMF-35 to abutting properties
Staff has also held an Open House on October 7, 2019 at the 10th East Senior Center. Staff received several
comments via email and written comments, which are all attached. Additionally, a public petition was
submitted, which is also attached.
Staff posted the properties January 30, 2020.
Planning Commission Agenda posted to web on January 30, 2020
Public hearing notices mailed on January 30, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 63 February 12, 2020
Neighborhood Meetings are held monthly on the third Thursday of the month 7-8:30 pm at Judge Memorial High School.
ECC Mailing address: 606 Trolley Square Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
Email: eastcentralcommunity@gmailcom
On the web: www.eastcentralcc.org
Via Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/EastCentralCommunityCouncil
https://www.facebook.com/PorchfestSaltLake
General Membership Meeting
September 19, 2019, 7:00-8:30 p.m.
Judge Memorial Catholic High School
650 South 1100 East, Library
Agenda
7:00-7:10 Welcome & Announcements
Esther Hunter – Chair, East Central Community
7:10-7:25 Police and Mayor’s Office Report
Officer Bishop
Tim Cosgrove, Community liaison for the Salt Lake City Mayors office
Banks Court
7:25-8:00 Community Development & Land Use
Zoning Map Amendment and Master Plan Amendment
R2 (Single and Two-Family Residential District) to RMF 35
(Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential)
Graham Filbert on behalf of the property owners
159 S. Lincoln, 949, 955, 959, 963 East 200 South
Send proposal comments to eastcentralcommunity@gmail.com & to
Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning 801.535.7930
8:00-8:15 2020 CIP Application
1200 East medians – Curb, Irrigation, Trees
8:15-8:30 Your Turn – Step up to the Microphone
8:30 Adjournment
Your neighborhood Representatives:
Bennion: 700 -1000 East, 400 -900 South
Travis Jones, 801.664.7138
Bryant: 700 - 900 East, South Temple-400 South
Melinda Main, 801.651.9705
Douglas: 500-900 South, 1000-1400 East
Kim Foster, 801.419.1234
University Gardens: 900- 1400 East, South Temple-500 South/S curve
Esther Hunter, 801.209.3455
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 64 February 12, 2020
October 7, 2019
Dear Neighbors,
Please take a few moments to take a survey regarding 5 parcels located on 200 South and also Lincoln
Street in our neighborhood.
We would very much like to gather your input regarding the requested master plan and zoning
amendment for the properties located at 159 S. Lincoln Street and 949/955/959 and 963 East 200 South
from R2 (single family and two family residential) to RMF-35 (moderate density multi-family residential).
The owners of the property are seeking to rezone the property with the intent to demolish the existing
structures to build new apartment townhomes for rent.
If you were not able to attend the last East Central Community meeting on this topic, more information
can be found on the East Central Community Facebook page or by attending an open house on the topic
being held today October 7 at the 10th East Senior Center (257 South 10th East) from 5-7pm.
Thank you so much for your participation and thoughtful input.
Esther
In behalf of the ECC Executive Board & the ECC Community Development and Land Use Committee
We are interested in understanding how the local community feels about the
proposed Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment from low density single and
two family (R2) to medium density multifamily zoning (RMF-35) for the five lots
located at 159 S. Lincoln, 949/955/959/963 E. 200 South.
1. How much do you support this change in land use?
Strongly support
Strongly oppose
2. Following up to the previous question, why do you feel that way?
3. Please list the extent to which this proposed change will affect adjacent
properties, your property, or the ECC neighborhood. Consider all types of positive
and negative impacts such as on quality of life, sunlight, privacy, property values,
noise, neighborhood safety, density, smell, availability of housing options,
appearance etc.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 65 February 12, 2020
4. Please state your opinion of the adequacy and impact of public facilities and
services for this location such as roadways, parks/open space, refuse collection,
wastewater collection, police/fire protection, etc.
5. Please list any other comments or questions about this proposal.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 66 February 12, 2020
1
January 20, 2020
Kelsey Lindquist
Senior Planner
Community & Neighborhoods, Planning Division
Salt Lake City Corporation
Regarding: Planning Petition PLNPCM2019-00683 and 00684
Zoning Map amendment and Master Plan Amendment
159 S. Lincoln, 949/955/959/963 E. 200 South
Request to change R-2 zoning to RMF-35 and future land use map from low to medium density
Dear Kelsey,
This letter is to reaffirm the position of the East Central Community Council as opposing
this petition. The ECC does not find this petition in keeping with the purposes, goals,
objectives and policies of the Central Community Master Plan, the zoning ordinance or the
Growing Salt Lake Housing Plan in this location.
This conclusion was reached after an extensive amount of time in working directly with the
applicant on possible options that would either preserve or preserve and repair the majority of
existing structures but allow added development that could potentially enhance the neighborhood
area, on line surveys, door to door petitions, CDLU review comparing master plan, housing plan
and other city adopted plans, ECC Land Use/ Executive Board/General Meetings, social media
announcements and cottage meetings.
Spot zoning is rarely smart planning.
While the ECC does support appropriate development, redevelopment and the 5 year Growing Salt
Lake Housing Plan (especially owner occupied workforce housing), we support this effort on the
appropriate parcels already zoned or positioned for this type of density of which there are a
great many parcels available in the ECC and a multitude of opportunities on the fixed transit
routes.
The ECC on line survey (attached) via the proprietary ECC email list of confirmed neighbors
who live or own in the area garnered the largest on line response the ECC has had for an on line
petition with 731 responses of which 714 were strongly opposed with 17 strongly in favor and 1
who did not answer this question. Negative impacts to adjacent properties or to the
neighborhood are summarized and comments are listed.
The door to door petition that the ECC previously sent to you with 198 signatures collected by
Monica has increased and is being resent under a separate cover. Our understanding is that this
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 67 February 12, 2020
2
petition now carries approximately 300 signatures. The overlap between the on line survey and
the door to door petition is 32. All other signatures and survey responses are unique.
A master plan and the existing zoning map helps inform people as they make significant
investment decisions of where to live and thrive. The impact of this type of proposed spot
zoning and development is significant to the financial investment made by every home owner in
this area. Spot zoning stops people from being able to trust that their investment or quality of
life will be protected.
The ECC and neighbors cite negative quality of life and investment impacts such as lack of design
compatibility, size/height and scale of the proposed development in comparison to the homes they
own, increase in traffic congestion, and problems with traffic patterns to and from the site (Lincoln is
a small street onto a small street of 200 South or the major corridor to the University of Utah), lack of
setback that interrupts the existing historic feature, loss of mature trees that would be required on the
site that provide better air/shade/visual improvements, etc., distance buffers to adjacent neighbors,
noise of all the additional units/pick-up deliveries/etc., size and locations of trash/recycling
containers, increased density in an area already over built with apartment buildings and houses
broken into multifamily dwellings (average density in Salt Lake is 1776 per square mile while the
ECC caries 9289 per square mile without the new developments on fixed transit) parking impacts,
loss of privacy, loss of light, smell, visual impact of design, property value decrease as estimated by
several real estate brokers, block face/ street face/ pattern disruption on both 200 South and on
Lincoln and lack of design compatibility to historic and other features in this district.
The ECC is concerned with the impact on and displacement of existing tenants. Additional housing
units and density does not equal affordable or workforce housing.
The County lists 29 bedrooms for these five homes with tenants stating that the count of people
living at this location has been 50. The proposal submitted proposes 16 luxury units which displaces
affordable/workforce housing during construction and once built next to the number 2 bus route most
needed for transport. One sample tenant comment from the ECC survey:
“My rent is $900 plus $300 for utilities. Where will I go? I have looked and there is no
housing available to me. I can’t give my name because we were told if we get involved
in this cause to save our homes we will be evicted. I can’t get evicted. I have to live in
this area. I have no car and depend on the bus for my job.”
The ECC is fragile. Each block face matters.
The ECC is a unique gem within not only Salt Lake City but unique in the US for its walkability
and historic features. It includes all types of housing such as student, families, workforce, senior
and assisted living with all types of buildings from cottages to historic mansions and multifamily
dwellings. It has unique wide park strips, gardens and old growth trees. All types of resources are
a stroll or short transit ride away from coffee shops to medical facilities; from the University of
Utah to shopping Downtown or at 9th and 9th.
This is a community where you can truly age in place.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 68 February 12, 2020
3
Due to its location the ECC continues to be an area highly sought after for development as it is seen as a
significant profit generator. Rather than utilize parcels already zoned for higher density, many
developers seek to spot zone lower cost properties, tearing into the neighborhood fabric with little
regard for the impacts they bring. In this particular case, 5 properties less than 250 feet from this
location already zoned RMF 45 came on the market where the proposed design could have been built
without a rezone.
Developers cite financial hardship and that they need to bring extra density to make a project “ pencil”,
yet the day to day financial hardship brought to existing property owners who have a loss of quality of life
and property value must also be considered.
he ECC cannot possibly accommodate the scope of all growth needed in the city, nor all student
housing for the U, without losing the very essence of what makes the ECC so unique. This very type
of neighborhood, thriving, walkable, all services and housing types, aging in place that the City hopes to
create is already here. We cannot continue to sacrifice the ECC. We suggest that it is especially
important that all rezoning and development be carefully considered to not destroy our existing
neighborhood.
At the same time, neither the city nor the ECC can afford this type of property management with a
complete disregard for the living conditions of the tenants and the associated impacts on the well-being
and peace of the neighborhood. However, this is a matter of enforcement not of zoning.
The ECC would urge you to submit a negative recommendation for this proposal as it is currently
outlined. We ask that the City considers saying no to spot zoning but looks to carefully encourages
the needed housing units without negatively impacting quality of life, disrupting the existing fabric
and charm of our historic neighborhoods.
With warm regards,
Esther Hunter, Chair East Central Community Council
In behalf of the East Central Community Council and Executive Board
eastcentralcommunity@gmail.com
www.eastcentralcc.org
Comments noted on the ECC survey responses:
Loss of old growth trees. The other day they had one of the renters chopping down trees.
Sections fell on the roof damaging the roof, on the sidewalk damaging the sidewalk and
causing a safety hazard. Our air quality is bad. We need the trees.
If this is built I will no longer have light or air on this side of my property.
The properties they say are the average size and height of what they want to build are all
non-conforming exceptions made. They are on 10th East not Lincoln.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 69 February 12, 2020
4
I have invested significant money into remodeling my home. An apartment complex
across the street from me will devalue my property value.
The living conditions are really bad….rodents, black mold, curtains to divide rooms,
safety and fire hazards, water and sewer leaking from the ceiling.
National historic district. Surveyed for the expansion of the City University Historic
District. Surveyed as contributing. Loss of significant and large historic contributing
buildings that impact the streetscape and rhythm of the district, both sides of the
blockface. (Intensive level survey for expanded historic district submitted under separate
cover).
I already encounter significant traffic and parking impacts onto Lincoln, 200 South with
the island and number 2 bus line. There is no plan for visitor parking. If every 3 bedroom
is rented to two people that’s a potential of 94 cars plus visitors.
They say families…I bet they sell. This is just to increase property value..or they break
up each unit and rent by room like they are now to students. They are not following the
law now in how they are renting the five houses.
The present owners should not be rewarded with a higher zone to increase their property
value given how poorly they have treated these properties, the neighbors and
neighborhood for more than 20 years.
I came to the meeting in full support but the more I heard from everyone I realized that if
they haven’t taken care of the properties for the last 25 years, why would they take care
of the new property. Back of the envelop says they would see a 128% increase in
property value for negatively impacting me for the last 25 years.
Loss of green space. There's no backyards in the townhomes. These aren't places people
would want to raise kids, and I'd like to see us promoting places that are family friendly and
don't just cater to downtown young professionals (I say that as one myself) and/or college
students.
There are low cost options for fixing foundations and other problems. We’ve all done it. All
of our homes in this area are old. There is also a major tax incentive for repairs that could be
used.
During the rezone of the fixed transit corridor we were promised we would not have transit
bleed into our neighborhood where developers would be able to rezone and tear down the
neighborhood.
I don’t trust that they are going to build what they say they are going to build. They just
want to increase their property value.
Loss and displacement for low income housing with approximately 50 people affected.
More density in this area does not equal affordability or workforce housing.
The dissenting comments from the minority opinion:
There are weekly issues in the existing building with drug problems and crime. This has
been going on for years. We have a high crime rate in this area due to the way these
properties are rented and managed. A new development would clean up this situation.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 70 February 12, 2020
5
My property value is significantly decreased due to the slum nature of the way these
properties are managed. I have invested a great deal of time and funds into my historic
home.
I like the design. It is better than what is there now.
Luxury townhomes would increase property values and bring additional neighbors which
is a plus to increase our social circle. I like living in a city that is thriving.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 71 February 12, 2020
From:
Cc:east central
Subject:Goals of Growing SLC – Analysis of Consistency with Map and Master Plan Amendment Applications
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684
Date:Tuesday, October 15, 2019 1:21:13 PM
Attachments:Growing SLC Goals and Objectives App Consistency 1.pdf
Dear Kelsey,
I have completed my review of the Salt Lake City Growing SLC 2018-2023 Housing Plan and the consistency or
lack thereof of the Map and Master Plan Amendment Applications PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684
for the
properties at 159 S Lincoln Street and 949-963 E 200 S.
Please add my analysis and conclusions to the docket and official set of comments submitted to the Planning
Commission. I hope these will also be useful for the staff report review of the same plan.
I copy my summary conclusions here for emphasis:
"In summary, this reviewer has read the entire Growing SLC Plan in detail, including attachments, and
working through every single goal and objective. Based on this review, the Map and Master Plan Amendment
Application is entirely inconsistent with the Growing SLC Plan in every category that applies to the
application in question. The emphasis of the Growing SLC Plan is 1) to preserve and enhance affordable
housing and 2) promote and enhance fair and equitable housing. The application is entirely contrary to these
overarching goals. This contradicts the claims made by the applicant (owner representative Graham Gilbert)
at the East Central Community Council general meeting in September that the Housing Plan supported the
proposal. The mere fact that Salt Lake City “has a housing crisis” does not logically support this
application because the crisis is one of affordability and preservation and expansion of affordable units,
not just units in general. This application, were it to be approved, would set the stage for the demolition
of 5 contributing historic houses with 9 legal and affordable units, to be replaced by “luxury” apartments.
See below for the summary of my full analysis.
Based on this analysis, the applications should summarily be rejected with a negative vote by the Planning
Commission."
I hope to submit additional comments in the near future, but for now I wanted to get these to you.
Sincerely,
Jen Colby, M.A. Public Administration and Resident at 160 S Lincoln Street, SLC, UT 84102
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 72 February 12, 2020
1 Goals of Growing SLC – Analysis of Consistency with Map and Master Plan Amendment Applications PLNPCM2019‐00683 & PLNPCM2019‐00684 By Jen Colby, M.A. Public Administration, and resident at 160 S Lincoln St, SLC, 84102 In order to assess whether the Map and Master Plan Amendment Applications PLNPCM2019‐00683 & PLNPCM2019‐00684 is consistent with the Growing SLC Housing Plan, I: Downloaded the Progress Report from Dashboard found at https://www.slc.gov/hand/programs/ 10‐2‐2019 Deleted the information in the third column; Changed the table third column title to “Is the Application Consistent? “ Completed my personal review of the application as compared to the goals and objectives of the Housing Plan. My conclusions are below. Note that all text in standard font is copied directly from the Progress Report. I have included all of the Goals and Objectives even though several of them are directed at city staff or council for action and are not directly applicable. In that case, I have noted “N/A” in the third column to indicate that the particular item does not pertain to this application, or the amendment process more generally. My own additions and notes are in italics and highlighted yellow. In summary, this reviewer has read the entire Growing SLC Plan in detail, including attachments, and working through every single goal and objective. Based on this review, the Map and Master Plan Amendment Application is entirely inconsistent with the Growing SLC Plan in every category that applies to the application in question. The emphasis of the Growing SLC Plan is 1) to preserve and enhance affordable housing and 2) promote and enhance fair and equitable housing. The application is entirely contrary to these overarching goals. This contradicts the claims made by the applicant (owner representative Graham Gilbert) at the East Central Community Council general meeting in September that the Housing Plan supported the proposal. The mere fact that Salt Lake City “has a housing crisis” does not logically support this application because the crisis is one of affordability and preservation and expansion of affordable units, not just units in general. This application, were it to be approved, would set the stage for the demolition of 5 contributing historic houses with 9 legal and affordable units, to be replaced by “luxury” apartments. See below for the summary of my full analysis. Based on this analysis, the applications should summarily be rejected with a negative vote by the Planning Commission. GROWING SLC Goals and Objectives: GOAL 1: INCREASE HOUSING OPTIONS: REFORM CITY PRACTICES TO PROMOTE A RESPONSIVE, AFFORDABLE, HIGH‐OPPORTUNITY HOUSING MARKET In order to respond to Salt Lake City’s changing demographics and the housing needs of its diverse communities, it is critical to begin to look within the City for real and responsive change that will encourage the market to develop the housing and infrastructure needed to accommodate our growing community. This goal focuses on the need to increase the diversity of housing types and opportunities in the city by seeking policy reforms that can enhance the flexibility of the land‐use code and create an efficient and predictable development process for community growth. Strategic policy decisions that integrate the transportation system, development related infrastructure, financial institutions, and data, as well as innovative design and construction methods, can break down social and economic segregation, thus building a city for everyone. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068473February 12, 2020
2 Objective 1: Review and modify land‐use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city Objective Action Is the Application Consistent? 1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant transportation routes. N/A 1.1.2 Develop in‐fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts. NO. The current structures already represent diverse housing stock and the “missing middle” as described in the Plan. They have housed diverse tenant occupants over the years. Furthermore, one of the structures is a legal triplex which was established thanks to the prior unit legalization process. The discussion of the Objective in the GROWING SLC document (p. 19) recommends reestablishing unit legalization. If that were to happen, the two current duplexes could be converted to tri‐plexes, adding 2 net units. The two current single family structures could possibly become duplexes under current zoning, with a total of 13 units on the 5 properties under CURRENT R2 ZONING. The application proposes to create significant negative impacts to the National Historic District neighborhood character as well as to the surrounding properties by setting the stage to tear down these examples of diverse housing stock and replacing them with luxury apartments that, based on preliminary drawings, detract from the block face and character of the street. 1.1.3 Revise the Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance to expand its application and develop measures to promote its use. N/A PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068474February 12, 2020
3 Objective Action Is the Application Consistent? 1.1.4 Reduce parking requirements for affordable housing developments and eliminate parking requirements in transit‐rich, walkable neighborhoods or when the specific demographics of a development require less parking, such as senior populations. N/A Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development. Objective Action Is the Application Consistent? 1.2.1 Create an expedited processing system to increase City access for those developers constructing new affordable units. N/A Objective 3: Lead in the construction of innovative housing solutions. Objective Action Is the Application Consistent? 1.3.1 Lead in the development of new affordable housing types, as well as construction methods that incorporate innovative solutions to issues of form, function, and maintenance. NO. The current structures are all rented as affordable units according to information provided by the owners and tenants. The proposed replacement structures will be aimed at a “luxury” market with rents targeted at ~$2,000 per unit, according to information provided in various forums by the owners or family representatives. They have indicated their willingness to consider adding one “affordable” unit in the new buildings they propose, which means a net loss of 8 currently affordable units as well as the contributing historic houses they are located in. 1.3.2 Establish partnerships with housing industry leaders to construct innovative and affordable developments. NO. The owners have not disclosed who their developer partner would be so we do not know if they would qualify as an industry leader. However, based on the information they have provided the buildings would not be either innovative nor affordable. Quite the contrary. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068475February 12, 2020
4 Objective 4: Provide residents, community advocates, business leaders, and elected officials with high‐quality data to drive decision‐making. Objective Action Is the Application Consistent? 1.4.1 Maintain a public‐facing set of housing metrics to provide insight into market characteristics and the performance of regulatory changes that will drive decision making. N/A GOAL 2: AFFORDABLE HOUSING: INCREASE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND STABILITY FOR COST‐BURDENED HOUSEHOLDS This goal is dedicated to serving and addressing the needs of those most vulnerable in our community. It is driven by a strong belief that housing stability is good for the entire city, adding income to small businesses, creating food stability for children, and allowing residents to enrich their neighborhoods. Salt Lake City needs to pursue a combination of strategies outlined in the objectives below to achieve this goal. There is no singular initiative that will resolve this crisis, it must be addressed with a range of strategies to best fit the diverse needs of our entire community. Objective 1: Prioritize the development of new affordable housing with an emphasis on households earning 40% AMI and below. Objective Action Is the Application Consistent? 2.1.1 Convene a Blue Ribbon Commission for affordable housing comprised of industry experts, advocates, partners, and government entities. N/A 2.1.2 Consider an ordinance that would require and incentivize the inclusion of affordable units in new developments. N/A 2.1.3 Offer incentives to developers of affordable housing such as land discounts and primary financing options. N/A. However, there are existing programs that the current owners could tap to upgrade and rehabilitate the current structures and retain them as affordable units instead of requesting these amendments with the intent to tear down the structures and replace them with generic‐looking “luxury” apartment buildings. These include state historic preservation tax credits and federal tax credits. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068476February 12, 2020
5 Objective 2: Pursue funding for affordable housing opportunities. Objective Action Is the Application Consistent? 2.2.1 Propose a significant, long‐term, and sustainable funding source for the development, preservation, and stability of affordable housing. N/A. However, there are existing programs that the current owners could tap to upgrade and rehabilitate the current structures and retain them as affordable units instead of requesting these amendments with the intent to tear down the structures and replace them with generic‐looking “luxury” apartment buildings. These include state historic preservation tax credits and federal tax credits. 2.2.2 Pursue legislative change at the state and federal level that would create opportunities for new incentives and revenue sources. N/A Objective 3: Stabilize very low‐income renters. Objective Action Is the Application Consistent? 2.3.1 Work with housing partners and government entities to create an incentivized rent assistance program. N/A. That said, continuing to erode the net number of existing naturally affordable unit housing stock, much of which is in older and historic buildings, just increases the need for these programs and costs the city more $. 2.3.2 Work with housing partners and government entities to continue supporting and enhancing service models that meet the needs of the City ís [sic] most vulnerable households. N/A. That said, some of the current tenants would likely qualify as most vulnerable households. For example, when asked about what they would do if they lost their leases, some of the tenants said they had nowhere to go and other rentals were far too expensive. When you are in a hole, first stop digging. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068477February 12, 2020
6 Objective 4: Secure and preserve long‐term affordability. Objective Action Is the Application Consistent? 2.4.1 Create an Affordable Housing Community Land Trust. N/A. 2.4.2 Work with community partners and government entities to acquire hotels, multi‐family properties, and surplus land to preserve or redevelop them as affordable housing. NO. Instead, these properties could be acquired, rehabilitated, and maintained as public affordable housing. The two smaller single‐unit structures would be terrific as affordable owner units, with the underlying land retained by the city but the residents buying into the structures and building equity, like the program in Burlington Vermont: https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/CEDO/Buy‐a‐Home 2.4.3 Structure renovation programs to reduce utility, energy, and maintenance costs while promoting healthy living. NO. The owners request the amendments with the clear intent to demolish rather than rehabilitate or renovate the existing structures. Objective 5: Work with landlords to improve their housing stock and rent to very low‐income households earning 40% AMI and below. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068478February 12, 2020
7 Objective Action Is the Application Consistent? 2.5.1 Support and potentially expand incentives for landlords to rent low income households, including landlord insurance programs. NO. The owners request the amendments with the clear intent to demolish structures with 9 currently affordable and replace with luxury units. The current city ordinances and programs, sadly, seem to encourage this type of development proposal rather than discourage or disincentivize it. 2.5.2 Enhance neighborhood development programs to entice landlords of substandard properties to improve their rental units. NO. The City has consistently failed to enforce its EXISTING landlord licensing, fit premise, building permitting, business licensing, property maintenance, and other current ordinances that would have helped prevent these properties from becoming so substandard in the first place. The current state of the properties is what is clearly leading to whatever small amount of support there is in the neighborhood for this proposal because some people say “anything would be better than the current situation”. This is an enforcement, not zoning problem. Landlords who rack up numerous violations should be disqualified from receiving incentives for some period of time until they are consistently operating their rental units within the law. Good landlords and rental unit owners would seem to be penalized if those who operate in a substandard fashion then receive incentives not to behave quite so badly. Objective 6: Increase home ownership opportunities. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068479February 12, 2020
8 Objective Action Is the Application Consistent? 2.6.1 Increase funding, marketing, and partnerships that will lead to more affordable homeownership programs within the city's network of homeownership partners. N/A. The properties in question are currently rentals and the owners have indicated their intention to keep them as such. However, as noted above, the two smaller single‐unit structures would be good candidates as affordable ownership units (159 Lincoln St and 963 E 200 S). Property is fungible and the owners could decide to sell these properties and buy other parcels in an already appropriately zoned area for their desired new construction. GOAL 3: EQUITABLE & FAIR HOUSING: BUILD A MORE EQUITABLE CITY Equity is not only about eliminating discrimination, it is also about increasing access to opportunity. One of the guiding principles of Plan Salt Lake is to create an equitable city by ensuring “access to all city amenities for all citizens while treating everyone equitably with fairness, justice, and respect.” The City will accomplish this by working to eliminate housing discrimination, strategically investing in neighborhoods that stand the most to gain, and building a city that meets needs of a diverse population. Objective 1: Eliminate incidences of housing discrimination in Salt Lake City. Objective Action Is the Application Consistent? 3.1.1 Utilize data and evaluation efforts developed by partner organizations about housing discrimination to meet the City's requirements under the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ruling. N/A PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068480February 12, 2020
9 Objective Action Is the Application Consistent? 3.1.2 Work with partners to enhance awareness and resources around tenant rights and responsibilities. NO. Unfortunately, tenants have very few rights in Utah as it is, and city outreach to tenants is basically nonexistent. According to some of the current tenants, if they complained about unfit premises they were threatened with or in fact evicted. They report routinely doing their own (unpermitted) work to try to keep up the current properties, for which the owners indicate they will be compensated but then never do so. These particular tenants have now been threatened with eviction if they speak to some of the neighborhood organizers who oppose the amendments, or if they themselves speak up. The City is utterly failing to uphold tenant rights or owner responsibilities. Further, the tenants’ fundamental federal constitutional rights of free speech, assembly, and public participation are undermined when the consequence of expressing such rights is potential eviction and loss of housing. PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068481February 12, 2020
10 Objective 2: Align resources and invest in strategic expansion of opportunity throughout all neighborhoods of the city and access to existing areas of opportunity. Objective Action Is the Application Consistent? 3.2.1 Align financial resources to increase opportunity in neighborhoods that score below 4.0 on the Opportunity Index's 10 point scale. N/A 3.2.2 Make strategic affordable housing investments in high opportunity neighborhoods. N/A. That said, continuing to erode the net number of existing naturally affordable unit housing stock, much of which is in older and historic buildings, just increases the need for these programs and costs the city more $. 3.2.3 Work with partners at the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute to produce an updated Opportunity Index assessment as a tool for guiding City investment. N/A Objective 3: Implement life cycle housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the city. Objective Action Is the Application Consistent? 3.3.1 Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of life. NO. Note that the Housing Indicators page has not been updated since Q2 of 2017. https://www.slc.gov/hand/housing‐indicators/ PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068482February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 83 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 84 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 85 February 12, 2020
1
October 5, 2019
Kelsey Lindquist
Senior Planner
Community and Neighborhoods Planning Division
Salt Lake City Corporation
Regarding: Planning Petition PLNPCM2019-00683 and 00684
Zoning Map amendment and Master Plan Amendment
159 S. Lincoln, 949/955/959/963 E. 200 South
Request to change R-2 zoning to RMF-35 and
future land use map from low to medium density
Historic Survey – Contributing structures
Dear Kelsey;
It has long been the intent of the ECC and the UNC to follow the adopted motion of the
Planning Commission to extend the designation for the local University Historic District from
the middle of 1100 East to the western side of 900 East between South Temple and 400 South.
Four of the five houses in the current rezone petition are considered significant and
contributing to the National Historic District and to the intended extension of the local
University Historic District.
Your thoughtful consideration of the importance of these structures to the history and fabric of
this neighborhood is appreciated.
At the time when the local University Historic District was recommended (by the Historic
Landmark Commission, the Planning Commission) and created by the City Council, intensive
level survey information had been gathered to the center of 1100 East however resources were
limited to complete the intended work for these blocks.
It was a lack of resources that delayed this effort not for the lack of significance.
The local district was established to the middle of 1100 East but with an adopted motion by the
Planning Commission that the district be extended as soon as the survey work could be
completed.
In 2006 the City Council allocated additional funding to allow this survey work to continue.
Intensive level surveys were commissioned by the City to be completed by Korral Broschinsky
an independent expert in the field. The intensive level surveys have been included with this
letter.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 86 February 12, 2020
2
While the City historic district extension has not yet been completed, it continues to be our
intended hope. Also, these structures and their history ARE listed in the
Bryant/Bennion/Douglas National Historic District as unique and significant to the development
of this portion of early Salt Lake.
The ECC is asking that you consider this information in your review of the planned demolition of
these structures.
Please include this letter and its attachments in the packet provided to the Planning
Commission.
Sincerely,
Esther Hunter
Chair, East Central Community Council & University Neighborhood Council
Sincerely in behalf of the Executive Board of the East Central Community
Eastcentralcommunity@gmail.com
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 87 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068488February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068489February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068490February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068491February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068492February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068493February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068494February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068495February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068496February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068497February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068498February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-0068499February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684100February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684101February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684102February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684103February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684104February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684105February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 106 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 107 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 108 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 109 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 110 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 111 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 112 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 113 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 114 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 115 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 116 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 117 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 118 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684119February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684120February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684121February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684122February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684123February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684124February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684125February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 126 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684127February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684128February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 129 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 130 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 131 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 132 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 133 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 134 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 135 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684136February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684137February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684138February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684139February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684140February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684141February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684142February 12, 2020
University Neighborhood
Historic District
Expansion
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 143 February 12, 2020
Introduction
Context
Development Pattern
Study Area
District Criteria
Qualifications
Readiness
Endangerment
Support
Summary
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 144 February 12, 2020
History
HLC Briefing July 16, 1991
HLC Hearing August 7, 1991
Planning Commission Sept. 5, 1991
Mr. Neilson moved to approve the
University Neighborhood Historical
District as presented in the staff
report and directed staff to start
to work on the inclusion of the
five additional blocks west to
1000 East.
Motion carried- unanimous
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 145 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684146February 12, 2020
Expansion Request approx. 7 blocks
(Complete Old Business from 1991)
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 147 February 12, 2020
Development Pattern
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 148 February 12, 2020
Plat F same Characteristics
as Plat B
Became a fashionable
neighborhood after the
University was moved to above
1300 East in 1899.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 149 February 12, 2020
Streetcar Line in 1900 on
South Temple connected Downtown with the new Location of the
University
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 150 February 12, 2020
University Neighborhood
Historic District
Significance Established
NRHP - October 30, 1991
Criteria A
Reflects the history of Salt Lake
population growth 20,000 in
1880 to 92,000 in 1920
Demographic pattern
Economic shift agriculture to
industry
University of Utah
Relocated to current site
in 1900
Area home to faculty, staff,
students, professional
people
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 151 February 12, 2020
Significance Established
NRHP - October 30, 1991
Self-sufficient neighborhood
one of the few outside the core of
Salt Lake City
Contained residential,
commercial, public, and
institutional buildings
City Beautiful movement
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 152 February 12, 2020
Significance Established
NRHP - October 30, 1991
Criteria B
Prominent Salt Lake City
Residents
Many taught at the University
of Utah in Medicine, Theatre
Dance, Architecture, Art
Science
Professional contribution
In the fields of business, law
medicine, politics and mining
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 153 February 12, 2020
Significance Established
NRHP - October 30, 1991
Criteria C
Craftsmanship of design and
construction materials
associated with this era
1883-1941
Excellent examples of the
styles popular in SLC and
Utah during
fist quarter of 2oth century
Significant and modest
examples of prominent
Utah architects
Represent the hallmark styles
of the Progressive Era
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 154 February 12, 2020
Relevance
Percentage of
Resources with
significance, integrity,
and age requirement
4 Blocks -91%
(93.3% within 1-5 Years)
3 additional Blocks- 78%
However the buildings are
significant
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 155 February 12, 2020
Significance Established
NRHP - October 30, 1991
This neighborhood
reflects three periods of
growth
and is unlike any other
neighborhood
due to its range of styles
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 156 February 12, 2020
Concentration of new types of resources not yet
protected in SLC
1847-1946
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 157 February 12, 2020
Examples of Prominent
Salt Lake City
Residents
•1006 E. 100 So. Aaron Keyser Wealthiest person in S.L.
•1829-1914 owned SL Brewery and Keyser Real Estate
•1030 E. 100 John Bowen Ingram Vice Pres Hoover Drug
Company
•1014 E. 200 So Albert and Betty Vorse Landscaped
Murray City Park . Owner Utah Nursery Company
•1055 E. 200 So. Aquilla Nebeker United States Marshall
•1079 E. 200 So. McConaughty and Losee
Owner Lumber Business
•George Ran Aaron Keyser County Commissioner
Salt Lake Water
• 374 So. 11th E. President of Deseret Agriculture Soc
May Anderson LDS Primary Assoc. General President
•176 So. 11th Willim Tynsdale Assist. Surgeon of the Utah
National Guard
•238 So. 1000 E. Harry Staats.
Owner Saratoga swimming resort
•922 E. 200 So. Wm. Sampson Pres SL Meat Co.
•930 E. 300 So. Broadmore Apartments
•1023 E. 300 So. Robert Lewis Dean School of Mines
•250 So. 1000 E. George Mateer Home
•921 E. 100 So. Thomas Lewis Prominent Lawyer /Judge
UU Law School
•1073 E. 200 So. David Spitz Home
•955 E. 100 So. Designed by Walter Ware.
•918 E. 100 So Zeigler General Mngr. Granit Mt. Mining
•945 E. 100 So. Stephen Covey /Covey Canal Co.
House designed by David C. Hart
•954 E. 100 E. First group of teachers allowed to teach
Principal for 34 year.
•332 So. 11the E. John Evans well known author
•1023 E 3rd So. Robert Lewis Dean School of Mines
•1035 E. 200 So. Dovell Grocery VP Hoover Drug Co.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 158 February 12, 2020
Readiness
RLS Survey
1995
National Register
Historic Places
1995
Intensive Level
Survey
1998 (35)
2009
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 159 February 12, 2020
Intensive Level Survey Complete on Contributory
Buildings
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 160 February 12, 2020
Documentation in Place
• 235 Intensive Level Surveys
from 2009
• 6 Documented site Forms
• 26 Intensive Level Surveys
from 1998
• Barbara Place 1 Site form 10
buildings
•268 - Total
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 161 February 12, 2020
Average Survey validity
10-15 years
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 162 February 12, 2020
Contributory Buildings
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 163 February 12, 2020
University Neighborhood
Design Guidelines /Criteria
Already in Place
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 164 February 12, 2020
Social and Economic Data
CDBG Income Eligible Area
Percentage of Low and Moderate
Income Households by 2000
Census Tract
The Census Tract of 1910 indicates
that a substantial number of
residents rented their dwellings
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 165 February 12, 2020
Endangerment
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 166 February 12, 2020
Level of Endangerment
(7 Block Area)
2009
Permitted Demolition in
2009 – 1
(135 South 1100 East)
Demolitions without
Permit – 2
(300 South Block)
Other - 1
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 167 February 12, 2020
Imminent Risk
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 168 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 169 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 170 February 12, 2020
Need
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 171 February 12, 2020
Lost
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 172 February 12, 2020
Center Court & Corners
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 173 February 12, 2020
Irreplaceable
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 174 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 175 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 176 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 177 February 12, 2020
Land owner &
Neighborhood Support
Highlights
ECCC/UNC Priority Goal 2010
1991 ECCC/Neighborhood meetings,
letters, action
2006 City Council
Intensive Level Funding
2003-2009 Neighborhood Educational
Meetings
2006 Letter to every household
2005 Neighborhood Survey
2009 UNC/Bryant Meeting
Vote 95-5% in support
Upcoming ECCC General Meeting
April 2010
Dissenting Concerns:
Window replacement
Parking pads
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 178 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684179February 12, 2020
Summary
Matches the Development Pattern
91% and 78%
Significance, Integrity, Age
1847-1946
Unique Concentration of Styles
Prominent Salt Lake Residents
many involved at the U
Registered,
Intensive Level Surveys Complete
Design Guidelines in Place
Neighborhood Survey Supports
Completion of Old Business
4 or 7 blocks
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 180 February 12, 2020
University Neighborhood
Historic District
Expansion
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 181 February 12, 2020
From:
To:Lindquist, Kelsey
Subject:200 South Historic properties
Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2019 4:01:40 PM
Kelsey
I am writing to express my concerns about the rezoning proposal that is currently on your desk
for the historic homes on on 200 south between Lincoln and 1000 east.
I live just down the block at 1115 East and 200 South. I bought in this neighborhood for the
charm and beauty of the historic district. I bought in this neighborhood because I didn't want
live amongst massive modern apartment buildings that are going up all over the city.
When you visit other cities, what gives the city it's charm, it's character, it soul? The historic
districts are what do that for cities. It's what visitors take the most pictures of, it's what gives
this great city the warmth that it has. Do you think gateway, city creek or 400 south is what
does that? No! It's the historic districts.
I am not in favor of the proposal to rezone these properties in order for the property owner to
tear down the 4 properties in order to build 18 units of high density housing.
There is a master plan that was put in place to prevent this type of development in our historic
districts. Why would we even consider an amendment to this plan and reward a private
property owner who has neglected their properties?
If these properties were to be sold off individually there are plenty of people out there who
would jump at the opportunity to save them. The current owners say that they aren't savable.
I could not disagree with them more. Why are they are unable to afford to maintain them
when they have rental income that is being produced? How are they able to afford architects
and lawyers to put together their proposals but can't afford to maintain these magnificent
structures?
I beg you to move forward with a recommendation of denial to city council on re-zoning these
lots.
200 South is a treasure on the east side of salt lake city. It's the last remaining street with big
beautiful trees and center medians. These have been eliminated over the years on S. Temple,
100 out and 300 south. Please do not set a precedence to other property owner who are
neglecting their properties? Please do not open this can of worms? Please do not help these
property owners strip our city of it's identity so they can benefit financially.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 182 February 12, 2020
I beg of you to please preserve the small yet shrinking historical district that this city has left.
Thank you
Eugene Whitman
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 183 February 12, 2020
From:Karla taylor
To:Lindquist, Kelsey
Subject:200 South Lincoln St. project
Date:Friday, October 11, 2019 12:45:15 PM
Hello,
My name is Karla Jensen and I'm writing in support of the above
project. My husband and I own the property located at 153 S. Lincoln
St. I feel that this new project will aid in cleaning up the area
where we have experienced undesirable traffic and curtail some of the
drug activity we've witnessed. Let me know if you have questions or
need any input from us.
Thank you, Karla and Kevin Jensen
--
Karla Q Taylor Jensen
Berkshire Hathaway Home Services - Utah Properties
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 184 February 12, 2020
October 14, 2019
Tom Dickman
1784 South 800 East
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Salt Lake City Planning Commission
P.O. Box 145480
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Dear Planning Commission,
This letter is about the zoning change request by the property owner of five houses, four located
on 200 South: 949 East, 955 East, 959 East, and 963 East, and one at 159 Lincoln Street.
Background:
For several years Salt Lake has been subject to increased population pressures. This trend
continues. Salt Lake is an Intermountain center of production and distribution. Many high-paid
jobs, especially in the Tech and Financial sectors, attract highly educated and trained job
candidates, often from states far away.
It is important to note that these jobs require advanced education and extensive training. They
are not open to those on the bottom of the socio-economic scale. The request for the zoning
change of the properties specified above can only be understood and judged within these
developed and developing economic trends.
The City, the County, as well as the current candidates for Salt Lake City mayor, are well aware
of these trends. Much new housing is needed. Much new housing is being constructed. A major
question however rises up within the economic trends: Will they be Affordable? Affordable
housing is defined as costing for rent no more than a certain percentage of tenant income. Many,
even most, of the new housing being built within the City is indeed "affordable" to the tech and
financial job holders, who typically make between $60,000 and $120,000/year. Those with job
incomes in this range are the ones snatching up the new apartments within the city.
What though of people on the middle and lower end of the scale? Quick answer: they are being
driven out of the city. Some are losing housing altogether and are swelling the numbers of
homeless. Most are unable to pay the $1500 to $2000+ rents for the new housing. Even if they
could, there would not be enough left over to pay for transportation, utilities, food, clothing, etc.
The new housing is NOT AFFORDABLE for them.
The City, including the current mayoral candidates, can talk all they want about the need for
affordable housing. Such talk remains talk. There is new housing, yes, but it is affordable
mainly to those on the top end of the food chain. To make housing actually affordable to middle
and lower income people, at least two policies need to be implemented:
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 185 February 12, 2020
■ A legal requirement that fixes a maximum ceiling on rent for middle income earners.
Such a ceiling would need to be a fixed maximum percentage of income of middle and low
income residents.
■ Rent control, requiring landlords to keep rent under this percentage maximum ceiling.
Some cities have instituted such policies. Salt Lake is not one of them. If, however, the City
does not adopt such strict legal requirements limiting rent-as-percentage-of-middle/lower-income
residents, housing will remain out of reach of many long-time City residents. The new housing
will be a chimera for our most deserving citizens, a simple vote-baiting dream of politicians who
use "affordable" as a catchword.
These considerations directly affect the proposed zoning change on 200 South. Current tenants
are paying rent in the $400 to $600/month range. This is affordable for them. If the proposed
new construction housing is approved, rent would rise to the prevailing rates in the area.
Existing tenants would be driven out, simply by financial pressure. New tenants would come
only from the high-end sector. This is reality. The present property owner's proposal includes
one unit out of sixteen defined as "affordable."
There are other issues involved here:
■ Provisions from the City Community Master Plan.
• Residential Land Use Goals
• Residential Land Use Policies
• Preservation Goals of the East Central North Neighborhood
• Historic Preservation Policies
• Community Preservation Plan
The proposed zoning change request, and planned medium/high density construction, directly
violate the above five provisions, which are already in effect. Specifics regarding such violations
are contained in documents currently available to the Planning Commission, and detailed by
other contributors to this planning process. More than 200 residents have signed the petition
against the zoning change.
In a few words: the Planning Commission, and the City can go ahead and approve the zoning
change request. To do so would simply confirm the City's caving to the interests of money,
property, and wealth. Caving in this way would be a slap in the face to all middle and low
income residents hoping to remain in the City. Of course, if they are evicted, many of them can
find space at one of the new Homeless Shelters. These new shelters are touted with as much
enthusiasm as the politicians' talk about Affordable Housing.
Sincerely,
Tom Dickman
cc: Salt Lake Tribune
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 186 February 12, 2020
Monica Hilding
155 South Lincoln Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84102
August 30, 2019
I am writing to comment on the Planning Petition Information for PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-
00684 that was sent out by Kelsey Lindquist.
I took the following quote from: Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan 2018-2022(5-year Housing)
… the city’s housing policy must address issues of affordability at the root cause creating long-term
solutions for increasing the housing supply, expanding housing opportunities throughout the city,
addressing systemic failures in the rental market, and preserving existing units.
Exacerbating the housing crisis are local barriers to housing development. The removal of these barriers
will not solve the housing crisis… Without well-crafted policies and additional incentives, creating
greater flexibility could result in the displacement of affordable housing.
This is exactly what is happening here. In exchange for one affordable housing unit, you are going to
displace everyone living in 9 units in those five houses. Those tenants have signed extended leases, and
a number of them lived there for years. Richard, who used to mow the lawns for all five properties for
many years passed away this year. He lived in those units for more than 20 years. The lady with the red
pants who collected everyone’s cans with her two terrier mixes has also passed away 5 or 6 years ago.
Steve lived there for at least 20 years, also passed away, when he was confined to a mechanical
wheelchair at the end, he would use it to go back and forth to the stores on 7th East. There are other
tenants who have lived there more than 10 years, one more than 15 years on and off. They individually
pay between $400 and $600 a month because they share units. I believe most of them would qualify as
cost-burdened households.
Again, quoting from 5-year Housing:
Goal 1: Reform City practices to promote a responsive affordable, high-opportunity housing market.
Pg. 13 Goal 2: Increase housing opportunities for cost-burdened households
Objective 5: Work with landlords to improve their housing stock and rent to very low-income
households earning 40%AMI and below.
2 Guiding Principles For Evaluating…Housing Developments:
Pg. 15 5. Incentivize the preservation and improvement of existing affordable housing.
6. Create a net increase in affordable housing units while:
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 187 February 12, 2020
i. Avoiding displacement of existing affordable housing
ii Retaining and expanding the diversity of innovative housing types
It seems to me that this petition does exactly the opposite by decreasing affordable housing units for
cost-burdened households. The landlords of these properties have intentionally allowed their housing
stock to deteriorate over the last 30 years by doing shoddy maintenance. I don’t know if they have
applied for support from the city to improve these units.
12. Enable residents’ success to maintain housing through partnerships with providers of
supportive services.
16. Identify tools to increase and diversify the total housing supply
18. Include innovative parking solutions especially for projects near public transit [!]
Recently the thread in the facebook page of the East Central Community Council has focused on
predatory towing along 400 South businesses. The problem is that there is not enough parking provided
at TRAX stations to accommodate all those who try to use public transportation. Parking on our street is
already a problem because of our proximity to the bus lines, the University of Utah, and TRAX. Imagine
the increased traffic and parking issues if this developer goes ahead with his plan to build additional
housing units on a street that already has parking issues, especially in the winter when people parking
on the street have no place else to put their cars! There are already several apartments on the street,
whose tenants who park regularly on the street because there is no off street parking for their units.
3 Responding to the Crisis: Comprehensive Solutions and Policies.
Goal #1 Increase Housing options: Reform city practices to promote a responsive, affordable,
high-opportunity housing market…
Predictive development process…
This zoning was not changed in the most recent master plan. Houses all along 900 East were changed
from R-2 and Multi-family to RMF-35. Most of the owners have no idea. How long ago was that? That
plan allows for the densest development closest to the Trax station. That plan is probably the most
recent of most of the areas in the city. In that plan, this area was left as R-2 in order to maintain a
diversity of housing options.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 188 February 12, 2020
Where the Architecture business on 2nd is, there used to be a Chinese Market. I frequented it often
because two of my students were related to the woman who ran the store. What an incredible job on
the remodel! But that parking lot which is now locked used to be an ally way and parking lot for some of
the people living in apartments on Iowa street, so more parking for residents disappeared. Many
people who regularly use public transit maintain a car for use in moving heavy items, transporting their
pets, picking up groceries, and a multitude of other uses.
I will continue to go through the Five-Year Plan to find further reasons that the zoning on these parcels
should remain. But for now, I’m sending this off and a beginning to many comments to come.
Sincerely,
Monica Hilding
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 189 February 12, 2020
Monica Hilding
155 South Lincoln Street
SLC, UT 84102
September 5, 2019
The following excerpts taken from Central Community Master Plan are in response to Planning Petition
Information for PLNPCM2019-00683 &PLNPCM2019-00684.
Goals of this master plan
1. Protect and improve the quality of life for everyone living in the community, regardless of age or
ability.
4. Provide opportunities for smarter and more creative development practices to better serve the
community.
5. Prevent inappropriate growth in specific parts of the community.
8. Preserve historic structures and residential neighborhoods.
9. Establish recommendations for better coordination and administrative review of construction
projects and city applications.
A vision For the Central Community of the Future
The Future Land Use map, supported through zoning regulations, serves as a guide towards creating a
more livable community.
Livable communities and neighborhoods
A variety of residential land use supports all types of housing and the affordability of the housing stock.
Preservation of the housing stock is an integral part of maintaining neighborhood character.
Historic preservation preserves older structures that contribute to the culture of the community.
Central Community Neighborhoods
The Futures Commission created a vison of a typical neighborhood for Salt Lake City. The ideal
neighborhood will:
Be individual, family, elderly and youth oriented.
Be diverse
Promote public safety and be crime and drug free.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 190 February 12, 2020
Be well maintained. Landlords, tenants, and homeowners will share responsibility for keeping
properties in good condition. Homeownership will be encouraged where possible!
Have good traffic management that provides an adequate system for all modes of appropriate
travel. Adequate off-street parking will be available and will meet the needs of residents and
characteristics of the neighborhood.
Future land use designations assist the preservation of quality neighborhoods. The Future Land Use
map in this plan will, when supported through zoning regulations, serve as a guide towards creating
more livable neighborhoods.
Table 1 on page 4 shows that our neighborhood, East Central North has the highest population and
largest number of housing units of all except Central Community.
Bryant neighborhood
The neighborhood also has well-preserved inner courts unlike those farther west. These small streets
that penetrate the ten-acre blocks, such as Dooley and Strong courts are still lined with small cottages
dating from the beginning of the twentieth century. The combination of imposing homes on the main
streets and the small dwellings of the inner-block courts indicate that the population of this area has
always been a mixture of the rooted and the transient and the upper- and lower-income classes. The
proximity to the Central Business District and the University of Utah campus prompted early
development of the area and was a major factor in the original zoning of this neighborhood for mixed
residential uses and larger scale apartments. Pressure to develop or redevelop into higher densities has
become one of the most significant issues confronting this area.
Issues within the East Central North neighborhood
Historic preservation
Protect designated historic resources and National Register properties.
Ensure that transit-oriented development and other development patterns are consistent with historic
preservation goals.
Residential
Reduce excessive density potential, stabilize the neighborhood, and conserve the neighborhood’s
residential character
Improve zoning enforcement, including illegal conversion to apartments, yard cleanup, “slum lords,” etc.
Encourage higher density housing in East Downtown, Downtown, and Gateway to decrease the pressure
to meet those housing needs in this neighborhood.
Ensure new multi-family development is carefully sited, well designed, and compatible in scale.
Provide more affordable housing (owner occupied and rental).
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 191 February 12, 2020
Kelsey Lindquist said that our community must show that this petition does not follow the land
standards designed for our neighborhood. Following are the residential land use policies that were
written into Central Community Land Use Plan. These are on page 9 of the document.
RLU-1.1 Preserve low-density residential areas and keep them from being replaced by higher density
residential and commercial uses.
RLU-1.4 Preserve the character of the inner-block courts.
RLU-1.5 Use residential mixed-use zones to provide residential land uses with supportive retail, service,
commercial, and small-scale offices and monitor the mix of uses to preserve the residential component.
RLU- 1.6 Encourage coordination between the Future Land Use map, zoning ordinances, and the Salt
Lake City Community Housing Plan.
RLU- 1.7 Ensure that future amendments to the zoning map or text of the zoning ordinance do not result
in a significant amount of non-conforming land uses.
RLU-2.1 Preserve housing stock through incentives and code enforcement by implementing the Salt
Lake City Community Housing Plan.
RLU- 2.2 Consider opportunities for the City to purchase residential properties and market them through
City housing programs.
RLU-2.3 Provide improvement programs for redevelopment and rehabilitation of residential structures
and neighborhoods.
RLU-2.4 Assist homebuyers by marketing available government funding programs and residential
rehabilitation programs, such as tax benefits for owners of structures in National Register Historic
districts.
RLU-2.5 Promote reduction of deterioration of residential neighborhoods through code enforcement
practices.
I believe that there is more than enough evidence that this neighborhood should not be the location of
increased density housing. I sincerely hope that the Planning Commission declines to recommend the
passage of this petition which is so contrary to the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use
Map.
Sincerely,
Monica Hilding
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 192 February 12, 2020
Jeff Sherlock
, As someone that entered the meeting in favor of the project, I didn't leave the meeting quite as
comfortable. 3 main issues bubbled up for me: 1. The existing family that owns these 5 parcels
intend to own and operate the new 16 unit townhome-rental development. They have been
unable to manage the existing properties over the past 30 years to the point that they are
requesting to tear them down because they can't keep them up, and yet we are supposed to
believe that they would maintain the new development? I'm skeptical. 2. I'm quite concerned
about the incentives here for other R-2 properties. They could build 7 units if the zoning
remained R-2. They could build ~16 if it's RMF-35. Back of the envelope math says that the
zoning change would make the properties combined 128% more valuable (more than double the
value). If this is approved, what's to stop every slightly rundown R-2 house in the neighborhood
from letting it get so bad that we, as a community, are held hostage until we approve some
massive zoning change. I don't think we should be rewarding property owners that can't/won't
keep up their properties. 3. A lesser concern than the first two, but there's no backyards in the
townhomes. These aren't places people would want to raise kids, and I'd like to see us promoting
places that are family friendly and don't just cater to downtown young professionals (I say that as
one myself) and/or college students.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 193 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 194 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 195 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 196 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 197 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 198 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 199 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 200 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 201 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 202 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 203 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 204 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 205 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 206 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 207 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 208 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 209 February 12, 2020
1
October 9, 2019
Kelsey Lindquist
Senior Planner
Community and Neighborhoods Planning Division
Salt Lake City Corporation
Regarding: Planning Petition PLNPCM2019-00683 and 00684
Zoning Map amendment and Master Plan Amendment
159 S. Lincoln, 949/955/959/963 E. 200 South
Request to change R-2 zoning to RMF-35 and future land use map from low to medium density
University Gardens Neighborhood petition
Dear Kelsey;
The attached petition has been submitted as feedback to the by Monica Hilding representing
primarily immediate neighbors to the subject properties.
It includes 20 pages, 198 signatures that were gathered from September 18 – October 7 by
Monica Hilding the immediate neighbor to the subject properties.
The petition is in opposition of the rezone and future land use map change. Please see the
summary statements at the beginning of the petition.
We are forwarding this information to you to be included both in your consideration as you
determine your recommendation to the Planning Commission and ask that you include these
pages in the packet given to the Commission for their review.
We will continue to forward this input as it is received. Thank you for your thoughtful
consideration.
Sincerely,
Esther Hunter
Chair, East Central Community Council & University Neighborhood Council
Sincerely in behalf of the Executive Board of the East Central Community
Eastcentralcommunity@gmail.com
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 210 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 211 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 212 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 213 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 214 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 215 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 216 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 217 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 218 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 219 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 220 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 221 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 222 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 223 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 224 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 225 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 226 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 227 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 228 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 229 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 230 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 231 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 232 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 233 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 234 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 235 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 236 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 237 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 238 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 239 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 240 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 241 February 12, 2020
From:Peggy Alderman
To:Lindquist, Kelsey
Subject:PLNPCM2019-00683 & 00684/ map and master plan for homes at Lincoln and 200 S
Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2019 7:47:19 PM
Kelsey,
I attended a recent Planning Commission Open House regarding a plan to develop the properties at the intersection
of Lincoln and 200 S and quite frankly, as a resident of a nearby historic district , the thought of this project coming
to fruition is horrifying to me. I do realize the differences in protections in a national(of which these homes are
included)and a local historic district, but the fact that the possible rezoning and demolition of a swath of contributing
buildings in any historic district in order to make way for a generic multi-family development should send shivers
down the spine of every resident of every historic district. Where does it stop? These 5 homes are interwoven in the
story of that neighborhood and should remain so.
I have a number of issues with this project.
The petitioners, who own all 5 homes claim that an engineering firm, who I am assuming they paid, decided that
none of the homes were stable enough to withstand remodeling, however the homes are currently filled with rent
paying tenants. I am having a hard time being convinced that every home has fallen into such disrepair as to be
deemed so dilapidated that they need to be razed.....again.....full of tenants. There is a small home on U Street in the
Avenues that was vacant for over 5 years and was rehabbed and listed recently for 650K. It just takes work and
patience.
I heard the owners claim that someone has been paid for the last few years to maintain the 5 properties. They also
claim on their info page that the new townhomes will be maintained by a property manager. I’m not sure that given
the owners past history of monitoring their 5 homes, that the neighbors can be all that confident in their ability to
monitor the management of 16. I think that a new unbiased engineering study should be done on the homes.
An increase in traffic was questioned, to which the spokesperson for the owners responded that the number of cars
would only increase by a few. I’m not quite sure how increasing the number of households from 5 to 16 would only
increase the number of vehicles by a few. There was only one one bedroom proposed, with the rest two and three
bedrooms and what looked to be two car garages for those. I think that a traffic study should be done.
The neighbor adjacent to the north has a solar array on her garage, which currently has no structure to the south
blocking sunlight. The proposed plan would put two to three 35 foot buildings directly to the south of her garage.
The artist rendering of the project conveniently had the shade pattern from the townhomes trending to the south. I
have reservations about the continuing efficiency of her solar panels. I think that a shade analysis should be done.
The owner’s spokesperson stated that their would be one affordable unit.....which of course leaves 15 unaffordable
units.
Some things that I did not hear addressed while I was there was the increase in trash, noise and light pollution, as the
result of 16 households replacing 5.
I don’t begrudge anyone the opportunity to create an income stream for themselves, but I don’t believe that it should
come at the expense of the fabric of an entire neighborhood. I’m imploring the Commission to deny this petition.
Regards,
Peg. Alderman
Sent from my iPad
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 242 February 12, 2020
From:Esther Hunter, ECC Chair
To:Lindquist, Kelsey
Subject:PLNPCM2019-00683 and 00684 Community Comment. Please include in your consideration and in the Planning
Commission packet. Thank you. Esther
Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2019 12:01:17 AM
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 9:39 PM Jo Starks <> wrote:
Hello Esther and east central community.
I’d like to express my feelings about the zoning change that has been requested for 200 S.,
Lincoln Street to 10th E.
I am not in favor of the proposed zone change to allow 16 units to be put at the site.
The things that make it unfavorable, in my opinion; the proposed height of the new
residences, The close proximity to the sidewalk to the structure, The lack of parking for
visitors in an already congested area.
I’d like to suggest that underground parking be suggested to the developers.
The residences that are on the block that are meant to be replaced have many issues. For
example yards are unkempt and not watered; trees are suffering on both sides of the
sidewalk. Exteriors of the houses are run d own. I have long been familiar with the one
house, “China Blue“ to be center for drug use and dealing.
I would like to consider the zoning be changed to allow for less than 16, but more than nine
residences. I believe the Salt Lake City planning person, Kelsey, had mentioned that there is
a zone that would allow for that.
Thank you for allowing my opinion to be counted.
Jo starks
227 So. 1100 East
SLC Ut 84102
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 243 February 12, 2020
From:
To:Lindquist, Kelsey
Subject:Re: PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019--00684
Date:Thursday, August 15, 2019 8:07:53 AM
Hi Kelsey,
I want to take a moment and let you know I got the planning petition information for the
property across the street from me.
I'm at 156 S. Lincoln Street. My house was built in 1896 and I am extremely passionate about
the historic nature of the neighborhood we live in. The area of this proposal is 30 yards from
my home.
My concerns about this potential amendment would be diminishing the neighborhood historic
nature, as well as parking and street concerns. In the winter Lincoln is already is last to be
plowed, and adding more residents to the street would be very detrimental to this space.
The homes that are being considered to be replaced for a moderate density proposal are
beautiful and old and in and of themselves. To have them replaced by newer construction
would be a very shortsighted idea.
I urge the planning commission to think about these issues and consider that the impact of
traffic and new construction, as well as losing the important character of the neighborhood
would be a poor turn of events indeed.
I would of be happy to discuss this in further detail. I can be reached at 801-971-2920 or at
this email address.
Nicole Dicou
156 S Lincoln Street SLC 84102
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 244 February 12, 2020
From:
To:Lindquist, Kelsey
Subject:Resident Feedback Regarding: Rezoning for 5 properties on 200 South, between Lincoln and 1000 East
Date:Tuesday, October 8, 2019 9:14:16 PM
Hi Kelsey,
We're reaching out in opposition to the rezoning proposal for the 5 properties on 200 South, between Lincoln and
1000 East. We live with our two young boys a block East of the proposed rezoning, at 1108 East, on 200 South.
We bought our home 4 years ago with the intentions of raising our young family here, the rest of our lives. We
bought our home because we loved the convenience of being blocks from downtown, the University, and public
transit while still being in a well established, historical area. There aren’t many neighborhoods, like ours, left in Salt
Lake.
If this rezoning passes, what other rezoning changes will be passed within our neighborhood in the future? If we
continue to allow owners of rental properties to redevelop for high capacity dwellings, our neighborhood will be
everything we avoided when we originally searched for our home in Salt Lake. We don’t want large apartment
buildings in our neighborhood/next door. We want to look out our windows and see other homes and massive 100
year old trees, not 30 foot tall concrete walls. As we've seen on the current zoning and rezoning plans, it’s VERY
clear that the rezoning for high capacity dwellings is creeping further and further East, along 200 South. We do not
want to see that continue. We want to see preservation and appreciation for what we already have. Please consider
how another rezoning will affect the future for other rezoning proposals. They will become easier and easier to pass,
eventually making single family homes obsolete in this area.
We all watched as Sugarhouse was bulldozed and redeveloped, destroying countless historical structures. Not only
are the new structures far too large and out of character for the area, the over committed dwelling unit capacities
have caused huge traffic and parking issues. Our neighborhood will not be able to physically handle rezoning after
rezoning. Not only do we oppose the rezoning for higher capacity dwellings out of fear for a similar outcome from
the structures, we also oppose the traffic and parking issues that are bound to accompany them if the rezoning is
passed. We are already in a high traffic area, with very active bus routes. We do not wish to see that increase.
Our wish for these current units is to see them fully restored and maintained. From what we understand, the current
owners claim these properties are unsalvageable, thus the redevelopment. If that’s truly that case, why in the world
are they currently occupied by renters? If they’re unable to allocate funds to restore them (which we've also heard
has been said by the owners), how are they able to allocate funds to completely demolish and redevelop? We
understand there is money to be made in rezoning/developing these units, but what’s frustrating for the residents
who actually live here is, money always speaks louder than the voices of the people effected.
We know we're not the only home owners in the area who are completely opposed to this. We just hope the
Planning Commission and City Counsel Reps can hear and act on our united opposition.
If you could please forward this on for consideration in the final decision, it would be appreciated.
Thank you,
Brandon & Elisabeth Bennett
1108 East 200 South
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 245 February 12, 2020
Comments on
PLNPCM2019-00683 &PLNPCM2019-00684 Map and Master Plan Amendment for: 159 S.
Lincoln, 949 E., 955 E., 959 E., and 963 E., 200 S.
From:
Sanford Meek
976 E. 200 S., SLC, UT, 84102-2431
I am opposed to the plan to re-zone these parcels from R-2 to RMF-35. The reasons are
outlined below.
1. Zoning is one of the most serious issues in city planning and neighborhood preservation
and livability. Any change from an R-2 designation to another must not be allowed
unless there can be shown benefit to the neighborhood – the concept of Rebuttable
Presumption. No evidence of a benefit has been shown in the proposal. Once an area is
zoned for a higher density it cannot be re-zoned to R-2, causing a permanent change to
the character of the area. People moved to the area and bought homes. Many of these
homes have been restored and are still being restored to their original styles. We
accept that there are medical, dental, rehabilitation, educational facilities, and even
coffee shops in the neighborhood. But, enough is enough, we do not want any more
large-scale apartments or buildings in our neighborhood.
2. The issues and problems with the lots can be resolved without a re-zoning. It is claimed
that the structures cannot be rehabilitated. If the existing structures must be removed,
it does not imply that medium density housing must be put in their place. Single family
or duplex housing could be put in without changing from R-2. This has been done in
other area of the neighborhood such as on 100 South between 1000 and 1100 East
where new homes were built in a compatible style of the area.
3. It was claimed that the lots do not meet modern size standards. This can be fixed
without re-zoning from R-2.
4. Parking and traffic is already a problem in the neighborhood, especially when the
University of Utah is in session and students park in the area and take the bus to campus
to avoid campus parking. No parking nor traffic study was presented at any of the
meetings or open house presentations. When asked, the presenters said that there was
no problem but had no evidence or study to back those claims.
5. The present owners of the properties have not been good landlords. The properties
have been in disrepair for decades. They claim that this is because their parents who
did the repair work are now too old to do it. This does not explain why maintenance
cannot to hired as a normal cost of doing business. The owners should not be rewarded
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 246 February 12, 2020
for negligence of the property by creating a greater moneymaker for themselves. Bad
behavior should not be rewarded.
6. There is virtually total opposition to the re-zoning plan from the neighbors. The city
officials complain that the local city voice is not heard on issues such as the prison
relocation, the new inland port facility, and other issues imposed by the state, yet, they
ignore the local voice of the neighborhood and impose their rules against the wishes of
the locals. This is hypocrisy at large.
7. There are several conditional use exemptions and other zoning exemptions in the area.
Until the city enforces existing rules and stops giving exemptions, there should be no
more changes to zoning or land use.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 247 February 12, 2020
From:Stacie L Baldwin
To:Lindquist, Kelsey
Subject:Saving the Blue Pearl (China Blue) House
Date:Wednesday, October 9, 2019 7:38:06 PM
Hello,
I just wanted to have my voice be heard about not tearing down the houses in downtown Salt
Lake. Those blocks close to the avenues are filled with historical houses, probably nearing 100
years old. The Blue Pearl, previously China Blue, has gone through decades of generations &
generations, & has a special place in all the hearts that have been there. That house has been
cleaned up, cared for, & has responsible tenants who fixed it up nicely.
Besides the historical age & sentimental reasons, Salt Lake is becoming as expensive as
California, no one can afford $2000 a month rent, with how very low our wages are. We need
to keep low income & low rent places to live because the middle & low class will all become
homeless & on the streets, just like California, then comes the rats, then comes the fleas, then
comes typhus & the black plague.....just like California. California is moving here & we
already cant handle the traffic with our 1 freeway. We cant make matters worse kicking out
our own people to the streets to build ugly, blocking the scenery condos, that would eventually
turn into ghettos anyway. All of us have done the math.
It's a massive mistake to tear down those homes, just because the owner is sick of dealing with
them & is greedy to be paid off by the contractors. If the owner doesnt want to deal with them
anymore, than we need to find someone else to manage them & let that beautiful
neighborhood of homes be left alone.
Please dont tear them down, please dont ruin a historical part of town, & please dont kick out
the tenants & make them homeless. They cant afford what rent costs everywhere else. Prices
everywhere are insanely expensive except for low income housing places that are gang, crime
& drug infested & they also have 2-3 year waiting lists which is ludicrous. No one can win,
I'm speaking for myself as well, I'm stuck where I am & cant afford to move because rents
increased dramatically, it's really hard to believe Utah has gone through the roof with what
they are charging to keep a roof over your head. So again, please leave those houses alone.
They mean the world to many, many people in many different ways.
Stacie Baldwi
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 248 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684249February 12, 2020
October 14, 2019
Tom Dickman
1784 South 800 East
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Salt Lake City Planning Commission
P.O. Box 145480
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Dear Planning Commission,
This letter is about the zoning change request by the property owner of five houses, four located
on 200 South: 949 East, 955 East, 959 East, and 963 East, and one at 159 Lincoln Street.
Background:
For several years Salt Lake has been subject to increased population pressures. This trend
continues. Salt Lake is an Intermountain center of production and distribution. Many high-paid
jobs, especially in the Tech and Financial sectors, attract highly educated and trained job
candidates, often from states far away.
It is important to note that these jobs require advanced education and extensive training. They
are not open to those on the bottom of the socio-economic scale. The request for the zoning
change of the properties specified above can only be understood and judged within these
developed and developing economic trends.
The City, the County, as well as the current candidates for Salt Lake City mayor, are well aware
of these trends. Much new housing is needed. Much new housing is being constructed. A major
question however rises up within the economic trends: Will they be Affordable? Affordable
housing is defined as costing for rent no more than a certain percentage of tenant income. Many,
even most, of the new housing being built within the City is indeed "affordable" to the tech and
financial job holders, who typically make between $60,000 and $120,000/year. Those with job
incomes in this range are the ones snatching up the new apartments within the city.
What though of people on the middle and lower end of the scale? Quick answer: they are being
driven out of the city. Some are losing housing altogether and are swelling the numbers of
homeless. Most are unable to pay the $1500 to $2000+ rents for the new housing. Even if they
could, there would not be enough left over to pay for transportation, utilities, food, clothing, etc.
The new housing is NOT AFFORDABLE for them.
The City, including the current mayoral candidates, can talk all they want about the need for
affordable housing. Such talk remains talk. There is new housing, yes, but it is affordable
mainly to those on the top end of the food chain. To make housing actually affordable to middle
and lower income people, at least two policies need to be implemented:
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 250 February 12, 2020
■ A legal requirement that fixes a maximum ceiling on rent for middle income earners.
Such a ceiling would need to be a fixed maximum percentage of income of middle and low
income residents.
■ Rent control, requiring landlords to keep rent under this percentage maximum ceiling.
Some cities have instituted such policies. Salt Lake is not one of them. If, however, the City
does not adopt such strict legal requirements limiting rent-as-percentage-of-middle/lower-income
residents, housing will remain out of reach of many long-time City residents. The new housing
will be a chimera for our most deserving citizens, a simple vote-baiting dream of politicians who
use "affordable" as a catchword.
These considerations directly affect the proposed zoning change on 200 South. Current tenants
are paying rent in the $400 to $600/month range. This is affordable for them. If the proposed
new construction housing is approved, rent would rise to the prevailing rates in the area.
Existing tenants would be driven out, simply by financial pressure. New tenants would come
only from the high-end sector. This is reality. The present property owner's proposal includes
one unit out of sixteen defined as "affordable."
There are other issues involved here:
■ Provisions from the City Community Master Plan.
• Residential Land Use Goals
• Residential Land Use Policies
• Preservation Goals of the East Central North Neighborhood
• Historic Preservation Policies
• Community Preservation Plan
The proposed zoning change request, and planned medium/high density construction, directly
violate the above five provisions, which are already in effect. Specifics regarding such violations
are contained in documents currently available to the Planning Commission, and detailed by
other contributors to this planning process. More than 200 residents have signed the petition
against the zoning change.
In a few words: the Planning Commission, and the City can go ahead and approve the zoning
change request. To do so would simply confirm the City's caving to the interests of money,
property, and wealth. Caving in this way would be a slap in the face to all middle and low
income residents hoping to remain in the City. Of course, if they are evicted, many of them can
find space at one of the new Homeless Shelters. These new shelters are touted with as much
enthusiasm as the politicians' talk about Affordable Housing.
Sincerely,
Tom Dickman
cc: Salt Lake Tribune
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 251 February 12, 2020
November 4, 2019
Tom Dickman
1784 South 800 East
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
Salt Lake City Planning Commission
P.O. Box 145480
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
Dear Planning Commission:
This is a follow-up to my October 14 letter regarding the proposal affecting 200
South at 949, 955, 959, and 963 East, and 159 Lincoln Street.
■ These houses are inhabited. This fact sets off the current proposal from many of
the new housing apartments which have been and are being built in the city. A
significant number, if not the majority of the new constructions are built on lots
where no one was living previously. In the case of 200 South, multiple people
living in multiple houses are involved. Where will these people go if the proposal
happens? The rent demanded by new apartments would be far beyond their means.
This was the substance of my earlier letter.
■ The quick answer to this question is that many if not most of the current
inhabitants will be driven out of the city. Some might very well up homeless. As
you are aware the new homeless shelters being built by the city have a combined
capacity of only 60% of the old Rio Grande Shelter. Will there be space enough?
According to a recent news article, the city is hoping for "goodwill" on the part of
local landlords to allow housing for people who may not have sterling rental
credentials and history. This is very nice. It is very nice too that some landlords
may have a soft spot in their hearts for the homeless and potentially homeless.
■ Relying on soft spots is not a viable housing strategy. Moreover -- and this is
directly relevant to the 200 South proposal -- the current landlords of the 200 South
property have demonstrated no softness in their hearts during their long ownership
of the properties in question. As public documents from the Health Department
and the City show, the landlords have dragged their feet on compliance with code
and city regulations on multiple occasions. Several times they have failed-to-show
for scheduled meetings with city officials. Such disrespect eats up your tax dollars
and mine. Out-of-compliance problems with the houses have often taken multiple
follow-ups from the city in order to assure correction.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 252 February 12, 2020
■ And now, were the City to approve the current proposal, how could that decision
be viewed as anything other than a reward to the current landlords for their foot-
dragging, non-compliance, and disrespect over decades of time? Certainly the
current tenants would see things in this light, as would any reasonable observer.
■ There is a question of justice involved here. Eviction of tenants is no joke
to...tenants. Actual brick-and-mortar housing provisions for current tenants should
be demanded as a condition of proposal approval. If the current landlords won't
assure this -- as is evident by their less-than-magnanimous offer to make one out of
sixteen units be "affordable housing" -- then it is incumbent on the city to assure
adequate housing rather than eviction. Can the city do this? Is the city likely to do
this? Not likely, given the continuing deference shown by the city toward
landlords and property owners. Yet if Affordable Housing is to be more than a
slogan, the city must meet this challenge, for the landlords of the 200 South
properties surely won't. If the city can't do this, then the 200 South proposal
should be rejected and denied.
Sincerely,
Tom Dickman
city resident
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 253 February 12, 2020
From:
To:Lindquist, Kelsey; ECCChair@gmail.com
Subject:Proposed zoning change at 949 to 963 East 200 South and 159 Sooth Lincoln
Date:Monday, October 28, 2019 4:18:36 PM
Members of the Planning Commission,
Re: PLNPCM2019-00683 and PLNPCM2019-00684 Proposed zoning change at 949 to 963 East 200 South and 159 Sooth Lincoln
I am contacting you to express my opposition to the requested zoning amendment atthe above referenced addresses. I have lived a block away at 1058 East 200 Southfor approximately 40 years. I believe that this change is not consistent with the goalsand policies of the city and conflicts with the purpose statement of the zoningordinance.
Density is already a problem in this area. The proposed complex will make it worse. There is also a problem with the impact this will have on the sewer, streets andexisting infrastructure. Due to the proximity of the University and the changes in thebus routes traffic and parking are a problem and keep getting worse. The addition of15 apartments of 2 and 3 bedroom units will exacerbate the already difficult situation.
The fact that these property owners have let these homes degrade completely doesnot mean they should be allowed to tear the homes down and build a bigger unit toneglect. If they wanted to build and sell new homes I would feel differently. For 30years they have failed to care for these properties while nearby homeowners haveworked to improve the area and their homes. Now they want permission to buildrentals that they and the renters will neglect. I can see no reason to believe that theyor their attitude to our neighborhood has changed. This change would cause existing homes to lose value, it would increase alreadyinsane off street parking and street traffic. As it is people park all over 2nd South andtake the bus to the U. In order to park on my street I and my friends have to competewith students, Ivy house and the existing rentals. If my friends or elderly mother wantto visit there is nowhere to park. People move my full garbage cans so they can parkin front of my house and my cans do not get emptied. People block my and myneighbors shared drive when they park and leave their cars all day.
Although this neighborhood has many well cared for single family residences it seemslike the City does not care about us. Spot zoning in this already high density area is adreadful idea. It will degrade the area and drive away existing, establishedhomeowners. If it is actually necessary that these historic homes be torn down thenthey should be replaced with new homes not a rental unit. This would fit in better withthis residential area. It would also lessen the impact on the infrastructure and it is farmore likely that new homeowners would care for their homes unlike these negligentlandlords.
Thank you,
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 254 February 12, 2020
M. M. Hubbell1058 East 200 SouthSLC UT 84102
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 255 February 12, 2020
From:
To:Lindquist, Kelsey
Subject:rezoning 200 So and Lincoln
Date:Tuesday, October 22, 2019 9:45:36 PM
To Whom It May Concern,
I am just writing to let you know my feelings about the rezoning being requested by Mike
Gleeson at 200 So and Lincoln.
My family, the Larsons, have owned a Dental office at 928 E 1st So. and several properties on
Lincoln Street for many years.
We have watched the neighborhood go up and down with a variety of different types of
individuals living in different homes. Lately the neighborhood has definitely on an up swing.
I have had several individuals comment that the properties owned by Mike Gleeson are the
worst in the neighborhood and have struggled with frequent turnover and are barely livable.
The type of people often attracted to those properties can be quite transient and sometimes
questionable. We certainly had that experience when we purchased the run down apartments
on Lincoln St and 100 So. next door to our dental office. I have seen several neighbors
make significant effort to remodel and up grade their homes. I think that any help we can
provide in upgrading the neighborhood I support. Tearing down those existing irreparable
houses and building something new would be a real positive and I am pleased the Gleesons are
interested in doing something. Maybe they are trying to pack to much into the space
available but I do think it needs to be a win/win for the owners and neighbors . If there is a
way to allow new housing structures where those dilapidated existing structures are now I
would be very much in favor of it. It seems to me that some type of rezoning would be
appropriate and necessary to make it work.
Thanks for all you do in making our city a better place
Brent A Larson DDS
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 256 February 12, 2020
From:Esther Hunter, ECC Chair
To:Lindquist, Kelsey
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fwd: Against Lincoln and 2nd South zoning change.
Date:Wednesday, February 5, 2020 9:32:17 AM
resend
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: morgan galbraith
Date: Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 7:04 PM
Subject: Against Lincoln and 2nd South zoning change.
To: <eastcentralcommunity@gmail.com>
My name is Morgan Galbraith. I am a concerned citizen/homeowner. I reside, with my
daughter, at 154 South McClellan Street, which I own. I'm concerned in regards to the
rezoning of the properties on 952 10th East on 200 South. I believe that this would be
detrimental not only visually but to the neighborhood as a whole because of many reasons that
I myself voiced at the most recent meeting at judge high school as well as others who voiced
their concerns at the meeting. The owner of the property has no long-term planning in regards
to this property in appears to just want to make a quick buck, that is not what our
neighborhood stands for. We are a community and having a property like this dilutes our sense
of community. In summary I am against any reasoning of properties in the neighborhood,
specifically in this situation. No to the rezoning of the properties on 950 East and 200 South.
Thank you for all your service to the community.
Morgan Galbraith APRN-C
If you have any questions in regards to my stance please feel free to call me
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 257 February 12, 2020
From:Esther Hunter, ECC Chair
To:Lindquist, Kelsey
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fwd: PLNPCM2019-00683 and 00684 Community Comment. Please include in your consideration
and in the Planning Commission packet. Thank you. Esther
Date:Wednesday, February 5, 2020 9:31:33 AM
Resend from Jo Starks.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Esther Hunter, ECC Chair <eastcentralcommunity@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 12:01 AM
Subject: PLNPCM2019-00683 and 00684 Community Comment. Please include in your
consideration and in the Planning Commission packet. Thank you. Esther
To: Lindquist, Kelsey <Kelsey.Lindquist@slcgov.com>
On Tue, Sep 24, 2019, 9:39 PM Jo Starks wrote:
Hello Esther and east central community.
I’d like to express my feelings about the zoning change that has been requested for 200 S.,
Lincoln Street to 10th E.
I am not in favor of the proposed zone change to allow 16 units to be put at the site.
The things that make it unfavorable, in my opinion; the proposed height of the new
residences, The close proximity to the sidewalk to the structure, The lack of parking for
visitors in an already congested area.
I’d like to suggest that underground parking be suggested to the developers.
The residences that are on the block that are meant to be replaced have many issues. For
example yards are unkempt and not watered; trees are suffering on both sides of the
sidewalk. Exteriors of the houses are run d own. I have long been familiar with the one
house, “China Blue“ to be center for drug use and dealing.
I would like to consider the zoning be changed to allow for less than 16, but more than nine
residences. I believe the Salt Lake City planning person, Kelsey, had mentioned that there is
a zone that would allow for that.
Thank you for allowing my opinion to be counted.
Jo starks
227 So. 1100 East
SLC Ut 84102
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 258 February 12, 2020
From:Esther Hunter, ECC Chair
To:Lindquist, Kelsey
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fwd: zoning map amendment
Date:Wednesday, February 5, 2020 9:32:45 AM
resend
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Erin Ekstrom
Date: Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 12:17 PM
Subject: zoning map amendment
To: eastcentralcommunity@gmail.com <eastcentralcommunity@gmail.com>
Hello,
Thank you for hosting this great community meeting last night. I have to admit it was my first
time attending something like this, and it was a great experience. It makes me proud to know
I live in such a great neighborhood with such engaged residents.
I would like to make a formal comment against the proposed re zoning on 200 South. Given
the discussion last night, and the information presented, I do not feel I can support the
increase to RMF-35. The current owners have not fostered any feeling of trust, good will, or
membership in our community. I do not feel confident that they will indeed hold true to their
intended plan to redevelop the property in a sustainable way that is in accordance with our
current neighborhood aesthetics. I also feel, we have enough RMF-35 already zoned in our
neighborhood, and that a lesser ask would be more reasonable at this time.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment, and I am looking forward to becoming more
engaged in my community.
Kindest regards,
Erin Ekstrom
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 259 February 12, 2020
1
February 3, 2020
Re: PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684,
Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments at 949-963 East 200 South and
159 S. Lincoln Street
From: Jen Colby, Resident, 160 S Lincoln St, Salt Lake City, UT 84102
Dear Members of the Planning Commission and Staff,
I am writing to express my opposition to the request for Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments
at 949-963 E 200 South and 159 S Lincoln Street in Salt Lake City by the owners and their
representatives. I urge you to definitively vote NO and make a negative recommendation on this
application.
My husband and I have owned and occupied the property at 160 South Lincoln Street since 2002.
Our house is a single-story contributing Victorian eclectic frame house with an R-2 parcel zoning.
We bought it after it had been a rental property on and off for years. We knew we were buying an
old house that might need a lot of work. We had no idea we were buying into a neighborhood
with a patchwork of zoning that belied its lovely appearance as a historic neighborhood with
many intact older buildings. We liked the diversity of the neighborhood, the proximity to the
University of Utah and downtown Salt Lake City, as well as easy access to open space in City
Creek and the foothills, transit service, bike lanes and so much more. Truly, this is the best
location in the city in my opinion. In retrospect we got very lucky to buy in when we did.
We also came to realize that many of the larger older residences in our area had been turned into
2+ unit rentals. These are interspersed with single-family owner-occupied houses, small
businesses, institutional properties, and many classic Salt Lake City 12-plex 3-story walk-up
apartments and condos. Unfortunately, we also live among many poorly conceived, designed, and
executed inappropriate 60s and 70s era “urban renewal” midrise apartment buildings that had
replaced historic buildings, degraded the fabric of the neighborhood, and are mostly well beyond
their design lives as compared to our generally well-built historic properties.
The comments below are my personal opinions and comments and do not represent any group or
organization with which I may be affiliated. My husband will be submitting his own personal
comments.
I already submitted a set of comments about the consistency, or more accurately lack of
consistency, of this application with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as
stated in the 2018-2023 Growing Salt Lake City Housing Plan and incorporate those comments
by reference (Amendment consideration criterion #1).
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 260 February 12, 2020
2
Here, I wish to comment on the Master Plan Amendment application itself as submitted by the
representative of the applicants, Owner’s Agent Mr. Graham Gilbert, Esq., on 7/19/19.
To do so, I downloaded the application from the SLC public portal, used software to complete
text recognition of the PDF, and corrected any errors by comparing both copies. I then pasted the
body of the application text into a new MSWord document, highlighted the quoted original text in
gray, and am interspersing my comments directly following or adjacent to the sections of the
application.
My overarching comments to summarize my response to the applications are these:
1) The application contains numerous factual errors, misstatements misrepresentations,
and takes elements of city plans and documents out of context, as noted in the
following analysis. In most instances, the Owners Agent uses these errors,
misrepresentations, and out of context elements to support the case for the application well
beyond what is contained in the plans and other records. Therefore, these misstatements
do not appear random and are not amateur errors. Rather, they tend to prejudice a non-
expert reviewer or member of the public towards the assertions in the application. Of
course, parties seeking an amendment will present their case in the best light they can
muster. However, this application appears to go well beyond that in its attempts to
persuade. It is a very weak case upon scrutiny.
2) Therefore, in my opinion, after a short review by city staff, this application should have
been rejected outright as materially false and incomplete, and rejected at that point.
Instead, interested members of the community are forced to spend extensive personal time
at real personal cost to challenge the assertions of the applicants and attempt to share
accurate information as private citizens. The staff report may well correct some or all
these assertions. However, the staff report comes out so late in the process that it is not
useful to interested and affected parties unrelated to the applicants or their agents.
3) I also believe that the fact that the Owner’s Agent is a land use attorney employed by a
prominent local law firm implies a veiled threat. Obviously, the owners may employ any
qualified person as their agent. Development and land use issues can indeed be
complicated and may require legal advice and counsel. However, for a small zoning and
master plan amendment, a lawyer as the agent strikes me as an odd choice at this stage of
the process. It is well known that Salt Lake City Corporation leadership, both elected and
appointed, tend to be risk-averse and lawsuit avoidant. This can tip the scales towards
economically and socially powerful actors in our region who can afford to hire legal
counsel, especially those in well-known firms.
However, I am confident that the members of the Planning Commission take their oaths
seriously and evaluate each case on its merits. I ask that the Planning Commission and city
officials to ignore this veiled threat if indeed it comes across that way to you as members.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 261 February 12, 2020
3
4) Given that the Owner’s Agent is a land use attorney, the factual and material
misstatements and misrepresentations in the application are disappointing at best.
5) Based on statements made by the Applicant at a meeting of the East Central Community
Council Board last fall, the Applicant stated that the target rental range to make the
financing work is ~$2,200/month per unit. According to the Zillow Rent Affordability
Calculator, the monthly net income to afford this rent is $5,000/month in Utah. See
https://www.zillow.com/rent-affordability-calculator/ . That is based on 33% of income
for housing the standard for affordability. According to the Salary After Tax calculator for
Utah, this requires a gross annual income of ~$82,000. See https://salaryaftertax.com/us .
This will exacerbate the housing challenges in Salt Lake City, not help alleviate them.
Worse, many of the current tenants appear to be of very low socio-economic status (SES)
and some are probably highly vulnerable to falling into homelessness. I cannot fathom that
any of them could afford one of the new units, even the teaser “affordable” one that has
been dangled. The displacement of these tenants if this application is approved will cause
real and immediate harms to them. It will also exacerbate an already under-resourced
homeless, housing, and social services patchwork system in Salt Lake City and County.
Most importantly, this application is inconsistent with the Central City Master Plan and
Growing SLC Housing Plan in so many ways that an amendment is utterly unwarranted
and should receive a negative recommendation.
Salt Lake City officials should continue to defend Council-approved district master plans as
they have done in the past. The goals, vision, descriptions, and residential land use policies
(RLUs) are even more relevant today than when the Central Community Master Plan was
approved in 2005.
Real property is fungible and in Salt Lake City the current market is highly competitive and
hot. Long-time owners can often get high prices and capital gains windfalls. Moreover, there
are many properly zoned or underutilized properties where these owners could much more
readily carry out their desired project. If this application is denied as it should be, they still
have numerous options for their properties, from selling outright and to restoring the homes to
redesigning a project to fit current zoning. Their current unwillingness to do so is no
justification for a zoning and master plan change. Spot rezoning is a dangerous action and a
poor precedent, especially under current market conditions.
Please vote against this application for a zoning and master plan amendment.
Sincerely, Jen Colby
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 262 February 12, 2020
4
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 263 February 12, 2020
5
Note to readers: My section-by-section analysis of the application begins here.
Supplemental Information for Project Description
Applicant: Chaio-ih Hui
Zoning Amendment Application
1. Owner Names and Address of Subject Property (or Area):
This Zoning Amendment Application applies to the parcels listed m the following table
(collectively, the " Parcels").
Parcel No. Owner Address Acres
“2. Project Description
a. A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment.
The Parcels are currently located in the City's R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential Zoning
District ("R-2 District"). The current zoning for the Parcels is shown on Exhibit A. The purpose
of this Application is to amend the Zoning Map to include the Parcels in the RMF-35 Moderate
Density Multi-Family Residential District ("RMF-35 District"). This amendment is necessary to
allow Applicant's proposed use of the Parcels, which is described below.”
My Comments:
The assertion that this amendment is “necessary to allow Applicant's proposed use of the Parcels”
is not relevant to the Master Plan Amendment, nor a rational basis for approval. Vast volumes of
case law and precedent support the legal authority of government entities to control zoning and a
wide array of land use activities on private parcels at various scales.
The mere fact that the owners wish to do something else with their properties that is not currently
allowed in R-2 zoning is materially irrelevant. There are properly zoned parcels scattered
throughout the city, including in the Central Community, which would allow for the use and
development that the Applicant wishes to pursue. Real property is fungible and is bought and sold
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 264 February 12, 2020
6
in a highly developed market. The Applicant can simply purchase the necessary parcels elsewhere
and pursue the project in an appropriate area. The Applicant can also either keep or sell the
properties if they no longer suit them or their interests.
The Amendment should not be granted because the Applicant does not wish to comply with the
current zoning regulations at these parcels. The owners have the option to sell them to buyers
willing to follow current zoning regulations. Alternatively, they may redesign the project to fit the
current zoning. There are many options available within the current land use classification and
Master Plan to permit a variety of uses.
Further, the City and its representatives are under no obligation to assure the profitability of any
business, residential rental or otherwise. If the owners of these parcels are unable to secure
financing to complete renovations on the existing structures or complete appropriate alternatives
under current zoning, they have every right and ability to sell to other entities who can do so.
Quite frankly, any claim of economic hardship should apply only to real persons who are owner-
occupants in non-commercial settings.
“b. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned.
Applicant proposes to construct a multi-family project with 16 dwelling units on the Parcels. A
site plan for the Parcels is attached as Exhibit A.”
My Comments:
As noted above, any specific project concept or proposal is simply not relevant to the Master Plan
and Zoning Amendment process. The site plan conceptual sketch may be a teaser, but mostly it
serves as a distraction from the criteria and issues at hand in considering this amendment. The
zoning is tied to the parcels and can transfer with the properties, whether the Applicant ever
actually pursues these projects. Projects can fall apart for all manner of reasons, from changes in
ownership, family or corporate dynamics and priorities, financing, and many other circumstances.
One of the proposals that has been floated by the Applicant and some city staff is to attach a
development agreement to amendments. This is an entirely inappropriate justification for this
amendment, for multiple reasons. Most broadly, it gives city officials an artificial sense of control
over any projects when in fact the city has failed to track and enforce agreements in numerous
cases over time. If anything, city officials should start by going back, tracking down, inspecting
and enforcing all previous such agreements and clearing that docket before even considering
entering into future such “agreements.” This approach is simply an unworkable, bad idea that
allows applicants to dangle shiny drawings or offers without any guarantee that they will
materialize. The city’s current approach of enforcement by complaint (except for parking)
exacerbates the problem, forcing residents to do the work of civil enforcement.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 265 February 12, 2020
7
Additionally, the project concept sketches as submitted with the application are entirely out of
character and inappropriate to the scale, massing, design, and integrity of the 900 block of 200
South and the 100 block of Lincoln Street. As proposed, these shouldn’t even be new buildings
desired by city officials. They are certainly not by most neighbors and community members.
The one immediate result of an amendment would result in immediately is an increase in the
underlying valuation of the parcels. According to real estate professionals, each additional unit
potential per parcel adds approximately $20-25,000 in base valuation. The five properties have 9
current units according to the building records and owners. With R-2 zoning and 1 parcel already
unit-legalized to a tri-plex, the owners have 11 total existing and potential units as is under current
zoning.
Using 11 as the basis, and Amendment that would grant 5 additional units would result in an
immediate financial windfall of ~$100-125,000. This is an unjustifiable “government giving”
regardless of the track record of the owners in terms of property upkeep and management. In this
case, given the decades of underinvestment, poor upkeep, regular lack of fit premise conditions
for tenants, and apparent “demolition by neglect,” the idea that the City would reward this with a
financial windfall is galling. But even if the properties were perfectly maintained, it would be
inappropriate and unjustified.
“c. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area.
The Parcels are currently located in the R-2 District. They are adjacent to properties in the RMF-
35 District. The immediately surrounding area has a wide variety of zoning districts, including the
RMF-35 District; R-2 District; RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District; RMF-45
Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District; SR-3 Special Development Pattern
Residential District; and UI Urban Institutional District. These zoning districts are shown on
Exhibit B.”
The area surrounding the parcels has a mix of different land uses, including single-family homes;
small, medium, and large apartments; commercial buildings; offices; and institutional buildings
(e.g., Salt Lake Regional Hospital). This mix of land uses results from approved, conditional
uses and changes to land use policies over t ime.
My Comments:
This description of the current mix of land uses and zoning in the Central Community,
specifically in the Central City Historic District (Boundary Increase), or Bryant Neighborhood is
an argument AGAINST this Amendment rather than in support of it. Our area is already
substantially over-zoned, as shown by ongoing efforts over the years to downzone parcels rather
than up-zone them. In fact, after a lengthy process and proposals, yet another effort died at the
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 266 February 12, 2020
8
City Council inexplicably within the last decade or so. Once parcels are over-zoned, it is
extremely hard to correct this, as many of us have personally experienced.
In many cases, the underlying zoning exceeds the use and design of the actual structures on site.
This is the case for my own home, and many of my neighbors. Honestly, as a first-time
homebuyer, like many people I was utterly ignorant of zoning and did not think to look up our
zoning or that of surrounding properties, not realizing how deceiving appearances can be.
That said, one of the best things about living where we do is the mix of single family and duplex
residences, unit-legalized residences, multi-family apartment buildings, small and large
commercial, and institutional uses. Vast swaths of our city—Sugarhouse, East Bench, Upper
Avenues, West Side, Federal Heights—have extensive and large blocks of consistent and
contiguous zoning. We are already highly diverse in land use types here in the East Side Historic
Boundary Increase area. It is the other neighborhoods of our city that need more of a mix, not
ours, at this point.
I wish to emphasize a key point. What appear in many cases to be single family historic
residences in our area are, in fact, often unit-legalized multiplexes. These are often duplexes and
triplexes but sometimes 4, 5, 6-plexes and higher. After rounds of legalizations in the past, this
process has apparently been slowed to a crawl.
Unit legalization is a brilliant way to effectively increase density while encouraging preservation
of the historic fabric of city neighborhoods. It is one of the objective strategies explicitly
mentioned in the Growing SLC Housing Plan. To date, however, there has been little or no
movement on this. Unit legalization is far preferred to zoning amendments. It can be tied to
maintenance of the existing structure and other actions.
Zoning amendments, on the other hand, are a recipe for teardowns and escalating parcel prices
beyond the reach of average homebuyers or small, local landlords who wish to restore historic
properties and keep them reasonably affordable, such as our wonderful neighbors John Diamond
(a former Planning Commissioner) and Lee Phillips. They purchased a run-down, fire-damaged
small historic apartment building two doors down on Lincoln Street, restored it, and have a stable
and loyal set of long-term working-class tenants. This is what we need to encourage.
You should not reward slumlord-type management practices of owners who use demolition by
neglect as a tactic while they likely maximize tax depreciations and pull out cash on the backs of
low income residents (this can be very profitable, as documented in many recent books and
articles about predatory practices in these United States). After that, the pattern is to look for
teardowns of the properties they failed to maintain. I realize that slumlord is a harsh term, but that
is used explicitly in several places in the Central Community Master Plan as what needs to be
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 267 February 12, 2020
9
enforced against. I have had a front row seat for 15+ years right across the street from these
properties. I will attest to the appropriate use of the term here to the current owners, sadly. I
cannot speak explicitly to their motives or reasons for their upkeep and management (or lack
thereof) over the years. But the outcome has been cumulatively negative for the properties and the
community. Moreover, the owners are not absentee owners. Rather, Peter and Pik Chi (PC) Hui
are regularly on site, sometimes multiple times a week. They take a very active role in overseeing
their properties. Therefore, they cannot claim ignorance of the situation.
“The Central Community Master Plan encourages use of residential zoning to provide
opportunities for medium-density housing.”
My Comments:
Throughout the Zoning Ordinance, Title 21A, the preferred term is “moderate density,” though
“medium density” is used once as a synonym. Meanwhile, the Central Community Plan Future
Land Use Map uses “medium density” so I am going to assume these terms are interchangeable.
According to code definitions, low density is <15 units per acre, while moderate (medium) is <30
units per acre, moderate/high is <43 units per acre, and high is <83 units per acre.
While this statement in the Application is nominally true on its face when taken broadly, this is
an example of a plan element taken out of context that appears to support the Application
but in fact upon closer inspection does nothing of the sort.
I quote from the Central City Master Plan, pp. 5-6:
“Bryant neighborhood. The Bryant neighborhood is located between 700 and 1000 East from
South Temple to 400 South. The layout of the lots and the residential architecture of the Bryant
neighborhood are similar to those found in the neighborhoods directly west, across 700 East in the
Central City area. Both have the same 10-acre blocks and several examples of early, adobe Greek
Revival architecture. It has a rich collection of many architectural styles, including handsome large
homes with classical porticos and expansive porches.
The neighborhood also has well-preserved inner courts unlike those farther west. These small
streets that penetrate the ten-acre blocks, such as Dooley and Strong courts are still lined with
small cottages dating from the beginning of the twentieth century. The combination of imposing
homes on the main streets and the small dwellings of the inner-block courts indicate that the
population of this area has always been a mixture of the rooted and the transient and the upper and
lower income classes. The proximity to the Central Business District and the University of Utah
campus prompted early development of the area and was a major factor in the original zoning of
this neighborhood for mixed residential uses and larger scale apartments. Pressure to develop or
redevelop into higher densities has become one of the most significant issues confronting this
area. [emphasis added] …
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 268 February 12, 2020
10
Issues within the East Central North neighborhood
Residential
• Reduce excessive density potential, stabilize the neighborhood, and conserve the
neighborhood’s residential character. [emphasis added]
• Improve zoning enforcement, including illegal conversion to apartments, yard cleanup,
“slum lords,” etc.
• Encourage higher density housing in East Downtown, Downtown, and Gateway to
decrease the pressure to meet those housing needs in this neighborhood. [emphasis added]
• Ensure new multi-family development is carefully sited, well designed, and compatible in
scale. [emphasis added]
• Provide more affordable housing (owner occupied and rental).”
“Managing future growth of the Central Community relies on successful implementation of this
master plan and the small area master plans. The future land use designations described in each
chapter suggest potential land use changes but encourage stability where land uses should remain
unchanged. The Future Land Use map (page 2) depicts the desired general land use policy
direction. Each land use chapter is linked to the Future Land Use map.
Implementation of this land use policy is supported through recommended zoning ordinances that
are consistent and compatible with the Future Land Use map. Areas where existing zoning does
not match the land use map will need to be considered for zoning changes to be consistent with the
master plan.” (p. 8)
This Zoning Amendment application is inconsistent with the Future Land Use Map on p. 2 which
clearly shows the parcels in question as Low Density Residential (1-15 units per acre).
Key Point: The assertion is false that the Central Community Master Plan “encourages”
medium density zoning for these parcels. Hence the need for the amendment.
It also encourages infill development designed in a manner that is compatible with the
appearance of existing neighborhoods.”
My Comments:
Unfortunately, the project conceptual drawings do nothing of the sort. Any redevelopment should
retain individual structures on each lot (at R-2, either duplexes or single family), with separate lot
setbacks to be compatible with the largely intact historic fabric, feel, and pattern language of the
blocks in question.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 269 February 12, 2020
11
“Similarly, the City's Housing Plan recommends increasing medium density housing types
and options.”
My Comments:
This statement is so generic as to be utterly meaningless when applied to this specific application
for amendments. At the specific parcels, it is simply false.
“It recommends directing new growth towards areas with existing infrastructure and services
that have the potential to be people- oriented.”
My Comments:
Please see my analysis of the 2018-2023 Growing SLC Housing Plan. In short, the Plan does not
call for overturning existing master plans to meet the goals of the Housing Plan.
Did the Owner’s Agent and Applicant actually read the Housing Plan? The statement above does
not appear as a listed goal or objective of the Housing Plan document.
The closest to this might be: “Objective 1.1.2: Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse
housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional
units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.” [emphasis added].
This is about revising ordinances, not about approving spot rezoning amendments. It also
emphasizes preserving existing structures and limiting neighborhood impacts. These amendments
would do exactly the opposite if approved.
The key strategies described in this Objective description is unit legalization. Indeed, one of the
properties in question is a legal triplex thanks to an earlier round of legalizations. The proposed
RMF30 Zoning Ordinance changes also emphasize preservation of existing residential structures
in exchange for more density, not teardowns.
Additionally, “existing infrastructure” is a serious issue in this area, with extremely old water,
sewer, and stormwater utilities. Storm drains regularly clog and overflow downslope on 200S.
This relates to the criteria in 21A.50.050 about adequacy of public facilities.
That said, unfortunately, Salt Lake City officials sometimes see these types of proposals as
opportunities to transfer costs to developers rather than the appropriate broader city population.
Please refrain from that impulse. We voted in favor of a general tax increase for this purpose.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 270 February 12, 2020
12
“The Housing Plan also encourages development of affordable housing.”
My Comments:
It is puzzling as to why the Owners Agent and Applicant would bring this up, given
that the proposal that they are floating along with the request for amendments would
demolish and remove 9 legal units that are currently highly affordable to low SES
individuals and families, and replace them with “luxury apartments.”
At the East Central Community Board meeting last fall, when pressed on this issue,
the Applicant stated that the target rental range to make the financing work is
$2,200/month per unit. According to the Zillow Rent Affordability Calculator, the
monthly NET income to afford this rent is $5,000/month in Utah. See
https://www.zillow.com/rent-affordability-calculator/. That is based on 33% of
income for housing the standard for “affordability.’ According to the Salary After
Tax calculator for Utah, this requires a gross annual income of ~$82,000. See
https://salaryaftertax.com/us
My husband and I own our house free and clear now thanks to an affordable
purchase price at the time, favorable mortgage rates, and some luck in our lives.
Simply put, we could not afford the proposed rents at our current household income.
Could you? Could most Salt Lake City employees? Teachers? Students?
Worse, many of the current tenants appear to be very low SES and highly vulnerable
to falling into homelessness. Some tenants are elderly, others appear to have
physical limitations and disabilities. We have been given estimates of 20-40 current
tenants at these properties. I cannot fathom that any of them could afford one of the
new units, even the teaser “affordable” one that has been dangled.
The displacement of these tenants if this application is approved will cause real and
immediate harms to them. It will also exacerbate an already under-resourced
homeless, housing, and social services patchwork system in Salt Lake City and
County.
The First Rule of Holes is Stop Digging.
The city must stop digging bigger holes by facilitating the loss of natural affordable
housing, both rental and owner occupied.
This amendment request is utterly contrary to the goal of increasing affordable units.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 271 February 12, 2020
13
More units do not necessarily equal more affordability. This application is a prime
example.
Unfortunately, this simplistic narrative has taken hold during the current Wasatch
front regional housing and real estate boom and its subsequent consequences.
Affordability is not simply a supply problem, or a zoning problem. That argument
simply plays into the hands of developers. It is also an income problem, a subsidies
problem, a financing and discrimination problem, a criminal justice problem, and
more. The housing market is fundamentally broken in key dimensions, just like the
U.S. health insurance and medical system. Please stop breaking it further. I
recommend numerous recent books, such as Evicted (http://www.evictedbook.com/ ) and
Homewreckers (https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062869531/homewreckers/ ) as a place to
start if you haven’t already.
Unfortunately, some of our more affluent neighbors who have expressed concerns
about some of the tenants and some of the ongoing behaviors at these properties that
have led them to support this application in the name of “getting better neighbors”
and reducing problem activities.
Yes, there have been periodic complaints, and we have observed likely illicit and
inappropriate activities over the years, from substance abuse and drug dealing to
open burning of trash and on restricted days, fireworks, abandoned vehicles on the
street, loud parties, and various things in between. Then things tend to calm down as
tenants come and go and the city steps up enforcement after neighbors complain.
But those are manageable social and medical problems that need to be dealt with
appropriately through direct interventions rather than somehow justifying a return to
the bad old days of “slum clearance” in the name of pushing out disadvantaged
residents who need help. That is pure NIMBYism and rewards poor property
management and lack of local social services in favor of developers and landlords.
That said, when serious public safety is an issue, enforcement is necessary. On the
evening of January 31, 2020, there were two episodes of gunfire on our street, with
one being witnessed as a drive-by shooting directed at the back unit of 955 E 200 S.
Some of my female neighbors now say they are afraid to walk on our streets,
especially after dark. This is an enforcement matter and not a justification for these
amendments. And is quite shocking for our generally safe and quiet area.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 272 February 12, 2020
14
“The non-historic homes on the Parcels have been converted to apartments.”
My Comments:
It is hard to even know where to begin with this entirely inaccurate statement, short as it is.
Misleading is the kindest thing I will say.
The Owner’s Agent at best uses imprecise language to characterize the historic status of the
homes. At worst, he misrepresents and misleads. If he means that the homes are not individually
listed on the National Register, he should so state.
In common parlance, “historic” means houses of a certain age. Under National Park Service
regulations, that is effectively at least 50 years old for starters.
More specifically, it means buildings designated as contributory to the historic district, per State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and National Park Service guidance. The vast majority of
buildings considered historic within both national and local historic districts are contributing (a
professional designation made by trained staff and contractors) but not nationally registered (a
voluntary listing that involves a lot more effort and cooperation of the owner(s), see
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/how-to-list-a-property.htm for details).
All 5 buildings are designated as contributory as of the last inventory. The house at 159 S
Lincoln St has had an unfortunate layer of siding added over the brick, but according to SHPO
this is likely superficial, and the house could be restored to its proper appearance and continue as
contributing.
Further, these buildings are a crucial component of the larger East Side Historic District
(Boundary Increase). I attach the full application for your reading pleasure.
According to SHPO, each house is named based on the original occupants. The houses are:
159 S. Lincoln Street: known as the Samuel and Emma Bjorkland house; built circa 1889;
949 E. 200 South: known as the Hector and Clintona Griswold House; built 1893;
955 E. 200 South: known as the Louis and Agnes Farnsworth House; built 1893;
959 E. 200 South: known by SHPO as the Frances and John Jr. Judson House, also
known locally as “China Blue” of more recent cultural significance; built circa 1897; and
963 E 200 South: known as the Roe and Nettie Frazier House; built in 1894
National Historic Districts confer vital tax credit opportunities to homeowners like us (which by
the way the city does a terrible job of promoting). To qualify as a National Historic District, a
substantial number of buildings within the boundaries must be contributory. The continual
erosion and loss of contributory buildings could lead to de-listing and loss of tax credits in the
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 273 February 12, 2020
15
future. These 5 structures are vital to the look and feel of the district, even in their neglected state.
City officials should not be making decisions to pave the way for their destruction.
At a certain threshold (I have been told below 60-70% of structures on a given block, but I can’t
find a formal reference), the character, fabric, and feel of a historic district starts to precipitously
collapse. This is a non-linear process, like many phenomena. You can see this in action in large
sections of Central Community just west of here, sadly, as well as just one half-block over on
1000 E between 100 and 200 S. This can lead to a downward spiral of disinvestment in the
remaining contributing properties and loss of character. Property values are undergirded by the
very historic fabric the Applicant has degraded and now proposes to rend asunder. Numerous
studies show the economic value of historic preservation and restoration.
As for the “have been converted to apartments” statement, as mentioned below there is some
question as to whether one or more are being rented as SROs rather than separate units. Also, the
house at 159 S Lincoln are described as single family, as is 963 E 200 S, so if they are being rented as
apartments vs single homes it is unclear what their legal rental status might be.
According to the SHPO files, the buildings at 949, 955, and 959 E were all built on spec by the same
developers, who listed their occupations at “capitalists” at the time. Some things in the U.S. never
change. In any case, they were originally built as rentals and it seems appropriate that they continue as
such today, with the caveat that they be well-maintained as fit premises (another regulation the City
systematically fails to enforce).
“Existing City approvals permit 9 apartment units on the 5 parcels.”
My Comments:
As noted previously, the owners do potentially have the leeway to divide the two single family
homes into duplexes under R2, giving them 11 units with no teardowns. There is some question
as to whether the owners have been renting some or all of the properties as SROs, but that is a
question of lack of enforcement of city regulation.
Additionally, were they to pursue unit legalization, they could probably get 1 more unit each at
949 and 959 E. Were the city to permit it, these structures might even accommodate 4-plexes in
the renovated buildings at 949, 955, and 959 (these three were actually built as rentals originally,
according to SHPO records). That would give the owners 13-15 units. This is exactly the kind of
density addition that is compatible with our national historic district and neighborhood fabric. In
fact, it is the main pattern.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 274 February 12, 2020
16
“The present zoning does not allow Applicant to develop its proposed multi-family project on
the Parcels. As a result, Applicant requests an amendment to the zoning map to include the
Parcels in the RMF-35 District.”
My Comments:
Well, there are probably a lot of things my husband and I and our neighbors would like to do on
our properties, too, but cannot under current zoning or other city, county, or state regulation and
code. Our mere desire to do so does not override ordinances and adopted plans. This undermines
the rule of law, consistent application of code, and fundamental fairness.
I quote my very first comment for emphasis:
“The mere fact that the owners wish to do something else with their properties that is not
currently allowed in R-2 zoning is materially irrelevant. There are properly zoned parcels
scattered throughout the city, including in the Central Community, which would allow for the use
and development that the Applicant wishes to pursue. Real property is fungible, and the Applicant
can simply purchase the necessary parcels elsewhere and pursue the project in an appropriate
area.
The Amendment should not be granted because the Applicant does not wish to comply with the
current zoning regulations at these parcels. The owners have the option to sell them to buyers
willing to follow current zoning regulations. Alternatively, they may redesign the project to fit the
current zoning. There are many options available within the current land use classification and
Master Plan to permit a variety of uses.
Further, the City and its representatives are under no obligation to assure the profitability of any
business, residential rental or otherwise. If the owners of these parcels are unable to secure
financing to complete renovations on the existing structures or complete appropriate alternatives
under current zoning, they have every right and ability to sell to other entities who can do so.
Quite frankly, any claim of economic hardship should apply only to real persons who are owner-
occupants in non-commercial settings.”
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 275 February 12, 2020
17
“This proposed amendment is consistent with surrounding zoning. Properties adjacent to and
northeast of the Parcels are located in the RMF-35 District. Numerous other properties in the
immediately surrounding neighborhood are in the RMF-35 District, or other multi-family
zoning districts, like RMF-45 and RMF-30.”
My Comments:
This is an illogical statement with no basis in rationality. The mere fact of the existence other
nearby properties with higher density zoning does not lead to the conclusion that such zoning is
also appropriate at the parcels in question. It is a logical fallacy.
In fact, the extensive master planning process that led to the 2005 Central Community Master
plan rejected this argument when it set the Future Land Use plan to reflect parcel-by-parcel,
block by block zoning. Yes, much of it is mixed zoning in this area. Arguably, many parcels
remain over-zoned. Over-zoning even more parcels is simply wrong.
The parcels in question are designated as low-density housing in the Future Land Use Map
and should remain in their current R2 zoning.
In my opinion and those of many current residents and property owners, the balance has
already been tipped too far to RMF zoning as compared to reality and current uses of the
existing buildings on many nearby properties.
This leads to a series of negative impacts and undermines affordable housing—especially for
prospective owner occupants who are getting regularly outbid by developers and investors for
what from visual inspection appear to be single-family homes.
Affordability must be considered for homeowners as well as renters. With the population of SLC
now tipped to more than 50% renters, city policies are driving people like us out because we
could no longer buy back into the city. Over-zoning our historic neighborhoods is a key
component of this problem.
Just because our neighborhood already has a mix of apartment buildings, it does not follow that
additional ones on parcels not zoned for such use is appropriate. Quite the opposite, given that
our neighborhood is already the most diverse in terms of zoning. According to census data at the
time of the master plan, it is also already the densest. The city should focus development on other
priority areas that are properly zoned.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 276 February 12, 2020
18
“A medium-density housing development is compatible with the existing neighborhood. The
surrounding neighborhood has a variety of land uses, including small, medium, and large
apartment buildings.”
My Comments:
This is untrue. The East Side Historic District is already littered with unfortunate and
aesthetically disastrous “medium-density housing development(s)” from the waves of “urban
renewal” (i.e. destruction) and infill in the 1960s and 1970s. This resulted in poorly constructed,
inefficient buildings, often with blank faces to the street that disrupt the otherwise interesting and
pleasing historic forms and fabric of this neighborhood. Please do not make this mistake again.
The unfortunate “modernist” mayhem all around us is bad enough. Don’t get me wrong, I have
great fondness for certain Modernist buildings, but the current crop is pretty terrible with a few
noteworthy exceptions. It is also replacing affordable, older modest homes with very expensive
new buildings. But I digress.
As stated earlier, just because our neighborhood already has a mix of apartment buildings, it does
not follow that additional ones on parcels not zoned for such use is appropriate.
As I have noted, at one level, the proposed development design is a distraction and irrelevant to
the primary decision. We have unfortunate examples of what can happen, with the two teardowns
on Lincoln Street that now serve as excessive, frankly unneeded parking for the commercial
buildings on 1000 E, with the loss of 2 housing units that have never been replaced. The adjacent
apartment complex to the north is another one.
That said, since there is some chatter about the option of tying a development agreement to any
approvals (despite the history of failure of this strategy by Salt Lake City), I will address the
concept design as submitted by the applicants briefly here.
In short, three parallel rectangular boxes running east-west across combined parcels would be a
disaster to the streetscape and historic fabric of the blocks of 200 S and Lincoln St. Both have
already had some degradation already, including the inappropriate commercial building at 970 E
200 South, the Madrid apartments on 200S, and the apartment building where Lori Hacking was
murdered on Lincoln St. They city should do everything possible to prevent further loss of
character. Losing 5 contributing structures to teardowns for generic “luxury” apartments betrays
Salt Lake City’s commitment to historic preservation and neighborhoods.
Further, the pattern language of these two streets is complimentary but different, with larger and
more imposing, often 2-story historic residences lining this block of 200 S, while the mid-block
street of Lincoln Street is comprised of mostly more modest, Victorian eclectic single story
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 277 February 12, 2020
19
houses that were built as workforce housing and remain that today, even with the egregious run-
up in real estate prices in recent years as compared to the stagnation of our incomes.
If any teardowns and redevelopment occur on these parcels, they should be single-family or
duplexes within the bounds of existing R2 zoning. Appropriate setbacks are needed between the
structures to maintain the pattern language of the 200 South block faces from 900 E to 1000 S. Of
course, I would personally prefer restoration and preservation of the existing structures. But if
one or more are lost, they should be replaced with appropriately designed residences that fit the
neighborhood. There are good examples of this at 165 S 1100 E and 1042 E 200 S, among others.
One of the more problematic elements of the project concept design is ground-level parking
garages with the living units above. As is standard in our historic neighborhoods, private off-
street motor vehicle storage—where it exists—is in stand-alone garage structures, some of which
are alley-accessed. Incorporating ground level parking is utterly inconsistent with this National
Historic District pattern language. Sadly, the city has failed to create form-based design standards
for national historic districts which leads to this kind of problem.
Also, it is well documented that ground-level parking deadens street life and kills neighborliness.
High density housing developments that the City has permitted continue to do this in the TOD
corridor and elsewhere, a terrible mistake. To allow this at the 4 properties facing 200 S would
add insult to injury.
As recommended by the Housing Plan, the proposed development will increase medium
density housing stock in an area with existing infrastructure and close proximity to mass
transit and services (e.g. medical and commercial services).”
My Comments:
This statement somewhat repeats and earlier claim, so I repeat my response here.
Please see my analysis of the 2018-2023 Growing SLC Housing Plan. In short, the Plan does not
call for overturning existing master plans to meet the goals of the Housing Plan.
Did the Owner’s Agent and Applicant actually read the Housing Plan? The statement above does
not appear as a listed goal or objective of the Housing Plan document.
The closest to this might be: “Objective 1.1.2: Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse
housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional
units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts.” [emphasis added].
This is about revising ordinances, not about approving spot rezoning amendments. It also
emphasizes preserving existing structures and limiting neighborhood impacts. These amendments
would do exactly the opposite if approved.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 278 February 12, 2020
20
The key strategies described in this Objective description is unit legalization. Indeed, one of the
properties in question is a legal triplex thanks to an earlier round of legalizations. The proposed
RMF30 Zoning Ordinance changes also emphasize preservation of existing residential structures
in exchange for more density, not teardowns.
Additionally, “existing infrastructure” is a serious issue in this area, with extremely old water,
sewer, and stormwater utilities. Storm drains regularly clog and overflow downslope on 200S.
This relates to the criteria in 21A.50.050 about adequacy of public facilities.
That said, unfortunately, Salt Lake City officials sometimes see these types of proposals as
opportunities to transfer costs to developers rather than the appropriate broader city population.
Please refrain from that impulse. We voted in favor of a general tax increase for this purpose.
In sum, this assertion in the application is not supported by the actual Growing SLC
Housing Plan. This assertion is a misrepresentation of the Growing SLC Housing Plan
Objectives.
Further, as already repeatedly noted, there are various parcels properly zoned for medium density
in appropriate locations near transit for the conceptual sketch of the possible new construction
multifamily project that these owners say they wish to pursue. Rezoning these parcels is not
justified.
In addition, Applicant is willing to work with the City to provide one affordable housing
unit in the project.
My Comments:
As noted above, the amendments relate to the underlying parcels themselves and any project
concepts are largely irrelevant. Therefore, this offer is a distraction. Worse it is a large net loss of
affordable units as previously noted.
“For these reasons, Applicant requests that the Parcels be rezoned to the RMF-35 District.”
My Comments:
Based on the analysis of this application and the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the
city as explained previously, this request is not consistent with these, and does not meet the
standards for approval. This is a logical fallacy. The reasons do not support the request, as I have
demonstrated.
Therefore, the Planning Commission should vote to give a negative recommendation on this
request and reject the request for a Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment as proposed.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 279 February 12, 2020
21
“d. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers
to be changed.
This Application proposes amending the Zoning Map for Salt Lake County Parcel Nos.
16051350100000; 16051350110000; 16051350120000; 16051350130000;and
16051350140000. Additional information regarding the Parcels may be found in the table,
above.”
No comment.
e. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language
and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed.
This Application does not request amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance.
No comment.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 280 February 12, 2020
NPS Form 10-900 , ^|M° No. 10024-0018
(Oct. 1990)
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Registration Form
This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National
Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking "x1 in the appropriate box or by entering the
information requested. If an item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification,
materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on
continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items.
1. Name of Property
historic name Central City Historic District (Boundary Increase)____________________________
other name/site number Bryant Neighborhood_________________________________________________
2. Location
street& town Roughly bounded by South Temple, 400 South, 700 East and 1100 East
city or town Salt Lake City ___ __
D not for publication
D vicinity
state Utah code UT county Salt Lake code 035 zip code 84102
3. State/Federal Agency Certification
As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this ^ nomination
D request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register
of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the
property E3 meets D does not meet the NationaiyRegister criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant
D nationally GO staf^wide 13 lp£3jl>-{ Q See continuation sheet for additional comments.)
Signature of certifying official/Title
Utah Division of State History. Office of Historic Preservation
Date
£//«/
State or Federal agency and bureau
In my opinion, the property D meets D does not meet the National Register criteria. ( Q See continuation sheet for additional
comments.)
Signature of certifying official/Title Date
State or Federal agency and bureau
4. National Park Service Certification
I hereby certify that the property is:
entered in the National Register.
D See continuation sheet.
D determined eligible for the
National Register
D See continuation sheet.
D determined not eligible for the
National Register.
D removed from the National
Register.
D other, (explain:) _________
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 281 February 12, 2020
Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase
Name of Property
5. Classification
Ownership of Property
(check as many boxes as apply)
Category of Property
(check only one box)
Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County. Utah
City, County and State
Number of Resources within Property
(Do not include previously listed resources in the count.)
^ private
D public-local
D public-State
D public-Federal
D building(s)
IEI district
Qsite
D structure
D object
Contributing
488
488
Noncontributing
176
176
buildings
sites
structures
objects
Total
Name of related multiple property listing
(Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing.)
Number of contributing resources previously listed
in the National Register
6. Function or Use
Historic Function
(Enter categories from instructions)
DOMESTIC: single dwelling
DOMESTIC: multiple dwelling
COMMERCIAL: business
COMMERCIAL: specialty store
RELIGION: religious facility
EDUCATION: school
Current Function
(Enter categories from instructions)
DOMESTIC: single dwelling____
DOMESTIC: multiple dwelling
COMMERCIAL : business
COMMERCIAL: specialty store
RELIGIONS: religious facility
EDUCATION: school
HEALTH CARE: clinic, medical business & office
SOCIAL: club house
7. Description
Architectural Classification
(Enter categories from instructions)
MID-19 CENTURY
LATE VICTORIAN
LATE 19 AND 20 CENTURY REVIVALS__________
LATE 19TH AND EARLY 20 CENTURY AMERICAN MOVEMENTS
OTHER: World War II and Post-War Era
Materials
(Enter categories from instructions)
foundation
walls
roof
other
STONE. CONCRETE
BRICK, WOOD, STUCCO, ADOBE
VENEER, CONCRETE BLOCK
ASPHALT, WOOD
Narrative Description
(Describe the historic and current condition of the property on one or more continuation sheets.)
jSee continuation sheet(s) for Section No. 7
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 282 February 12, 2020
Central City Historic District. Boundary Increases
Name of Property
Salt Lake City. Salt Lake County. Utah
City, County and State
DEVELOPMENT
8. Description
Applicable National Register Criteria
(Mark "x" in one or more boxes for the criteria qualifying the property
for National Register listing.)
[X] A Property is associated with events that have made
a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
our history.
EH B Property is associated with the lives of persons
significant in our past.
Kl C Property embodies the distinctive characteristics
of a type, period, or method of construction or
represents the work of a master, or possesses
high artistic values, or represents a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components lack
individual distinction.
D D Property has yielded, or is likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or history.
Criteria Considerations
(Mark "x" in all the boxes that apply.)
Property is:
D A owned by a religious institution or used for
religious purposes.
D B removed from its original location.
D C a birthplace or grave.
D D a cemetery.
D E a reconstructed building, object, or structure.
EH F a commemorative property.
D G less than 50 years of age or achieved significance
within the past 50 years. _____
Narrative Statement of Significance
(Explain the significance of the property on one or more continuation sheets.)m
9. Major Bibliographical References
Bibliography
(Cite the books, articles, and other sources used in preparing this form on one or more continuation sheets.
Areas of Significance
(enter categories from instructions)
ARCHITECTURE
COMMUNITY PLANNING
Period of Significance
1870-1946
Significant Dates
Significant Persons
(Complete if Criterion B is marked above)
N/A
Cultural Affiliation
N/A
Architect/Builder
Various, mostly unknown
continuation sheet(s) for Section No. 8
Previous documentation on file (NPS):
D preliminary determination of individual listing (36
CFR 67) has been requested
D previously listed in the National Register
D previously determined eligible by the National
Register
D designated a National Historic Landmark
D recorded by Historic American Buildings Survey
# _________________
D recorded by Historic American Engineering
Record # ______________
Primary location of additional data:
Kl State Historic Preservation Office
D Other State agency
D Federal agency
I3 Local government
D University
D Other Name of repository:
See continuation sheet(s) for Section No. 9
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 283 February 12, 2020
Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah______
Name of Property City, County and State
10. Geographical Data
Acreage of Property approximately 195 acres____________
UTM References
(Place additional boundaries of the property on a continuation sheet.)
A1/2 4/2/6/5/6/0 4/5/1/3/2/4/0 B 1/2 4/2/7/2/6/0 4/5/1/3/2/2/0
Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing
C1/2 4/2/7/2/6/0 4/5/1/3/0/6/0 D1/2 4/2/7/5/0/0 4/5/1/3/0/4/0
Zone Easting Northing Zone Easting Northing
Verbal Boundary Description
(Describe the boundaries of the property.)
See continuation sheet for boundary description and more UTM references
Property Tax No. various
Boundary Justification
(Explain why the boundaries were selected.)
The boundaries enclose the most intact concentration of buildings satisfying the criteria under the areas of significance for
the boundary increase and for the existing Central City Historic District.
C*]See continuation sheet(s) for Section No. 10
11. Form Prepared By
name/title Elizabeth Egleston Giraud, AICP______________________________________________________________
organization Salt Lake City Corporation/Planning Division____________ date March 9, 2001____________
street & number451 S. State, Room 406______________________ telephone 801/535-7128_____
city or town Salt Lake City__________________________ state UT zip code 84109
Additional Documentation
Submit the following items with the completed form:
Continuation Sheets
Maps A USGS map (7.5 or 15 minute series) indicating the property's location.
A Sketch map for historic districts and properties having large acreage or numerous resources.
Photographs: Representative black and white photographs of the property.
Additional items: (Check with the SHPO or FPO for any additional items)
Property Owner
name/title ______________________________________________________
street & number_________________________________ telephone____________________
city or town ________________________________ state ___zip code ____
Paperwork Reduction Act Statement: This information is being collected for applications to the National Register of Historic Places to nominate
properties for listing or determine eligibility for listing, to list properties, and to amend existing listings. Response to this request is required to obtain a
benefit in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).
Estimated Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this form is estimated to average 18.1 hours per response including time for reviewing
instructions, gathering and maintaining data, and completing and reviewing the form. Direct comments regarding this burden estimate or any aspect of
this form to the Chief, Administrative Services Division, National Park Service, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, DC 20013-7127; and the Office of
Management and Budget, Paperwork Reductions Projects (1024-0018), Washington, DC 20503.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 284 February 12, 2020
0MB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 7 Page 1 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County County, UT
Narrative Description
Introduction
The boundary increase to the Central City Historic District encompasses a sixteen-block area directly east of
the original district, listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1996. It is referred to in this nomination
as the "Bryant neighborhood," in reference to a junior high school that was established in the neighborhood in
1894, although the original building was replaced with another structure in 1980. The boundary increase
consists of 661 buildings, 74 percent of which contribute to the character of the historic district. It is a
neighborhood that is primarily residential with buildings similar in scale to those found in the Central City
Historic District, as well as the University Neighborhood Historic District that borders the boundary increase to
the east. The boundary increase forms a transition between the flat topography of Central City and the
"benches" that characterize the University neighborhood. The northern and southern boundaries of the
increase consist of the South Temple Historic District, associated with a tree-lined street of mixed land uses
known for its historic mansions, and 400 South, a commercial strip of non-contributing buildings, respectively.
South of 400 South is a neighborhood similar to Bryant, locally referred to as "Bennion/Douglas," that is also
planned for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places as a second boundary increase to the
Central City Historic District in 2001.
Many elements of the street pattern, architecture, and landscaping features in the boundary increase are a
continuation of those found in Central City. These elements include ten-acre blocks, an eclectic range of
styles, and a grass median strip, referred to locally as a "parking," in the middle of 800 East and 200 South. As
in Central City, the boundary increase has suffered numerous intrusions. These differ from the original district
in that they are multiple-unit residential properties and institutional uses, such as a large medical clinic and
professional offices, as opposed to the retail commercial development found in Central City. For the most part,
however, they affect the edges of the boundary increase, leaving the rest of the neighborhood largely intact so
that it reflects its association with the growth and development of Salt Lake City.
Streetscapes and Landscapes
Streetscapes throughout the boundary increase are dominated by the wide, numbered streets (100 South, 200
South, etc.) and ten-acre blocks characteristic of the early platted areas of Salt Lake City. Toward the end of
the nineteenth century, as development pressures increased, many of the large blocks were divided by narrow
streets into courts that accommodated homes on lots that were much smaller than those seen on the
numbered streets. With the exception of some of the small, inner-block courts, the streets have curb and
gutter, and the numbered streets have "parking strips:" landscaped areas between the sidewalk and the street.
These parking strips, coupled with lawns and mature trees, provide a pleasant sense of greenery that provides
relief from the boundary increase's proximity to the downtown commercial core. The boundary increase also
contains a "parking," or grass median, on 800 East, similar to the parking on 600 East in Central City. In an
effort to beautify the city, parkings were also established on South Temple, 700 East, 1000, 1200 East and 200
South in the first decade of the twentieth century. Today, only those on 600 East, 800 East, 1200 East and
200 South remain.
Because the boundary increase is bordered on the north, south and west by wide, arterial streets, these edges
have suffered the most intrusion by visually incompatible commercial and residential uses. Few extant,
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 285 February 12, 2020
OMB No. 1024-0018. NPS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 7 Page 2 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County County, UT
contributing buildings remain on these perimeters. The western boundary, 700 East, is a six-lane vehicular
corridor that was widened in 1958. The northern boundary, South Temple, is also a heavily trafficked street; it
separates the boundary increase from the Avenues Historic District, characterized by its steep grade and two-
and-a-half acres lots. The southern boundary consists of 400 South, which begins to curve steeply south at
1000 East to become 500 South. Created in 1936, this curve undercuts a geologic feature, the "East Bench
Fault," that causes the topography of the southeast corner of the boundary increase to be very steeply pitched.
Commercial uses, including family-style restaurants and hotels, dominate this thoroughfare, which is currently
under construction for a light-rail line. The eastern boundary is the most intact and forms the smoothest
transition to an adjoining neighborhood: the University Neighborhood Historic District.
Overall, one- and two-story homes with similar setbacks and side yards form the streetscape, and provide a
uniform relationship to the street. Landscaping consists of mature, deciduous trees and lawns and shrubs in
front of the homes. Most front yards are not fenced, but those that are fenced by compatible materials and
appear very old: wood pickets or wrought iron. The few commercial retail buildings in the increase are
generally early, neighborhood grocery stores and recently constructed convenience stores. It is the medical
offices and clinics, as well as the out-of-period multi-family dwellings, which most visually mar the overall
integrity of the district.
Architectural Styles and Types by Period
Single-Family Dwellings: Initial Settlement. 1847 to 1869
Like Central City, most of the buildings in the Bryant neighborhood were constructed as single-family,
residential dwellings and present a similar range of styles, types and materials. Few buildings remain from the
earliest period of settlement in the boundary increase; those that do exhibit classical details, such as wide
frieze boards and cornice returns, and are of masonry construction with a stucco finish. The hall/parlor plan,
associated with early vernacular architecture in Utah, is most apparent in one of the earliest homes, the
Francis Hughes house at 856 E. 200 S., constructed about 1868 [photograph 1]. This plan, however, lingered
for several more decades, long after most of the other residences in the neighborhood were constructed in
styles contemporary to the period and used nationally. For example, the hall/parlor plan was used as late as
1900 in the neighborhood at 824 Menlo Avenue, although this example has undergone many alterations
[photograph 2].
Single-Family Dwellings: Transition. 1870 to 1900
Other plans associated with early architecture in Salt Lake City, such as the central passage and the cross-
wing plan, are found in the Bryant neighborhood and were constructed during this period. The George
Baddley house at 974 East 300 South is the only example of the central-passage plan in the boundary
increase and was constructed in 1870 of plastered adobe [photograph 3]. Baddley was a potter, a distiller, and
a member of the 1861 group called by Brigham Young to settle Utah's "Dixie," the southwestern corner of the
state. His two wives, Eliza and Charlotte, inherited this property upon his death in 1875, but Charlotte soon
moved to another house nearby and his surrounding land was divided into an interior court street, "Baddley
Place," presumably to provide lots for other family members
The cross-wing plan replaced the hall-parlor as the most common Utah house type after 1880; forty-one
examples exist in the Bryant neighborhood. The Thomas and Mary James house at 335 S. 700 East was
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 286 February 12, 2020
OMB No. 1024-0018, NPS Form
United States Department of the interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 7 Page 3 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County County, UT
constructed in the late 1880's; the reasons for the popularity of this style described by local architectural
historians are evident in the home:
The cross wing represented a departure, but not a radical departure, from the older Classical tradition, and its
obvious similarity to the already established temple-form type made the transition all the more palatable.1
The original hall/parlor form of the house was constructed of adobe and stucco with little ornamentation, with
the exception of the attempt to portray the wall surface as stone by scribing the surface [photographs 4-5]. The
Late Victorian-style cross-wing was added about 1890, as was the covered front porch, which is embellished
with turned columns and a pediment. The one-over-one, double-hung windows with segmental brick arches
are additional characteristics of this late nineteenth-century building form. Other outstanding examples of the
cross-wing form include the Ebenezer and Esther Miller house at 1017 E. 300 South, built about 1890, and the
Jane Chander house at 315 S. 700 E., constructed about 1888 [photographs 6-7].
Hall-parlor, central passage, and cross-wing plans are generally associated with vernacular building traditions
in Utah, but "high-style" examples were also constructed during this period. One of the most significant homes
in the boundary increase dating from this time is the Frederick Meyer house, located at 929 E. 200 South
[photograph 8]. Listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1982 and recorded by the Historic
American Building Survey in 1968, it is noted as the best example of one of three major house types used to
express the Italianate style in Utah: the two-story box type, as distinguished from the two-story side
passageway box and the one-story cottage. The house was built in two phases: a two-story main rectangular
block with a one-and-a-half story side wing (1873) and a two-story extension that spans the rear of the house
(c. 1898). The fact that the first section was constructed only three years after the comparatively vernacular
Baddley house indicates that the architectural development of the neighborhood during the period of
significance followed very different trajectories.
Other "high-style" residences in the boundary increase that date from this period include a less ornate
Italianate example, the Hyrum and Ann Reeve house at 718 E. 300 S., and both imposing and modest variants
of the Queen Anne style [photograph 9]. The James Freeze house at 734 E. 200 South was constructed in
1892, and displays the complex roof form, irregular massing, and exuberant use of materials associated with
this style [photograph 10]. This home also illustrates the late Victorian tendency to incorporate elements of
other styles: in this case, the Eastlake, as seen in the turned columns, delicate scroll-cut brackets and porch
trim, and the wooden balustrade with a decorative paneled base. James Freeze, a polygamist with four wives
who all lived in separate homes nearby, was a successful merchant of retail goods. He sold the house in 1901
to Dutch immigrants Wilhelmus and Frances DeGroot. Members of the DeGroot family lived in the home until
1997, when it was sold to an owner who intends to convert it into a reception center.
Single-family Dwellings. Mature Community: 1900-1925
More buildings are extant from this period than any other in the district (39 percent), and of this stock most
were single-family dwellings. A handful of small residences exhibiting vernacular plans, such as shot-gun, hall-
parlor and the previously described cross-wing previously described were built during the earliest years of this
period. For the most part, however, residential architecture from this period exhibits the range of styles that
Thomas Carter and Peter Goss, Utah's Historic Architecture. 1847-1940. Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, 1988, p. 37.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 287 February 12, 2020
0MB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 7 Page 4 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County County, UT
could be seen in almost every early twentieth-century neighborhood: Victorian Eclectic, Prairie, classical or
colonial revivals, and after 1910, the bungalow. The largest homes in these styles are found on the numbered
streets, while smaller versions can be found on the inner-block streets. Tracts of two or three identical homes
are more commonly found on the inner-block streets, but are rare on the numbered streets. As in other
communities in Salt Lake City, the predominant material was brick, although wood clapboard and novelty
siding were also used. Wood details, such as gable-end shingles and for porch details, were frequently
incorporated into the overall design. Many of the foundations are sandstone, cut with a rusticated face.
The most common style from this period is the "Victorian Eclectic," a term coined in Utah that usually describes
a massing of a central block with projecting wings, classical porch details, and one-over-over windows with
segmental brick lintels or wide, single-light windows with a transom and other Victorian details. Most are one-
or one-and-a-half stories, such as the Charles and Clara Nelson house at 334 S. 900 E., circa 1910, but two-
story examples can also be found, such as the Maurice and Effie Kaighn house at 120 S. 1000 E., constructed
almost a decade earlier [photographs 11-12]. Although constructed in the same style and plan, they have
markedly different appearances. The extra height of the Kaighn house causes it to appear as a hipped roof
structure, and the gable end of the projecting block is not as prominent. Also, the porch of the Kaighn house is
characterized by a wide fascia and a shallow-pitch roof, as opposed to the dominant pediment of the porch of
the Nelson house.
The boundary increase also contains about twenty-four foursquare residences. The earliest examples (1892 to
1895) are one-story and have little embellishment. Several are located on inner block streets, such as Bueno,
Linden and Menlo avenues. With one exception, those built after 1900 are two-story and are brick. Many have
classical details, primarily seen in fascias and on porches; others have Craftsman elements and a few are
heavily Neo-Classical. The Ernest Thompson house, constructed in 1902 at 955 E. 100 South and designed by
architect Walter Ware, derives its Craftsman motif from the exposed brackets, the multiple-panes in the
windows and the rectangular bay window in the second story [photograph 13].
Neo-classical Revival foursquare examples represent some of the most impressive homes in the district.
These include the George Mateer house at 250 S. 1000 East, the George Roper house at 805 E. 300 South
and the David Spitz house at 1073 E. 200 South [photographs 14-16]. The Mateer and the Roper residences
were both constructed in 1909 and were designed by architect Bernard Mecklenberg. Essentially their form
consists of two-and-a-half story boxes, but only the Roper residence is readily identifiable as a foursquare.
The Mateer house, with its round-corner bay and wrap-around porch, and the Spitz house, with its two-story,
pedimented porch, command more attention. All fall into the Neo-classical rubric through the use of modillions,
dentil courses, and classically-detailed column, yet all are basic four-square forms under the ornamentation.2
Although not represented in numbers as great as the Victorian Eclectic or the foursquare, other early twentieth-
century styles seen in the boundary increase supplement the diversity of architecture associated with the
neighborhood's development. Arts and Crafts examples, both in Craftsman and Prairie School variants, can
be found. Two examples include the John and Mary Ellen Birch house at 336 S. 1100 East, and Samuel
2 Mecklenberg also designed another house in the boundary addition: the Hyrum Newton house at 322 S. 1000 East (1910), but this is a simpler, late-
Victorian example.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 288 February 12, 2020
0MB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 7 Page 5 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County County, UT
Sherrill house at 975 E. 100 South, designed by the architectural firm of Ware and Treganza [photographs 17-
18]. Both were constructed in 1908. The Birch house is a combination of gabled forms with wide eaves and
knee brackets; the use of thickly cut wood clapboard and its low profile are in keeping with the Arts and Crafts
ideal of unifying the house to the site and incorporating natural features into the design. The Sherrill residence
is the only Prairie School example in the boundary increase. Sherrill was a building contractor and vice-
president of Liberty Fuel, a successful coal mining company located at Liberty, Utah.
While the architecture of the boundary increase is characterized by diversity, more homes (one-hundred-and-
one) in the neighborhood can be classified as "bungalow" than any other type [photograph 19]. Almost all were
constructed of brick, although many used brick as a wainscoting with stucco above, and almost all are one- or
one-and-a-half stories [photographs 20-21]. In the Bryant neighborhood, as in other older neighborhoods in
Salt Lake City, they tend to show a Prairie School influence, typified by large, plate-glass windows; broad
eaves; and long, wide concrete lintels and sills. Shallow-pitched, hip roofs are ubiquitous for this style, but
their profiles vary through the use of clipped gables or front-facing gables [photograph 22]. Porch columns
generally consist of plain, brick supports or battered piers. A few side-gabled bungalows, such as the Viggo
Madsen house at 57 S. 800 East, also can be found, but this roof form is atypical for the bungalow in this
neighborhood.
Single-family residences: Depression and Decline: 1925 to 1955
Bungalows in the boundary increase were constructed as early as 1906, but most of the construction dates of
this type are clustered from 1910 to 1925. As their popularity waned, the bungalow was replaced by the period
cottage. These were constructed of brick, generally have cross-gabled rooflines with steep pitches, and often
have round-arched entryways that are exaggerated with extremely narrow, steeply pitched roofs. A few are
embellished with stucco wall surfaces on entryways or gable ends and with false half-timbering. Most were
constructed during a short period: 1925 to 1930, but a few were built as late as 1938. After the Depression
and World War II, few single-family homes in the boundary increase were constructed. Inner-city
neighborhoods like those in Central City could not compete with new suburban development. Additionally, few
in-fill lots were available, and because of post-war zoning changes it was more profitable to demolish single-
family structures and construct apartment buildings.
Multiple-family Dwellings: Duplexes and Apartment Buildings
Twenty-three duplexes were constructed during the historic period and represent four different styles. Most
numerous are those constructed during the first decade of the twentieth century. These are characterized by
flat roofs with heavy brick corbelling and are either one- or two-stories [photograph 23]. Their fenestration
pattern consists of single-light windows with a fixed transom in the street facade, and one-over-one windows,
either with segmental brick arches or wide stone lintels for secondary elevations. Most have some semblance
of a porch: often this is only a landing with a minimal roof covering, although a few have porches with classical
details that extend the full-length of the building. Linden Avenue and Reeves Court exhibit an exceptionally
fine assembly of this type and style of duplex [photographs 24-25]. Other duplex examples include six
Victorian Eclectic-style dwellings, with steeply-pitched front gables, two Tudor Revivals, and one Minimal
Traditional style residence at 944-46 E. 300 S., constructed about 1940 [photograph 26-27].
The boundary increase contains 62 apartment buildings comprising 10 percent of the building stock. These
buildings range in number of units from as few as four units to 114. The majority of the apartment buildings in
the boundary increase were constructed after World War II, but 14 were constructed during the city's initial
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 289 February 12, 2020
OMB No. 1024-0018, NPS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 7 Page 6 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County County, UT
apartment construction boom, lasting from 1901 to 1930. These multi-story apartment houses were a new
building form for Salt Lake City and indicated the rapid urbanization the city was experiencing at the beginning
of the twentieth century. This option attracted middle and upper class dwellers who were in transitional phases
of their lives: unmarried young adults, newly-married or childless couples and widows, widowers and retirees.
These apartment buildings were three to four stories high, were of brick construction, and relied on a variety of
stylistic references, usually either Classical Revival or Tudor Revival, for differentiation. Two different types
prevailed: the walk-up, in which each unit extended the full-length of the building, and the double-loaded
corridor, in which a number of units opened off of a central hallway on each floor [photographs 28-29]. The
walk-up was constructed before 1918, and the double-loaded corridor is associated with post-World War I
development. In the boundary increase, there are seven of both types.
Apartment buildings constructed after World War II generally had a small number of units (between four and
eight) with interior stairwells [photograph 30]. Because the circulation system was hidden from view, and
because of the low number of units, they could be made to resemble other single-family, "minimal traditional"
homes of this period, in that they had hipped roofs, were constructed of brick, and had similar fenestration
patterns and materials: steel sash with a large, fixed window flanked by narrow casements divided into four
lights. Often they were elevated on a high foundation in order to make the most of basement units.
This type persisted through the 1950's. Beginning in the early 1960s, another prototype was developed and
proliferated throughout the boundary increase: the "box-car" apartment building. The original ten-acre blocks
made for deep lots, and in order for developers to maximize their investment they re-oriented apartment
buildings to the side, so that the street fagade was either a blank wall or had only minimal window openings for
the end units. At least one, the New Broadmoor Apartments at 938 E. 300 South, has a decorative, screen-
wall of concrete block on the street fagade [photograph 31]. These boxcar apartments ranged between 10 to
40 units and were two or three stories. Each apartment opened to a covered concrete slab shared by all the
units on that floor. The roofs were flat or had a very shallow gabled pitch. Overall, they resembled California
motels of the 1960s.
Although the boxcar apartments had a deleterious effect on the streetscape, they were not as incongruous with
the neighborhood's historic architectural pattern as the high-rise buildings that were erected in the late 1960s.
These include the Sunset Towers, with 15 stories and 114 units at 40 S. 900 East, and the Stansbury, at 710
E. 200 South, with 76 units. Increasingly dense multi-family construction continued into the 1970s, but during
this decade multi-family development took on a different form of being lower in height with a garden-style
layout [photographs 32-34]. They were often constructed of brick and had a vertical orientation, achieved for
the most part by using long, sliding windows placed in a recessed, vertical band of a contrasting wall material
such as T-111 siding. Out of 15 that were constructed during the 1970s, only three were less than 10 units;
the remaining averaged 30 units. By the mid-1980s, Salt Lake City was in the midst of an economic downturn
and real estate slump, and there was little new construction in Central City during this time. Neighborhood
residents' dissatisfaction with past planning decisions and development, coupled with an interest in living
downtown and in historic preservation, led to zoning changes in 1985 and in 1995, when the city zoning code
was re-written. These changes were enacted to protect the existing lower-density development.
Commercial
The few commercial buildings date from the historic period were used as neighborhood stores, and are still
used for retail purposes [photograph 55]. In two instances, stores were connected to existing homes. These
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 290 February 12, 2020
OMB No. 1024-0018, NPS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 7 Page 7 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County County, UT
prototypes exist at 908 and 916 E. 300 South, and at 818 and 816 E. 100 South [photograph 35]. The
residential portions of these structures were constructed about 1895, and the commercial buildings were
attached about ten years later.
The majority of the commercial structures in the boundary increase are affiliated with the medical profession,
due to the proximity of Salt Lake Regional Medical Center, formerly known as Holy Cross Hospital, located at
1050 E. South Temple (but not included in this nomination because almost all of the buildings are out of the
historic period), and the Salt Lake Clinic, located at 333 S. 900 E. Additionally, the neighborhood is only a
couple of miles away from three other hospitals. The medical buildings include offices, clinics, and
rehabilitation centers [photograph 36].
Institutional
There are three churches in the boundary increase: the Eleventh Ward, a neighborhood branch of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (951 E. 100 South), Mt. Tabor Lutheran Church (189 S. 700 East), and St.
Paul's Episcopal Church (261 S. 900 East) [photograph 37]. Constructed in 1927, St. Paul's is the only
contributing ecclesiastical structure in the boundary increase. It consists of a small campus and includes a
Gothic Revival chapel and parsonage, both built in 1927 but designed by different architectural firms. Pope
and Burton, well-known for their Prairie School domestic and religious designs, designed the chapel, and Ware
and Treganza, designed the parsonage connected to the chapel.
Outbuildings
Outbuildings in the boundary increase consist primarily of single- and multi-car garages of frame construction
[photograph 56, 57]. These are accessed from streets or alleys, and are placed behind residential structures
at the rear of the lots. Carports generally accommodate the numerous apartment buildings, while the offices
have surface parking lots. At this writing, none of the garages could be considered individually significant.
Summary
The architecture, landscape features and overall streetscapes are a continuation of those found in the original
Central City Historic District, and are representative of the physical development of many decades of Salt Lake
City's development, from the 1860s to 1950. Although there have been intrusions, overall the integrity of the
neighborhood is high, and the trend toward commercial or large-scale multi-family development has slowed
considerably during the last ten years. Almost all of the buildings are residential and were constructed as
single-family dwellings; they retain their original scale, massing and materials and alterations that have marred
their integrity could be reversed. The majority was built from 1870 to 1920, and portrays the multitude of
architectural styles that proliferated in the United States during that time. The architecture and layout of the
boundary increase reinforces its association with Salt Lake City's emergence as a city of regional importance
at the beginning of the twentieth century.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 291 February 12, 2020
OMB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 7 Page 8 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County County, UT
Summary Statistics
(Based on a February 2001 update of the 1995 reconnaissance level survey)
Evaluation/Status
(661 total Primary)
(188 total Outbuildings)
(849 total both)
Construction Dates
(contributing
buildings
only)
Original Use
(contributing
buildings
only)
Architectural Styles*
(contributing
buildings
only)
Architectural Types
(contributing
buildings
only)
Contributing
74% (488 total)
61% (114 total)
71% (602 total)
1860S-1870S 1880s
Non-contributing
26% (173 total: 91 altered; 82 out-of-period)
39% (74 total)
29% (247 total)
1890s 1900s
1% 3%
1910s 1920s
14% 17%
Single Dwellings
18% 36%
1930s 1940S-1950
4% 7%
Apartment Buildings
80%18%
Commercial. Public & Religious Buildings
2%
Classical Picturesoue Victorian
5% 2%
Period Revival
18%
Settlement-Era
2%
Period Revival
5%
Apart/Hotel
10%
Adobe Stone
45%
World War II Era
4%
Victorian Bungalow
40% 22%
WW Il/Earlv Ranch
1%
Commercial/Public
2%
Stucco/Plaster
.5% 1% 15%
Brick Striated Brick Concrete
67% 11%1%
Bunoalow/Earlv 20 th Cent.
30%
Modern Other
1% 10%
Four sguare
6%
Double House
7%
Other
5%
Wood
36%
Veneer
5.5%
Construction Materials*
(contributing
buildings
only)
Total exceeds 100 percent due to the number of buildings constructed in more than one style and with more than one material.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 292 February 12, 2020
0MB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 8 Page 1 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
Narrative Statement of Significance
The Central City Historic District Boundary Increase is significant under criteria A and C. Under criterion A it is
significant for its association with the transformation of Salt Lake City from an isolated, agriculturally based
community to an industrial and commercial center of regional importance. It is presented as a boundary
increase to the Central City Historic District because it represents a continuation of the pattern of land use and
architectural development seen within the original boundaries of the district. While this district retains the large,
ten-acre blocks and wide streets that characterized the earliest planning efforts of the Mormon pioneers who
settled the Salt Lake Valley, it also exhibits the inner-block development and infill associated with the city's
urbanization that roughly occurred from 1880 to 1910. This urbanization resulted from a greatly expanded
economy, made possible primarily because of rail access to national markets and politics. Under criterion C
the district is significant for the diversity and integrity of the representative architectural types and styles. The
architecture of the rapidly growing city began to reflect new prosperity and an awareness of popular styles,
representing a shift from early vernacular versions of the classical revival styles that the settlers knew from the
communities they left behind. As in the existing Central City Historic District, the boundary increase
neighborhood thus derives its greatest significance as an illustration of the progression from an insular,
communal society to a politically and economically mainstreamed American city.
Initial Settlement: 1847 to 1869
The sixteen blocks included in the boundary increase encompass the northeastern corner of Central City and
is part of a larger area, referred to by the same name, that is associated with the original plan of Salt Lake.
Modeled loosely on L.D.S. Church founder Joseph Smith's "Plat of the City of Zion," Salt Lake City was divided
into a grid pattern of ten-acre blocks, with a block in the center reserved for the temple and wide streets of 132
feet. The blocks were divided into 8 lots of 1.25 acres each, enough to accommodate a family and the
agricultural needs of everyday living, such as a vegetable garden, fruit trees and a few livestock and chickens.
This system was designed to establish an efficient use of land and prevent social isolation.
In February 1849, the city was divided into nineteen wards, the smallest ecclesiastical unit of the L.D.S.
Church. Each ward contained nine blocks, and represented not only an ecclesiastical grouping but also served
social and political purposes. A bishop presided over each ward and was responsible for both the religious
and secular administration of matters in their districts. The Bryant neighborhood contains portions of the
historic boundaries of the Eleventh and Tenth wards.1
Shortly after their arrival in the Salt Lake valley in 1847, Mormon leaders planned to erect an eight foot high
adobe wall from the Jordan River east along Ninth South Street, to about 950 East, north to approximately Fifth
Avenue and westward to the river. Beyond the wall to the south was the "Big Field," an area laid out in parcels
1 The historic area of the Eleventh ward included the blocks bounded by 600 East, 900 East, South Temple to 300 South. The Tenth ward included the
blocks bordered by 600 East, 900 East, 300 South and 600 South streets.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 293 February 12, 2020
0MB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 8 Page 2 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
of five acres "to accommodate the mechanics and artisans."2 Much of the land within the wall was intended to
be used for cropland, as the village settlement extended eastward only to 300 East. The wall was never
finished as planned, but a fence of poles and adobe enclosed the entire area in the late 1850s and protected
the land best suited and most convenient for crops. It also left the city with a physical demarcation between
the initial layout of ten-acre blocks north of 900 South and the smaller blocks and streets associated with turn-
of-the-century subdivisions in what had been the Big Field south of 900 South.
Commercial and residential activity revolved around the Temple core, yet despite the intentions of Mormon
leaders to concentrate settlement close to the center of the city it did not take more than a few years for
residents to move east. Some families moved beyond the eastern boundary of the city wall (at about 950
East), and by 1860 scattered homes could be found as far as Thirteenth East. An 1870 bird's eye view map
shows an even pattern of development for almost all of the early platted areas, including the blocks from 700 to
1000 East that are included in the boundary increase.
The earliest residents in the Bryant neighborhood were, of course, Mormon immigrants, many of whom were
born in the British Isles and immigrated to the United States upon converting to the L.D.S. Church. As in
Central City, these residents were working-class families - painters, carpenters, and laborers. Extant homes
associated with these early occupants include 856 E. 200 South, constructed for Francis Hughes, a painter;
234 S, 900 E., constructed for William Child, an upholsterer and his wife Agnes; and 847 E. 300 S.,
constructed for William Hawkes, a butcher, and his wife Ada [photographs 1, 38-40]. The fact that these
homes are among the earliest in the boundary increase is reflected in the massing and floor plan associated
with the pre-railroad era of the city's history. Both the Hughes and the Child residences are hall-parlor in plan,
are one-story in height and have side-gabled rooflines. They also have the heavy fascias and cornice returns
that are reminiscent of the classical styles favored by early Mormon settlers. The Hawkes home is a cross-
wing plan with a roofline that is more complex than that of the hall-parlor plan, and represented a later, but still
early, phase of architectural development in the boundary increase.
Transition: 1870 to 1900
Brigham Young's ideal of maintaining Salt Lake City as an isolated, religious Utopia was sharply curtailed by
the events of the 1870s. The coming of the transcontinental railroad in Utah in 1869, the development of
mining in the state and the subsequent influx of "Gentiles" (non-Mormons) transformed the city into a
commercial center with a rapidly growing population. No longer would Salt Lake residents be dependent on an
agrarian way of life; the expanding economy provided them with opportunity for employment downtown and in
the rail yards (west of the commercial core). In response to increasingly concentrated places of employment,
Salt Lake's mass transit system advanced from mule-drawn street cars in the central business district in the
early 1870's to an extensive network that transported passengers throughout the valley by 1890. Because
Central City was especially well-served by the streetcar system, residents could easily travel from their homes
to jobs and businesses not only in the commercial and industrial sections of town, but also to new commercial
centers and neighborhoods in the south part of city. By 1891, eight routes extended eastward from Main
2 A/P Associates Planning and Research, Salt Lake City Architectural/Historical Survey: Central/Southern Survey Area, prepared for the Salt Lake City
Planning Division, 1983, p. 21.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 294 February 12, 2020
0MB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 8 Page 3 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
Street to 700 East. Of these eight, one route went as far as 1300 East along 100 South, one extended to 1000
East along 200 South and another traversed 400 South to University Street, curving around the bench at 1000
East. All three lines tied into the Salt Lake and Fort Douglas Railroad that could transport passengers past
2100 South.3
This availability of public transit dramatically changed land-use patterns and introduced new building types.
Since residential expansion was dependent on and followed the development of public transportation systems,
it resulted not only in new subdivisions in the Big Field, but created much denser development in the older
Central City neighborhoods. The large lots had become obsolete because their purpose as gardens and
keeping livestock had largely ceased. Early pioneer families divided up their original lots and gave or sold
them to family members, and developers purchased lots and subdivided them. Narrow, interior streets divided
the ten-acre blocks, small parcels carved up the large lots, and lawns and shade trees replaced gardens and
orchards. By 1898, the earliest year that Sanborn maps portray the Bryant neighborhood, ten interior courts
were established. This does not count the numerous private alleys that also accommodated separate parcels
and homes. Most of this inner-block development was completed by 1911, however, such development also
occurred in the 1920's and after World War II on one street, Barbara Place, at the southeastern corner of the
boundary add ition [photograph 19]. The increase in the density of the land-use pattern was first manifested in
interior-block courts and later in multi-story apartment buildings that accommodated a diverse population.
Inner-block courts
Dooley Court, a quiet cul-de-sac that runs north from 200 South at 825 East, is illustrative of both the physical
layout of these narrow, inner-block streets and of the economically disparate population that characterized
Central City [photograph 41]. It consisted of twenty-two houses (twenty-one are extant) that were constructed
in two phases. Originally called "Wellington Court," it was instigated by James Harvey in 1894. He
constructed fourteen cottages in 1894 that faced each other along the center of the street. Four years later he
built four two-story homes along 200 South Street, an asymmetrical cottage at the head of the cul-de-sac and
two additional cottages [photograph 42]. The name of the street was presumably changed when a mining
investor, William J. Dooley, purchased the property in 1903.4 The remaining structures were built the following
year.
Census data from 1910 and 1920 indicate that professionals and managers lived in the more imposing two-
story houses on 200 South, while single-story cottages on Dooley Court housed railroad workers, salesmen
and clerks. The early tenants were highly migratory, and with one exception, none of the renters stayed in the
cottages more than five years. These census records also indicate that all the Dooley Court residents during
this period were white, were born in the United States and were first generation children of immigrants from
Canada, Sweden, Holland and the British Isles. They were almost all married couples with children. Sixty
percent of the residents in 1910 were children under 14; in 1920, this had increased to 78 percent. Once the
homes began to become privately owned in 1939, the residents became much less mobile.5
3 APA, p. 63
4 Mary Troutman, Wellington/Dooley Court: A Practical Alternative to the American Dream, research paper, 1994, p. 5.
5 Troutman, Wellington/Dooley Court p. 8.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 295 February 12, 2020
0MB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 8 Page 4 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
The scale of the homes on Dooley Court is typical of the majority of dwellings found on the interior streets:
they are small, one-story structures that range from 600 to 1,000 square feet with four or five rooms. The
Dooley Court homes were built on sandstone foundations, with hipped roofs and hipped front bays. Original
decorative elements were minimal, consisting of the front bays, segmented arched windows, and transoms
above the front doors. Although these homes had front porches, they were very plain [photograph 43]. The
four eight-room homes on 200 South, however, were much more elaborate and spacious. They are two
stories, and are distinguished by decorative dogtooth brick courses, and distinctive porches with turned
columns, square balustrades and intricate molding on the porch frieze. They are approximately 2,000 square
feet.
Dooley Court offered a practical housing alternative to families who wanted to live in single-family residences
but lacked the financial resources or stability needed to purchase their own homes. Housing options like those
provided on Dooley Court offered pleasant cottages with modern amenities, lawns, porches and tree-lined play
areas for children to migratory residents who sought living quarters that provided for easy relocation.6
Commercial Development
With the exception of the medically related development that occurred beginning in the 1960's, almost all of
commercial enterprises in the boundary increase were established during this thirty-year period. The 1898
Sanborn map indicates small businesses, including a handful of corner, neighborhood grocery stores, the N.R.
Sen/is Candy Factory at approximately 850 E. 100 South, and the Standard Steam and Hand Laundry Co. at
145 S. Dunbar Avenue (now Lincoln Street). Larger concerns included nurseries, such as the Valley Home
Greenhouse on Floral Lane (now Linden Avenue, between 1000 and 1100 East streets) and Eastern Nurseries
at approximately 840 E. 300 South, owned by Edward Laker. The florists and nurserymen are not listed in city
directories after 1898, and the laundry and candy factory do not appear on the 1911 Sanborn map.
The most imposing commercial enterprise was the Salt Lake Brewery, established in 1871 at 1000 East and
400 South. The location for the brewery was chosen because of a natural mineral water spring found on the
site. By 1911, the site included four large, Romanesque structures designed by Richard Kletting, the architect
of the Utah State Capitol and was one of the three largest breweries in the state, employing three-hundred
men. Prohibition was the death knell for the brewery, and although there were efforts to revive the company as
the Cullen Ice and Beverage Company, this endeavor was not as profitable as the brewery, and the buildings
fell into decline. The brewery's office and bottling works, located across the street (and out of this boundary
increase) at 462 S. 1000 East remain, but the original site was redeveloped as the City View Apartments
[photographs 48-49] after World War II.7
Extant commercial structures in the boundary district that date from the historic period consist of small, retail
establishments, such as the Bryant Grocery at 702 E. 100 South, adaptively re-used as a ski store, and the
Cyrus Foote Commercial building at 942-944 E. 200 South, which was constructed about 1920, and is
currently a grocery store [photograph 55].
6 Ibid, p. 6.
^ Mary Troutman, Salt Lake City Brewing Company (Office and Bottling Works), Designation Form for listing on the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural
Resources.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 296 February 12, 2020
OMB No. 1024-0018, NPS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 8 Page 5 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
Account of Thomas Child
The reminiscences of long-time Central City resident, Thomas Battersby Child, (1888 - 1963) provides an
understanding of the transition the neighborhood east of 700 East underwent during this period. Child was
born in 1888 at 145 S. 700 East, in a home constructed for his great-grandmother in 1855. In 1911, he moved
with his wife to a house a few blocks to the south, 452 S. 800 East, where he resided until his death in 1963.
He lived amidst generations of a large immediate and extended family, and describes in detail the homes and
activities of numerous neighbors. His descriptions of his family's use of their property on 700 East and of
changes that occurred both architecturally and horticulturally provide a compelling look at the appearance of
the neighborhood and the interactions of its residents.
Child describes the progression of his family's building efforts. After living in the 1855 house for a few years,
the house was sold "during the boom of the early 1890's for a good price...." His parents built a home for their
family at the east end of the same lot, at the center of the block, anticipating the creation of an interior block
street that failed to materialize. He states:" My father and mother thought a street would be cut north and
south through the block which never worked out, much to their chagrin and embarrassment. The only entrance
to the property was a driveway between the old Harrocks home and Grandpa Livingston's."
Child was born just before the Salt Lake and Jordan Canal, the main source of culinary and irrigation water in
the city, was submerged. In the Bryant neighborhood it ran from 400 South to 300 South between 1000 East
and 900 East streets, and as boy the canal was a source of income, as he caught frogs to sell for frog legs. In
his neighborhood, the canal was probably covered sometime in the mid-1890s, and he writes, "The city canal
was finally all covered over... It is a great change, probably the greatest in the landscape of our
neighborhood."
Despite the modification in the area's appearance due to work on the canal, it is Child's accounts of the
landscaping in the area that are particularly detailed. They reveal the transition that the neighborhood
underwent from an agrarian landscape of irrigation ditches and stands of Lombardy Poplars, to one of
streetcars and apartment buildings. He writes of his parents' home:
Our yard, as was [sic] all the yards at that time, was orchards and gardens. How vividly I remember the
old coal shed on the alley, sturdily built with the studs on the outside and my pigeon coop on the one
end, with the Red Astrican apple tree and swing right next.7
Two beautiful evergreen trees of different variety were in the front yard with a latticework fence or grill
running south from a south porch... and to a driveway going to the barn. The driveway to the barn was
bordered with a row of Lombardy poplar trees, as was the front yard boundary next to the sidewalk on
700 East. The sidewalks in those days were dirt and had Locust trees planted along the irrigation ditch
between the sidewalk and wagon road. The front and south side was lawn with a garden of choice
perennial flowers, rose bushes and shrubs growing next to the lattice fence.
Several times Child refers to his and his friends' use of the large fields near his home: "In front of our home
was a big field which was used as playground by all boys of the ward...In fact, it was the trail from the school
7 Child, p. 2.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 297 February 12, 2020
0MB No. 1024-0018, NPS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 8 Page 6 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
and developed into a nuisance."8 Assuming that this describes the area about 1900, development had not
encroached into the middle of the block, and although his home was less than a mile from Main Street, his
immediate environment retained some of its early, rural appearance.
The recollections Child provides, however, of his neighbors' homes, indicates that not only was the periphery
of his and nearby blocks filling in with new homes, but that they were often occupied by non-Mormons. He
refers frequently to friends who are non-Mormon, such as Julius Rosenblatt, the son of mining magnate Simon
Rosenblatt, and Harry and Duncan Beveridge, whose father was a mining engineer. He also discusses the
economic disparity that existed among the Mormon families in the area. His own parents suffered financial
constraints, as indicated by his statement that "our home was never really finished until I was a boy of 17 or 18
years of age and could help my folks financially."9 Yet at a young age he perceived the affluence of fellow
church member and polygamist James Perry Freeze, who supported four wives who lived on the corners of
700 East and 200 South: "Contrasting this [the economic situation of his aunts and parents], I have observed
Brother James P. Freeze with a big fine house for each of his three wives operating two successful stores and
a farm [photograph 10]."10 And his long description of his father's association with Francis Armstrong, a very
successful businessman with a Queen Anne-style mansion at the corner of 700 East and 100 South, reveals
his pride that his father, although poor, was accepted by this wealthy family. Overall, Child's recollections
describe a neighborhood at the turn of the century that had absorbed residents of varying religions and
economic means, all within a few decades of the settlement of a religious Utopia with communal economic
goals.
Mature Community, 1900-1925
By 1900, Salt Lake's economy was similar to that of any other American city of its size. It had vastly expanded
beyond the cooperative venture envisioned by early Mormon leaders, and its citizens no longer had to endure
a subsistence way of life. By 1900 Salt Lake City's population consisted of a blend of ethnic groups, class
distinctions and religious affiliations. While the concentration of fine mansions built along South Temple Street
during the first decade of this century are not found in the Bryant neighborhood, less elaborate but comfortable
homes constructed by middle- and upper-class businessmen and professionals can be found throughout the
boundary increase. At the same time, the number of owners who took in boarders indicates that the
neighborhood housed many lower-income people as well. In the early years of the twentieth century, this part
of Salt Lake City was quickly losing its early-settlement appearance. The variety of the residents' professions
and business associations portray the complexity of the economy and society that Salt Lake had attained by
the early part of the last century, and this complexity is reflected in the number of housing and types and styles
found in the Bryant neighborhood.
Prominent businessmen include Stephen M. Covey (945 E. 100 S.), whose ventures remained profitable
concerns for many decades [photograph 44]. Covey built his four-square house in 1907, and although he was
8 Child, p. 15.
9 Child, p. 7.
10 Child, p. 4.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 298 February 12, 2020
OMB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 8 Page 7 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
a sheep man at the time, he established enterprises in irrigation, real estate development and entertainment.
His best-known business was Little America, a large combination of gas station, cafe and motel that was built
on the site in the western Wyoming desert where Mr. Covey had been lost in a blizzard years before.
Several affluent residents were associated with the state's booming mining industry. These include William
Dooley, developer of the eponymous inner court, who had mines in Nevada and lived at 823 E. 200 South;
Robert Lewis, who became Dean of the School of Mines at the University of Utah and who lived at 1023 E. 300
South, and Samuel Sherrill, vice-president of Liberty Fuel, a coal-mining concern (975 E. 100 South.)
[photograph 18]. Several prominent lawyers and judges represented the legal profession in the neighborhood,
including Thomas D. Lewis (921 E. 100 South.) and George Goodwin (217 S. 800 East.). Lewis lived in the
neighborhood for almost fifty years, (1901 to 1949) before moving to California in 1956. In addition to his
private practice, he served in the Utah State Legislature, taught at the University of Utah Law School, and
served as a Third District Court judge from 1903 to 1914. Goodwin, after moving to Salt Lake in 1892 from the
mid-west, where had had served as attorney general of North Dakota, established a successful law firm with
Henry Van Pelt. He resided in his Bryant neighborhood home from 1900 to 1918. Many residents who either
built homes or resided in the neighborhood during this period were physicians, salespeople or merchants.
Perhaps the resident who played the most cosmopolitan role in the neighborhood was Fortunate Anselmo, who
lived with his wife, Anna, at 164 S. 900 East [photograph 45]. Anselmo lived in this foursquare home from 1920
to 1950, and is a significant figure in the history of Utah and Wyoming for his role in the Italian community.
Appointed Italian vice-consul for these states in 1915, he presided over an office responsible for processing all
requests for passports, visas and other documents that required official approval of the Italian government. He
also served as a representative of the Bank of Naples; in this capacity he assisted local Italians in sending
money orders to relatives in the "old country." This function was of vital importance to immigrants whose
families in their native countries depended on their American earnings for support. The Italian immigrants were
employed in industries that necessitated a mobile population: mining, smelting and the railroad, and they had
to rely stability of the services Anselmo offered. Although his consular office was located at his place of
business, 249 Rio Grande Street, his home served as a location for official receptions and informal entertaining
for Italian dignitaries and personalities, as well as numerous public officials who often visited the Anselmo
home as guests.
But not everyone in the Bryant neighborhood was prosperous and well connected. The census records of
1910 indicate that a substantial number of residents were working-class laborers and that at least half of the
residents rented their dwellings. Although records indicate that the number of households who took in
boarders to augment their incomes does not seem as prevalent until the late 1920s and 1930s, many
households accommodated in-laws and extended family members. They also relied on teenagers who had left
school in order to work. Overall, the illustration in the previous text describing Dooley Court held true for much
of the neighborhood: laborers and trades people rented the small, modest homes located in the interior-block
courts, while middle and upper-class residents occupied larger homes on major streets. The census record of
Frank Assenberg (221 S. Iowa Street), describes many households in the Bryant neighborhood during this era.
In 1910, Assenberg, who was listed as the head of the household and worked as a teamster, was 22 years old,
his wife was 20, and they had an infant daughter. Assenberg' s mother-in-law, Ida Steurman, and her three
children, ages 18, 14 and 12, also lived in the house. The children worked: the 18-year-old son was an
elevator boy, and the daughters worked as servants in private homes. The Assenbergs and the Steurmans
had immigrated to the United States from Holland in 1906. They rented their small, clapboard house on Iowa
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 299 February 12, 2020
0MB No. 1024-0018, NPS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 8 Page 8 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
Street, a thoroughfare located between 900 and 1000 East streets and 200 and 300 South streets [photograph
46].
Depression and Decline: 1923-1955
Beginning in the 1920s, the Bryant neighborhood and Central City began a slow and inescapable decline
owing to the rise of the automobile, the attraction of new suburbs for people prosperous enough to have
housing choices, and newly-enacted zoning regulations that allowed the encroachment of incompatible uses.
This decline can also be attributed to the fact that Utah suffered depressed economic times much earlier than
the rest of the nation because of the rapid deflation of commodity prices after World War I. The transition of
the neighborhood was in part characterized by the construction of multi-family apartments and the conversion
of many single-family homes into rentals, boarding houses and small apartment buildings. Accordingly, in
1927 Salt Lake City adopted its first zoning ordinance and established seven land-use zones. The fact that the
Bryant neighborhood was zoned "Residential B-2," allowing apartments and hotels, as opposed to the lower-
density "Residential A," which only allowed one- and two-family homes, reflected both the existing land-use
patterns and the view of local government that the neighborhood could absorb higher-density land-use
patterns. (The use of Residential A zones were located in the newly-built suburbs in the original Big Field).
City directories demonstrate that the trend of converting single-family homes into apartments began in the
early 1920s, and continued through the Depression, the war years and into the 1950s. This occurred in the
homes along the numbered streets, which were generally larger than dwellings on the interior block streets and
could accommodate multiple units. For example, the 1926 directory lists John Stewart, an engineer with the
Utah State Road Commission, as the sole household at 176 S. 1100 East [photograph 47], By 1933, two
additional separate households are listed, Omer Stewart and Haner Stewart, each married and presumably
relatives. Five years later Mr. Stewart's residence housed six separate households. Out of a cursory study of
35 houses on the numbered streets that were converted into apartments, approximately half seemed to follow
a similar pattern: single-family ownership in the early 1920s, single-family with a couple of boarders in the
1930s, and conversion into four or more apartments by the early 1950s. The other patterns include conversion
from single-family to two-family units that did not increase in number, or the retention of single-family units until
the 1950s that then exploded into five or more units.
Despite the lack of infill development potential and a perception that the neighborhood was in decline, there
was still residential construction in the neighborhood during this period. Three notable developments include a
group of bungalows on Barbara Place, constructed in 1922; a low-density garden-style apartment complex,
also on Barbara Place, constructed in 1945, and a similar development at 808 E. 300 S. that was built in 1947.
Barbara Place, located in the southeast corner of the boundary increase, did not exist before 1922, as it was
created to accommodate the bungalow development at the east end of the street. Originally this land had
been the site of three ice ponds that belonged to the Salt Lake Brewing Company, whose facilities were
located at the west end of the block. The Halloran-Judge Company developed the bungalows, which consisted
of twelve one-story, brick houses, six on each side of the street. They were Prairie School in design and were
valued at $3,000 [photograph 19].
Just after World War II, the west end of the street was filled in with a series of low-density apartment blocks,
known as the "City View Apartments," that contrast sharply with the bungalows [photographs 48-49]. The
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 300 February 12, 2020
0MB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 8 Page 9 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
apartments consist of two-story, side-gabled buildings with some red brick cladding but exhibiting mostly
asbestos siding. They show a slight Colonial Revival influence because of their symmetry and six-over-six
light windows. They consist of four-unit blocks with central stairwells and two units per floor. An ambitious Salt
Lake businessman, Sid Eliason, developed the City View complex. Eliason was born in Snowville, Utah, in
1902 and started his career of the Brigham City (Utah) National Bank. He went on to become the head of
several different companies, most of which were related to construction, and was active in civic affairs. He was
also the developer of the ten-story Charleston Apartments (470 S. 1300 East) east of Barbara Place, which
were constructed in 1950 and are in the University Neighborhood Historic District, listed on the National
Register in 1994.
The other post-war apartment development mentioned above was constructed in 1946 to 1947 by contractors
Roy A. Menlove and Frank J. Miller, about whom little is known. Neither is there information on the
subsequent owners, Joe and Emma Bertagnolli, who purchased the complex soon after its construction.
These apartments are brick, two-stories in height and are similar in their configuration to the City View
Apartments, as they consist of four-unit blocks with centrally placed entrances and stairwells [photograph 50].
This is a smaller complex, however, with 12 units as opposed to the 30 found in the City View. There is also a
more formal site plan: it is laid out in an inverted "U" plan, while the City View is more amorphous as it follows
steep topography.
Erosion of Residential Character: 1955 to 1995
The post-war development mentioned above may have been less desirable because it was rental, but at least
it did not disrupt the historic residential and low-density character of the neighborhood. Overall, however, the
blight suffered by the Bryant neighborhood accelerated during the 1950s and 1960s and to a large extent was
exacerbated by insensitive government policies. In the case of the Bryant neighborhood, the policy at the local
level was in the form of the adoption of the Residential "R-6" zoning in November, 1955, which expanded
allowed uses to include "hospitals for human beings, medical clinics, sanitariums..." Although Holy Cross
Hospital (now known as Salt Lake Regional Medical Center) had been a part of the neighborhood since 1875,
its facilities were primarily contained for decades on the block bordered by South Temple, 100 South, 1100
East and 1000 East. The 1955 amendment to the zoning ordinance, however, changed the complexion of the
neighborhood. At least fifteen clinics, medical office buildings and nursing homes were erected between 1959
and 1975 were erected, each one necessitating the demolition of at least two or three homes. Most of the
medically-related buildings were one- or two-stories, but the Salt Lake Clinic, which relocated from 115 E.
South Temple in 1959 to its present site at 333 S. 900 E., is several stories and continues to grow. Because
the R-6 zone also allowed private clubs and fraternal organizations, a Y.M.C.A. gymnasium and swimming
complex was completed in 1965 at 737 E. 200 S., on a site adjacent to Thomas Child's family home.
Efforts for Preservation
Within the past fifteen years the residents of the Central City, Bryant and University neighborhoods have
become increasingly active in their attempts to reverse the encroachment of non-residential uses in these
areas. Those residents who live furthest east have been the most successful because zoning patterns did not
encourage intense development pressure to the same extent as it did in the neighborhoods closest to the
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 301 February 12, 2020
OMB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 8 Page 10 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
central business district. These neighborhoods have also become increasingly attractive to people seeking to
avoid long commutes and who value the experience of living in an urban environment. Despite the unfortunate
encroachment of incompatible commercial uses, the Bryant neighborhood has retained much of its earlier
appearance, including many historic homes, tree-lined streets and landscaped parking strips between the
streets and the sidewalks. As with Central City, the Bryant neighborhood is unique in Salt Lake, as it is one of
the best-preserved residential areas where one can discern the original layout of the community and early
attempts to alter this pattern in response to Salt Lake's transition from Mormon Utopia to regional capital.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 302 February 12, 2020
OMB No. 1024-0018, NPS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No.9 Page 1 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
Bibliography
Bird's Eye View of Salt Lake City, Utah Territory, 1870. Chicago, II: Chicago Lithographing Company.
Original on file the Maps Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
Boyce, Ronald R. An Historical Geography of Greater Salt Lake City, Utah. M.S. Thesis, University of Utah,
1957.
Carter, Thomas and Peter Goss. Utah's Historic Architecture, 1847-1940: a guide. Salt Lake City, Utah:
University of Utah Press, 1988.
Child, Thomas B., Jr. The Personal Journal of Thomas B. Child, Jr. 1963. On file at the Salt Lake City
Planning Division.
[Miscellaneous Historic Site Forms and Intensive Level Survey Files]. Prepared by Cory Jensen, Roger Roper,
et al. Available at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office.
National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form: Anselmo, Fortunato House. Prepared by Philip
Notarianni, May 1979. Copy available at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office.
National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form: Central City Historic District. Prepared by Christine
McKenna and Lisa Miller, February 1996. Copy available at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office.
National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form: Meyer, Frederick A. E., House. Prepared by Roger
Roper and Deborah Temme, March 1983. Copy available at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office.
National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form: Ramsey, Lewis A. House. Prepared by Korral
Broschinsky, March, 1999. Copy available at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office.
National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form: Historic Resources of Salt Lake City: Urban Expansion
into the Early Twentieth Century, 1890's -1930's. Prepared by Roger Roper, xxx, 1989. Copy available
at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office.
Polk Directories, Salt Lake City, 1893-1993. Published by R.L. Polk & Co. Available at the Utah State
Historical Society and the Marriott Library, University of Utah.
Salt Lake City Bryant Neighborhood Reconnaissance Survey. Conducted by Cory Jensen, 1995. Copy
available at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps for Salt Lake City, 1889, 1898, 1911, 1950 and 1986. Available at the Utah
State Historical Society and the Marriott Library, University of Utah.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 303 February 12, 2020
OMB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No.9 Page 2 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
Troutman, Mary. Salt Lake City Brewing Company (Office and Bottling Works), Designation Form for listing on
the Salt Lake City Register of Cultural Resources, 1995. Copy available at the Salt Lake City Planning
Division Office.
—„—————. Wellington/Dooley Court: A Practical Alternative to the American Dream. TMs, 1994. Copy
available at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office.
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census. United States Census of Population: 1910.
Characteristics of the Assenberg, Frank, household.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 304 February 12, 2020
0MB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No.10 Page 1 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
Verbal Boundary Description
DESCRIPTION WRITTEN FROM SALT LAKE CITY SURVEY ATLAS PLATS AND OWNERSHIP
RECORDS.
Beginning 165 feet South and 66 feet West from the Northwest corner of Block 59, Plat "B", Salt Lake City
Survey, part of the Section 5, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; thence East
2314.48 feet more or less along South line of the South Temple Historic District to the East line of Block 57 of
said Plat "B", point is also 165 feet South from the Northeast corner of said Block 57; thence South 626.43 feet
along East line of said Block 57 and continuing to the Northeast corner of Block 56 of said Plat "B"; thence East
862.56 feet along North line of Block 29, Plat "F" to the West line of University Neighborhood Historical District
and the center line of 1100 East street; thence South 3035.8 feet along West lines of said University
Neighborhood Historical District to the point 66 feet East from Southeast corner of Block 20, Plat "F"; thence
West along South line of Block 20 of said Plat "F" 396 feet to the Southeast corner of Lot 2 of said Block 20;
thence Northwesterly along a 329.78 foot radius curve to the right 198.51 feet; thence North 14°43'55" East
1.22 feet; thence Northwesterly along a 313.22 foot radius curve to the right 103.26 feet; thence North
32°09'24" West 39.17 feet; thence North 32°09'04" West 10.78 feet; thence Northwesterly along a 348.92 foot
radius curve to the right 76.51 feet; thence South 69°35'22" West 1.12 feet; thence Northwesterly along a
329.78 foot radius curve to the right 78.71 feet to the point on South line of Fuller Avenue and the East right of
way line of U.S. Highway 40; thence North along said East right of way 568.1 feet; thence West 224.05 feet;
thence North 65 feet to the North line of Lot 1, Block 42, Plat "B"; thence West along a Lot line 107.25 feet;
thence North 60 feet; thence East 33 feet; thence North 88.5 feet to the South line of Braddley Place; thence
West along said South line 165 feet; thence North 33 feet; thence East 152.5 feet along North line of said
Braddley Place; thence North 148.5 feet to the North line of Lot 7 of said Block 42; thence West 152.5 feet
along said Lot 7 to the Northwest corner of said Lot 7; thence South 82.5 feet along West line of Lot 7; thence
West 140 feet; thence North 82.5 feet to the North line of Lot 4 of said Block 42; thence West along Lot line
12.625 feet; thence North 165 feet to the North line of said Block 42; thence West along Block line 47.25 feet;
thence South 115.5 feet; thence West 265.275 feet to the East line of Block 41; thence South along East line of
Block 41, 379.5 feet; thence West 192 feet; thence South 5 feet; thence West 63.75 feet; thence South 11.5
feet; thence West 33 feet to the West line of Strongs Court; thence South 148.5 feet; thence West 41.25 feet
along South line of Block 41, Plat "B" to the Southwest corner of Lot 2 of said Block 41; thence North 148.5
feet; thence West 49 feet; thence North 16.5 feet; thence West 173.25 feet; thence South 41.25 feet; thence
West 107.25 feet to the West line of said Block 41; thence North along the West line 54.75 feet; thence West
249.3 feet; thence North 3 feet; thence West 16.5 feet; thence North 82.5 feet; thence East 49.5 feet; thence
North 41.25 feet to the South line of Linden Avenue; thence West along said South line 187.75 feet; thence
North 72°21'27" West along said South line 62.69 feet more or less to the East line of Lot 3, Block 40, Plat "B";
thence West 396 feet to the East line of the Central City Historical District and 66 feet West from West line of
Block 40, Plat "B"; thence North along East line of Central City Historical District 734.31 feet; thence West 66
feet to the intersection of 700 East street right of way and North line of Markea Avenue; thence West along
North line of Markea Avenue 303 feet; thence South 10 feet; thence West 27 feet; thence North 16.5 feet;
thence West 165 feet; thence North 462 feet to the point 66 feet North of the North line of Block 46, Plat "B";
thence East along a line parallel to the said North Block line 561 feet; thence North 1355.45 feet more or less
along East line of Central City Historical District to the point of beginning.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 305 February 12, 2020
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
OMB No. 1024-0018, NPS Form
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No.10 Page 2 Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
UTM References
E 1/2 4/2/7/5/0/0 4/5/1/2/1/0/0
Zone Easting Northing
G1/2 4/2/7/2/6/0 4/5/1/2/4/2/0
Zone Easting Northing
I 1/2 4/2/7/0/9/0 4/5/1/2/5/4/0
Zone Easting Northing
K1/2 4/2/7/0/2/0 4/5/1/2/4/0/0
Zone Easting Northing
Ml/2 4/2/6/9/0/0 4/5/1/2/3/2/0
Zone Easting Northing
O1/2 4/2/6/8/8/0 4/5/1/2/3/9/0
Zone Easting Northing
Q1/2 4/2/6/7/2/0 4/5/1/2/4/6/0
Zone Easting Northing
SI/2 4/2/6/5/4/0 4/5/1/2/7/0/0
Zone Easting Northing
U1/2 4/2/6/3/8/0 4/5/1/2/8/2/0
Zone Easting Northing
F1/2 4/2/7/2/6/0 4/5/1/2/1/2/0
Zone Easting Northing
HI/2 4/2/7/1/0/0 4/5/1/2/4/0/0
Zone Easting Northing
J 1/2 4/2/7/0/4/0 4/5/1/2/5/4/0
Zone Easting Northing
LI/2 4/2/6/9/2/0 4/5/1/2/4/0/0
Zone Easting Northing
N1/2 4/2/6/8/8/0 4/5/1/2/3/2/0
Zone Easting Northing
P 1/2 4/2/6/7/2/0 4/5/1/2/4/0/0
Zone Easting Northing
R1/2 4/2/6/5/4/0 4/5/1/2/4/6/0
Zone Easting Northing
T 1/2 4/2/6/3/8/0 4/5/1/2/7/0/0
Zone Easting Northing
V 1/2 4/2/6/5/4/0 4/5/1/2/8/2/0
Zone Easting Northing
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 306 February 12, 2020
0MB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 10 Page 1 Central City Historic District Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
Common Label Information:
1. Central City Historic District, Boundary Increase
2. Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah
3. Photographer: Elizabeth E. Giraud
4. Date: January 2001
5. Negative on file at Utah SHPO.
6. Photograph No. 1
Francis Hughes house at 856 E. 200 South. Camera facing southeast.
6. Photograph No. 2
Residential structure at 824 E. Menlo Avenue. Camera facing east.
6. Photograph No. 3
George Baddley house at 974 E. 300 South. Camera facing southwest.
6. Photograph No. 4
Thomas and Mary James house at 335 S. 700 East. Camera facing east.
6. Photograph No. 5
Detail of stone scribing at 335 S. 700 E. Camera facing north.
6. Photograph No. 6
Ebenezer and Esther Miller house at 1017 E. 300 South. Camera facing north.
6. Photograph No. 7
Jane Chander house at 315 S. 700 East. Camera facing northeast.
6. Photograph No. 8
Frederick Meyer house at 929 E. 200 South. Camera facing north.
6. Photograph No. 9
Hyrum and Ann Reeve house at 718 E. 300 South. Camera facing south.
6. Photograph No. 10
James Freeze house at 734 E. 200 South. Camera facing southeast.
6. Photograph No. 11
Charles and Clara Nelson house at 334 S. 900 East. Camera facing northeast.
6. Photograph No. 12
Maurice and Effie Kaign house at 120 S. 1000 East. Camera facing southwest.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 307 February 12, 2020
OMB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 10 Page 2 Central City Historic District Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
6. Photograph No. 13
Ernest Thompson house at 955 E. 100 South. Camera facing northwest.
6. Photograph No. 14
George Mateer house at 250 S. 1000 East. Camera facing northwest.
6. Photograph No. 15
George Roper house at 805 E. 300 South. Camera facing north.
6. Photograph 16
David Spitz house at 1073 E. 200 South. Camera facing north.
6. Photograph 17
John and Mary Ellen Birch house at 336 S. 1100 East. Camera facing west.
6. Photograph 18
Samuel Sherrill house at 975 E. 100 South. Camera facing northeast.
6. Photograph 19
1051-1059 E. Barbara Place. Camera facing northwest.
6. Photograph 20
Brick bungalow at 338 S. 900 East. Camera facing west.
6. Photograph 21
Brick and stucco bungalow at 1023 E. 300 South. Camera facing northeast.
6. Photograph 22
Front-facing gabled bungalow at 121 S. Lincoln Street. Camera facing northeast.
6. Photograph 23
Early twentieth-century two-story duplex at 218-220 S. Iowa Street. Camera facing southwest.
6. Photograph 24
One-story duplex at 749 E. Linden Avenue. Camera facing north
6. Photograph 25
Streetscape of 739-753 E. Linden Avenue. Camera facing northwest.
6. Photograph 26
Tudor-Revival duplex at 857-859 E. 300 South. Camera facing northeast.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 308 February 12, 2020
0MB No. 1024-0018, NPS Form
United States Department of the Interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 10 Page 3 Central City Historic District Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
6. Photograph 27
Minimal Traditional style duplex at 944-946 E. 300 South. Camera facing southwest.
6. Photograph 28
Walk-up apartment building at 101 S. 800 East. Camera facing southeast.
6. Photograph 29
Double-loaded corridor apartment building at 706 E. 300 South. Camera facing southwest.
6. Photograph 30
Post World War II apartment building at 1032-1034 E. 300 South. Camera facing south.
6. Photograph 31
New Broadmoor apartments at 938 E. 300 South. Camera facing southwest.
6. Photograph 32
Sunset Towers condominiums at 40 S. 900 East. Camera facing southwest.
6. Photograph 33
Stansbury condominiums at 710 E. 200 South. Camera facing southwest.
6. Photograph 34
Shaughnessy condominiums at 253 S. 700 East. Camera facing southeast.
6. Photograph 35
816-818 E. 100 South. Camera facing southwest.
6. Photograph 36
Medical clinic at 745 E. 300 South. Camera facing northeast.
6. Photograph 37
St. Paul's Episcopal Church at 261 S. 900 East. Camera facing northeast.
6. Photograph 38
William and Agnes Child house at 234 S. 900 East. Camera facing west.
6. Photograph 39
William and Agnes Child house at 234 S. 900 East, Camera facing southeast.
6. Photograph 40
William and Ada Hawkes house at 847 E. 300 South. Camera facing north.
6. Photograph 41
West side of Dooley Court (825 East). Camera facing northwest.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 309 February 12, 2020
OMB No. 1024-0018, NFS Form
United States Department of the interior
National Park Service
National Register of Historic Places
Continuation Sheet
Section No. 10 Page 4 Central City Historic District Boundary Increase, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT
6. Photograph 42
835 and 839 E. 200 South. Camera facing northeast
6. Photograph 43
160 S. Dooley Court. Camera facing west.
6. Photograph 44
Stephen Covey house 945 E. 100 South. Camera facing northwest.
6. Photograph 45
Fortunato and Anna Anselmo house at 164 S. 900 East. Camera facing northwest.
6. Photograph 46
Frank Assenberg house at 221 S. Iowa Street. Camera facing southeast.
6. Photograph 47
John Stewart house at 176 S. 1100 East. Camera facing west.
6. Photograph 48
1029-1033 E. Barbara Place. Camera facing west.
6. Photograph 49
1020 E. Barbara Place. Camera facing southeast.
6. Photograph 50
808 E. 300 South. Camera facing south.
6. Photograph 51
East side of Lincoln Street (945 East) between 100 and 200 South. Camera facing southeast.
6. Photograph 52
Houses from 225 to 237 S. on 900 East. Camera facing southeast.
6. Photograph 53
Residential structures from 950 to 970 E. on 100 South. Camera facing southeast.
6. Photograph 54
Streetscape of residential structures from 861 to 877 E. on 300 South. Camera facing northeast.
6. Photograph 55
Neighborhood store constructed about 1920 at 944 E. 200 South. Camera facing south.
6. Photographs 56 & 57
Representative examples of multi-car frame and concrete-block garage
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 310 February 12, 2020
in pur|
375. 1
es ext
Ml 900000 FEET (CENT
SUGAR HOUSE 1.8 Ml.
Produced by the United States Geological Survey
Control by USGS and NOS/NOAA
Compiled from aerial photographs taken 1950 and by
plane-table surveys 1925, 1934, and 1950
Revised from aerial photographs taken 1962. Field checked 1963
North American Datum of 1927 (NAD 27). Projection:
Utah Coordinate System, central zone (Lambert Conformal Conic)
10000-foot grid ticks: Utah Coordinate System, central and
north zones. 1000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator grid ticks,
zone 12, shown in blue
The difference between NAD 27 and North American Datum of
1983 (NAD 83) for 7.5 minute intersections is given in USGS
Bulletin 1875. The NAD 83 is shown by dashed corner ticks
There may be private inholdings within the boundaries of the
National or State reservations shown on this map
Red tint indicates areas in which only landmark buildings are shown
Fine red dashed lines indicate selected fence lines
Certain land lines are omitted because of insuffient data
4 29
GN
0*32'I I
r27l
UTM GRID AND 1975 MAGI
DECLINATION AT CENTEf
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 311 February 12, 2020
CENTRAL CITY
HISTORIC DISTRICT
(BOUNDARY INCREASE)
Suit lake City, Utah
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 312 February 12, 2020
1
Arthur F. Sandack
Attorney at law
925 E 200 So
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
February 5, 2020
Kelsey Lindquist
Senior Planner
Salt Lake City Planning Division
451 S State Street, Room 406
P.O BOX 148580
Salt Lake City Ut 84114-5480
Kelsey.lindquist@slc.com
RE: Project Name PLNPUM2019-00683& PLNPUM2019-00684
159S Lincoln, 949, 955east, 959E. and 963 East 200 S.
Chiao-ih Hui (address not provided) (Listed as Applicant with Pertioner’s Attorney. Peter and PIk Chi Hui
are the actual owners per Supplemental filiing.)
Master Plan Petition to Amend Zoning Map and Master Plan from R2 to RMF-35 dated 7/19/19
Dear Ms. Lindquist,
I am an attorney, residing and doing business at 925 E. 200 South, Salt Lake City, where I have lived
since purchasing my home in February 1979, 41 years ago., I have raised 3 children here. I am strongly
opposed to the Petition to Amend the Salt Lake City Central Community Master Plan (Master Plan
herein.) and its Land Use map, for the following reasons. I am representing solely myself in this matter
and no other person or entity.
Summary of argument- I submit that the above Petition should be denied given an unfavorable
recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council for the following reasons:
1. The Community is largely against it.
2. The Petition is not supported by and is contrary to the Master Plan’s overall land use goals and
policies promoting low density housing in our neighborhood.
3. The Petition is not supported by the Central City Community Historical District goals and
policies.
4. The Petitioner- Owner is a bad neighbor and should not profit from his wrongful, longstanding
acts so detrimental to the neighborhood allowing his properties to be a blight, eyesore, and
danger to by violating housing and other ordinances.
5. Granting the Petition would harm me and the residential neighborhood.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 313 February 12, 2020
2
I.
The Community is largely against The Petition.
The Petition is opposed by a substantial number of residents, as evidenced by Monica Hiding’s petition
of sgned by some 300 neighbors, and the surveys conducted by the East Central neighborhood council
demonstrating 714 of 731 people against and strongly opposed to the Petition. Such opposition is
significant acceptable evidence, upon which the City Council can rely to deny the petition and to be
accountable to the public. See Petersen v. Riverton City, 2010 UT 58, 243 P.3d 1261 (Utah, 2010) and
Bradley v. Payson City Corp., 2001 UT App. 9, 2003 UT 16, 70 P.3d 47 (Utah 2003) (upholding City
decisions not to rezone on the basis of public residential petitions and comments), in which it is stated:
Ҧ 11 The Petersens urge us to overrule this long line of precedent and hold that the Council was
acting in a quasi-judicial capacity when it denied their rezoning request and, therefore, that the district
court should have applied the substantial evidence standard in reviewing the decision. We decline to do
so. The case law and statutory authority on which the Petersens rely in making this argument is
inapposite because it involves municipal appeal authorities hearing requests for variances and
interpreting and applying existing zoning ordinances. See, e.g., Xanthos v. Bd. of Adjustment, 685 P.2d
1032, 1034-35 (Utah 1984) (reviewing whether the board of adjustment's denial of a zoning variance
was arbitrary and capricious by applying the substantial evidence standard); Brown v. Sandy City Bd. of
Adjustment, 957 P.2d 207, 210-11 & n. 5 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (reviewing the Board's interpretation of a
zoning ordinance). The administrative bodies in these cases have been created specifically for the
purpose of applying existing ordinances and evaluating the possibility of individual variances. These
tasks are not of the same character as the Petersens' request to amend an existing zoning ordinance in
its entirety. Therefore, because we see no reason to depart from our precedent, we hold that the
Council's denial of the Petersens' rezoning request was a legislative decision.
¶ 12 Having determined that the district court in this case was reviewing a legislative decision under
the reasonably debatable standard, we must now determine whether the district court was correct in
holding that the City's decision was, in fact, reasonably debatable. A municipal board's decision will
meet this standard if "it is reasonably debatable that the [decision to grant or deny the new ordinance]
is in the interest of the general welfare." Bradley, 2003 UT 16, ¶ 14, 70 P.3d 47 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
¶ 13 In Bradley v. Payson City Corp., we were faced with facts very similar to the facts in this case.
The plaintiffs in Bradley submitted an application to the City Council to rezone property from a low-
density residential classification to a high-density classification. Id. ¶¶ 2-3. The Planning Commission
recommended a denial of the application to the City Council despite a recognition that Payson City's
General Plan did not prohibit the type of rezoning requested. Id. ¶¶ 3-4. At the City Council hearing to
consider the application, there were a number of public comments expressing concern over the traffic
implications of the proposed zoning ordinance and the ability to keep and raise horses "which might be
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 314 February 12, 2020
3
incompatible with high-density residential development." Id. ¶ 29. The City Council ultimately denied
the application based in part on these public comments. See id. ¶ 5.
And in the Bradley case, the court stated:
¶ 4 At the public hearing before the Planning Commission on Plaintiffs' rezone application, a petition
signed by thirty-eight people was submitted by a neighborhood group that opposed the zoning change.
In addition, thirteen individuals at the hearing expressed their opposition to the R-2-75 rezone. The
public opposition voiced concerns over the adequacy of the area's infrastructure as well as concerns
about maintaining the agricultural nature of the area, which includes using the land for raising horses.
Several public comments also supported the rezone. After public comment, the Planning Commission
recommended that the Payson City Council deny the R-2-75 rezone.
Bradley v. Payson City Corp., 2001 UT App. 9, 2003 UT 16, 70 P.3d 47 (Utah 2003)
¶ 28 It is beyond question, however, that public hearings and citizen comments are a legitimate source
of information for city council members to consider in making legislative decisions. See Harmon City,
2000 UT App 31 at ¶ 26, 997 P.2d 321 (noting that "a city may rely on the concerns of interested citizens
when performing legislative functions"). In reviewing the city council's decision, we do not apply trial-
like "formal rules of procedure or evidence" to evaluate the substance of public comments received by
the city council. Gayland, 358 P.2d at 635. Rather, we presume that city council members will measure
public comments against their own personal knowledge of the various conditions in the city that bear
upon zoning decisions. See id. at 636. A city council's ultimate decision, of course, reflects legislative
preferences that are entitled to a presumption of validity. Id.”
Bradley v. Payson City Corp., 2001 UT App. 9, 2003 UT 16, 70 P.3d 47 (Utah 2003)
Ҧ 30 Furthermore, with respect to the Plaintiffs' argument that there was no evidentiary support
behind public comments about increased traffic, we simply note that a city council is not required to
receive advice from experts before making a legislative zoning decision. Moreover, we are not
persuaded that the comments of the Plaintiffs' planning expert, Jim Wilbert, cast doubt on the
reasonability of Payson City's decision. Mr. Wilbert spoke at the public hearing in favor of the zone
change because it would bring affordable housing to the nearby industrial center. However, even
assuming that affordable housing is an important addition to the city plan, Mr. Wilbert's comments do
not directly refute the concerns raised by local business owners and other residents about the
compatibility of high-density residential housing in the industrial and agricultural zones. See Bradley,
2001 UT App 9, ¶ 27, 17 P.3d 1160. The City Council's decision to give greater weight to Mr. Wilbert's
opponents and deny the rezoning simply reflects the exercise of legislative policy preferences that are
entirely within its discretion. (emphasis added)
Bradley v. Payson City Corp., 2001 UT App. 9, 2003 UT 16, 70 P.3d 47 (Utah 2003)”
……..
Due to the overwhelming opposition to this Petition, and other factors cited by myself and neighbors, a
non favorable recommendation should be reported to the City Council. The feeling of the Bryant
neighborhood is to retain and preserve low density housing despite the history of mixed use in this area,
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 315 February 12, 2020
4
consistent with the Master Plan which was a result of Community input on Residential land use, in
regard to Future Residential land use changes, at page 9:
“Future Residential land use changes:
The Master Plan recognizes that the City is a living organism, subject to growth, decay, and renewal. Its
intent is to ensure that change occurs in response to the needs of, and in the best interests of, the
residents of the Central Community as well as the City as a whole. This section identifies areas of
potential change in the land use patterns.”(Italics added)
City representative listened to us in 2005 by designating Petioner’s property as low density use and
they should listen to us now.
II.
The Petition is not supported by and is contrary to the Master Plan’s overall land use goals and
policies promoting low density housing in our neighborhood.
The first standard cited by the Planner in considering “A decision to amend In making a decision to
amend the zoning map amendment, states the city Council should consider the following:
1. Whether a proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of
the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents.”
Answer: The answer to this is decidedly No. No it is not.
Petioner’s property is marked R2 for Low Density Residential on the the area Zoning map for Future
Land Use Map, in yellow adjacent and across from other R2 properties on its block. it now seeks to
amend to RMF-385 Moderate Density, multifamily Residential. District. The MP defines low density
housing as :
“Low/Medium-Density Residential 10-20 Dwelling Units/Acre (peach on map) This land use designation
allows zero lot line subdivision development, single-family detached residences on small lots (i.e., 2,500-
5,000 square feet per individual lots), and townhouses.”
In effect, the petitioner seeks to create a Subdivision by consolidating its lots and it should be reviewed
as such and prohibited.
It is also contrary to Master Plan Residential Land Use goals and policies, which provide:
“Residential land use policies The Future Land Use map identifies the location of residential land use
categories including Low-Density, Low/Medium-Density, Medium-Density, Medium/HighDensity, High-
Density, Low-Density Residential Mixed Use, Medium-Density Residential Mixed Use and HighDensity
Residential Mixed Use. Residential land use policies are organized into four main categories: Overall land
use policy, policies for existing housing, policies for new construction, and policies for residential mixed
use. Overall land use policy, in part is to:
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 316 February 12, 2020
5
RLU-1.1 Preserve low-density residential areas and keep them from being replaced by higher
density residential and commercial uses.
RLU-1.4 Preserve the character of the inner-block courts.
Comment. While Lincoln street may not be an inner court block, it certainly has that character of one
without its disadvantages, and it should be preserved, with its lined small affordable homes like courts
Other mixed uses on the block are primarily Office buildings on the block while zoned RMF 35, they are
not occupied and are quiet at night. They were primarily serving the nearby Regional Hospital but its
uses have appeared to change over time. They also have their own sufficient off-street parking which
Petitioner is not offering at all to its development for services, guests, special events, as it has proposed
to max out the space for maximum housing density for unaffordable units.
Further, See page 8 of the Master Plan referring to:
Existing housing policy Preservation and rehabilitation, under the Master Plan provides through
incentives and code enforcement by implementing the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan.
RLU-2.1 Preserve housing stock
RLU-2.2 Consider opportunities for the City to purchase residential properties and market them through
City housing programs.
RLU-2.3 Provide improvement programs for redevelopment and rehabilitation of residential structures
and neighborhoods.
RLU-2.4 Assist homebuyers by marketing available government funding programs and residential
rehabilitation programs, such as tax benefits for owners of structures in National Register Historic
districts.
The Supplemental Petition states the proposed development is ‘as recommended by Housing Plan the
proposed development will increase medium density.” This is not correct. The Housing and master Plan
seeks to preserve the stock of low density housing and does not clearly prefer medium density as a
priority.
In regard to the Bryant area where this dispute is located in the Central Community, the Master Plan
provides at page 5-6, describing the neighborhoods in the East Central North neighborhood planning
area.
“Bryant neighborhood. The Bryant neighborhood is located between 700 and 1000 East from South
Temple to 400 South. The layout of the lots and the residential architecture of the Bryant neighborhood
are similar to those found in the neighborhoods directly west, across 700 East in the Central City area.
Both have the same 10-acre blocks and several examples of early, adobe Greek Revival architecture. It
has a rich collection of Central City many architectural styles, including handsome large homes with
classical porticos and expansive porches:
… This neighborhood was listed on the National Register in 2001.”
This section continues to describe “Issues within the East Central North neighborhood” at page 6. Sd
follows:
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 317 February 12, 2020
6
Historic preservation
• Protect designated historic resources and National Register properties.
• Ensure that transit-oriented development and other development patterns are consistent with
historic preservation goals.
Further, the implementation statement of the goals, objectives and policies contained in the Master
Plan can accomplish the following, and state:
1. Protect and improve the quality of life for everyone living in the community, regardless of age or
ability.
2. Improve and support community involvement, public participation, and neighborhood activism in the
Central Community.
3. Provide a basis for funding specific programs that assist housing, capital improvement programs, and
public services.
4. Provide opportunities for smarter and more creative development practices to better serve the
community.
5. Prevent inappropriate growth in specific parts of the community.
6. Encourage specific types of growth in designated parts of the community.
7. Establish financial incentives to support alternative modes of mobility.
8. Preserve historic structures and residential neighborhoods.
9. Establish recommendations for better coordination and administrative review of construction
projects and city applications.(underlining added for emphasis)
The Petition if approved is tantamount to spot zoning. While it may not be prohibited per se by the
Master Plan, it is nevertheless an example of arbitrary and unreasonable designations of these parcels
of property to allow its use in a manner inconsistent with the permissible uses of the Master Plan. In this
area this is reasonably debatable and may be deemed illegal. While the historical mixed uses in the
Bryant area, have been a challenge to it in the past, it is aperfect time now to roll back the clock and
protect and promote R2 zones. in view of all the other high density uses popping up in adjacent areas of
the City, which may turn sour over time due to landowner neglect when the sheen wears off the new
premises. Petitioners have offered no reason to deviate from the future use plan other than to benefit
themselves personally, which is all they have ever cared about. Spot zoning makes a mockery of planned
zoning and is poor precedent is this area which is undergoing fast change. There should be a
moratorium on unnecessary development now, considering all else that has been going on and the
alternatives that exist without rezoning this neighborhood.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 318 February 12, 2020
7
III.
The Petition is not supported by the Central City Community Historical District goals and
policies
It is against City Historic Preservation Policy and regulations and Preservation Goals of the Master Plan
as set forth on the preceding page. The Plan also states:
“Goals for individual districts In addition to the global goals, there are specific goals which address the
different characteristics of the individual districts. The goal for the Central City Historic District is stated
in Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, Central City Historic District, July 1,
1996, p. 174. “The most significant feature of this district is its overall scale and simple character of
buildings as a group, as a part of the streetscape. As a result, the primary goal is to preserve the general,
modest character of each block as a whole, as seen from the street. Because the overall street character
is the greatest concern, more flexibility in other areas, particularly renovation details should be
allowed.”see page 18.
HP-1.1 Coordinate transit-oriented development corridors with historic preservation requirements.
HP-1.2 Ensure that zoning is conducive to preservation of significant and contributing structures or
properties.
HP-1.3 Improve and expand preservation measures to protect historic development patterns such as
subdivision lot layout, street patterns, neighborhood landscape features and streetscapes.
HP-1.4 Encourage new development, redevelopment and the subdivision of lots in historic districts that
is compatible with the character of existing development of historic districts or individual landmarks
Page 18
And
Education
HP-5.1 Assist community organizations as resources are available to present and provide informational
workshops on historic preservation and building conservation for the general public, property owners,
and contractors through neighborhood community council organizations, web sites, street fairs, the
Utah Heritage Foundation, the Building Permits office, and other channels of information.
HP-5.2 Showcase good examples of preservation to encourage residents to participate in preservation
based on the positive outcomes of the projects.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 319 February 12, 2020
8
HP-5.3 Explore joint educational efforts with governmental, community, and non-profit preservation
groups
Comment- To the extent loss of historic features becomes a pattern, the entire district tax incentive
provisions are jeopardized for the district as a whole. The streetscape of Lincoln street on the West side
is mostly single family homes and it has that characterovwrall. It would be the same on the east side
were the Petition to be denied, at least in part by not approving the Petition or 159 S Lincoln, a
somewhat well-preserved single-family residence., next door to Monica Hiding’s well preserved home.
IV.
The Petitioner- Owner is a bad neighbor and should not profit from his wrongful, longstanding
acts so detrimental to the neighborhood allowing his properties to be a blight, eyesore, and
danger to by violating housing and other ordinances.
Petitioner has been bad neighbor, for reasons next explained. This is relevant to the decision to approve
the Petition or not for a number of reasons,
First it violates the Master Plan itself which recognizes:
“Inadequate property maintenance and enforcement Lack of regular maintenance causes deterioration
of the buildings and compromises the livability of the neighborhood. In some cases, property owners
cannot afford to maintain or repair their residences and do not know about programs that could help. In
other cases, the neglect is deliberate. Neglect should not be tolerated when it impacts a neighborhood’s
image, its reputation, and residents’ quality of life. Property owners and managers, both resident and
absentee, should be held accountable for deliberate property degradation through the enforcement of
existing codes. Residents recognize that property maintenance and code enforcement represent a
combination of legal, social, and moral issues difficult to address with limited administrative resources.
They also see a need to educate homeowners on assistance programs” Page 9.
Secondly, such actions alienate and disrupts and brings down the values of the neighborhood, which
residents have to live with and may well understandably account for the public outrage against this
project. As shown below they have not lived by the code in renting it otu and maintaining it.
Accordingly, it impeaches their representations and comments, they cannot be trusted and, in my
opinion, they have not been forthright with the neighborhood during this public review process, and
their record shows why.
The City Council and Planning Division should not ignore misconduct if it is by Applicant applying to
amending the Master Plan and map itself. It is no answer to say well that is enforcement’s job, when
clearly that job has not been done. Someone has to say no to this kind of behavior. It is the Planning
Department’s job to further the goals of the City. It is unacceptable, that Applicants should be allowed
to take advantage of a process they have so abused. If enforcement has not done its job. It still can.
They neighborhood and their property can be improved. if we are all more vigilant. Many neighbors only
approved of the project because they have given up on the City doing something about the unsightly
mess they see and perceive and believe better just to tear it down and move on, but that only
encourages more and more misconduct, and no lessons are learned. Property owners beware, you have
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 320 February 12, 2020
9
responsibilities to your neighbors that the city takes seriously and then maybe your can rezone. This
should be the message, treat the neighborhood better.
And treat your tenants better, this is clearly a city policy to be a good neighbor and maintain suitable
housing. Granting the Petition will displace them. Their tenants have been curiously silent on these
issues or silenced, for fear of speaking out. At one of the neighborhood meetings, a tenant spoke but
refused to answer any questions regarding the occupancy rate of her building, in obvious fear of doing
so, awkwardly attempting to assert the Landlord’s privacy interests. Nor did the Petitioner
applicant/representative, the owner’s daughter, who has most to gain by the approval, answer that
question, disingenuously claiming she did not know the numbers of occupants, and never providing that
information. Nor were they aware their tenant had at the time of the neighborhood meeting,
undertaken to sloppily chop a number of trees. Who does that without direction from the owner to do
so? The petitioner/owner himself never appeared at any of the meetings or the Open House to support
his petition and answer questions, yet his daughter suggested the problems were his making and now
that he was getting too old and they were taking control to make improvements and tear down the
unsafe buildings that allegedly could not be repaired because of the settling foundations ((no
engineering report) a concern I and many neighbors worry about) but we have improved our homes
nevertheless. They said at one point they have only owned the property about a decade while in private
conversations admitted it was decades longer.
It is noteworthy that the original Petition, did not contemplate any improvements on the property. That
seemed to been after thought,(changed in a Supplemental Amended Filing) that no doubt would cost
some money to design a building, that in all likelihood, they never intend to build, It is doubtful the
family has any interest other that selling the property at an appreciated rezoned value. And getting, out.
Actually, managing and maintaining housing on any scale appears to be a challenge for them to pay for.
Petitioner have shown no interest or regard for this neighborhood in all the time I have lived here. The
have created a blight, have visibly failed to improve their property as many others have in the area,
including myself at a cost well over a $100,000. They have rented to felons and disruptive threatening
individuals who have caused me problems over the years, and just recently it was reported there was
drive by shooting at their building, the White house, for the first time ever in this neighborhood of which
I am aware.
As far back a 1999, numerous certificates of noncompliance were issued to the owner of the property by
Salt Lake City. (See Attachment A.) I have seen no signs of improvements to the outside of the property,
in all this time, none to the roof, such as a replacement roof which you would expect. I replaced my roof
in 2019, for the 2nd time since I bought the house.
At some time they painted the building in nonconforming colors, of blue, red and white, a real
distraction- resulting in one which notoriously became known as the China Blue House, which was
known for loud and frequent summer parties for years with live bands outside which we reported
numerous times to the police for continuing to disturb the neighborhood well past midnight with noise
and fighting. Elizbeth Smart was photographed at that house at a party during her captivity.
In 2018 there appeared to be a half-baked effort to improve the parking landscape, two guys hurriedly
spreading gravel over it and planting some bushes, which are all dead and gone now, the landscaping
has never been kept up, but is uncut weeds, overgrown and junk spread out all the front lawn and in
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 321 February 12, 2020
10
the back parking area, old junk cars, a dump, attracting rodents. it’s wonder the city tolerates it, in
plain sight. Unshoveled walk ways. Piles of leaves and mud on the front parking and street.
I have spoken with residents and been informed that they are renting by the room, and the heating was
dysfunctional during the winter of 2018-2019, ex-felons seems to have been given a preference as
tenants. I believe the place is over occupied and fire hazard.
In reviewing building inspection records provided me at Attachment A for 955 E 200 South, substandard
deficiencies occur from March 14, 1988. Upon which a Certificate do of NonComplaince was idssued on
October 5\8, 1999, On November 21. 2000 inspection numerous problems are cited as well as concerns
about life, fire and safety codes that the inspector needed to be assured would be addressed. It also
reflects on August 23, 2007 a detailed report of a complaint about “junk(1-/13/99)”, that eventually
went to before a hearing officer for all four properties 959, 955, and 965E 200 S., who reduce the fine to
$100,00 per month, dated 5/3/00. But again, on October 24, 2008 they were given a Notice of
Defiiensies and a Warning Letter from the Health Department for multiple substandard conditions. Also,
the Division of Housing in October 26, 2006. cited numerous work actions against, them. These people
don’t learn or don’t care. On information and belief, I believe that each buildings has a similar pattern of
violations and problems addressed by city inspectors over the year and other records exist, I have not
had a chance to review. I can’t imagine that these continued problems are anything else but deliberate.
This property has always been an eyesore as long as I have lived in the neighborhood, dilapidated and a
blight fire hazard. Despite constant improvement to property and investments by good neighbors such
as Howard Freed and his remarkably restored Victorian home, a real gem, directly across the street from
955 E. 200S and next door to me. The City had contributed adding and landscaped islands on 200 Sfrom
9-00 E to 1200 E, in the 1990’s and eliminating a lane of traffic on 2nd South.
This neighborhood has so much potential, as an attractive corridor to the university crowned by the Park
building at the University. It would be attractive and to single families, seniors and young professionals
who work downtown, to invest in these building and fix them up in preference to living in a high rise and
big apartment complex, with all its problems. At least two of the 5 structures are small homes on each
end of the project and have good potential for being fixed up at a reasonable cost, especially with the
historical tax incentives. There is no reason to rezone these two lots for all the same reasons none of
them should be rezoned.
The neighborhood is close the down town and many services. It is a perfect neighborhood to preserve
for single families and seniors such as myself. It has excellent public transportation advantages.
Based on their past history, I have no reason to trust or believe their development plan, or interest in
rezoning or developing the property or numerous of their representations are reliable regarding the
state of their property. They only want to rezone, to sell out, and profit further at this neighborhood’s
expense. Rezoning would encourage other developers with bigger and more intrusive projects to come
in, and forgo others from building single family residences.
V.
Rezoning would Harm My Interests
As to the harm this rezoning may cause me, I submit the following in conclusion.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 322 February 12, 2020
11
1. Any project would Increase parking and traffic problems. This does not appear to have been
reviewed by traffic at this time on the basis of only a proposed development. I believe it would
result in congestion at the intersection of Lincoln and 200 S, where access from and to both is
through a break in the islands which can be held up due to increasing traffic from and to the
university and bus service, traffic trying to turn left off 200 S, or left onto 200 So, from Lincoln
can bottleneck the whole street.
2. More difficulty with off street parking. This is already a big problem; I believe students from the
U park on the street and bus free to the U. Traffic is backed up on 200 S there due to the single
lanes and new bus service and stops. Cars attempt to make the light at 200 S speed up. It has
become quite dangerous for me to exit my own driveway, cars cannot see me due to the great
number of oversized vehicles parking next to it, and it is hard for me to see them.
3. It will degrade the single family residential appearance and character of the neighborhood to a
marked extent on 2 streets, Lincoln street, a quiet little used street where it is safe for residents
to walk away from the bustle of 200 S.
4. I fear that the destruction of petitioner’s homes if not done carefully will damage my building
structures, and crack foundation and walls. I urge a condition be imposed to conduct
engineering and seismic studies during and before construction of nearby properties that could
be built there of the neighborhood that could be affected by any such destructions and
rebuilding. I do not believe engineering has considered this risk.
5. Lighting, is one of the biggest neighborhood nuisances to me in the neighborhood, the
abundance of lighting in the neighborhood, which impacts us from as much as a block away,
shining g directly in our windows, all night long, which means we either cover our windows
which we do not wish to do or live with it Presumably lighting for 16 more units would only
increase the nuisance, significantly and perhaps created need for more street lighting on Lincoln
Street itself which would increase the nuisance.
6. Impact on walkability, was described and Lincoln street.
7. More noise during the evening is projected and during construction.
8. Impact of the look and identity of the area and street scheme.
9. Protentional devaluation of my property due to higher density housing poorly maintained by
absentee landlords.
10. More noise during the evening is projected.
Thank you for your consideration.
s/ Arthur F. Sandack
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 323 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 324 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 325 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 326 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 327 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 328 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 329 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 330 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 331 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 332 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 333 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 334 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 335 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 336 February 12, 2020
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 337 February 12, 2020
From:
To:Lindquist, Kelsey
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Comments on PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 Zoning Map and Master Plan
Amendments at 949-963 East 200 South and 159 S. Lincoln Street
Date:Monday, February 3, 2020 9:07:54 PM
Hi Kelsey,
Would you please add the following to the record? Thank you.
Dear Planning Commissioners and City Council Members,
I understand you are considering an application to change the zoning and master plan for 949-
963 E 200 S and 159 S Lincoln St. I'd like to express my disapproval of this petition.
I'm a former city council representative for this district, and ride by these properties most days
on my way home from work.
In my current role as an editor for Building Salt Lake, I am a passionate advocate for infill
development. But we don't do right by our city by granting upzones on parcels with viable
(and in this case) historical properties which contribute to neighborhood character.
Adding density can be done without taking out viable structures that are already providing
affordable housing. "Hidden density" is what this neighborhood needs, and can be done
through means like unit legalizations, ADUs, and subtle upzones (e.g. S-2 to S-3).
Thanks for your service and consideration,
Luke Garrott
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 338 February 12, 2020
1
February 5, 2020
Re: PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684,
Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments at 949-963 East 200 South and
159 S. Lincoln Street
From: Jen Colby, Resident, 160 S Lincoln St, Salt Lake City, UT 84102
Dear Members of the Planning Commission and Staff,
I am writing to reiterate my opposition to the request for Zoning Map and Master Plan
Amendments at 949-963 E 200 South and 159 S Lincoln Street in Salt Lake City by the applicant
and agent. I urge you to definitively vote NO and make a negative recommendation on this
application.
In another comment submittal dated February 3, 2020, I analyzed the application itself in detail.
In doing so Idiscussed the federally listed Bryant Neighborhood historic district (East Side
expansion). I wish to add a few more comments for the record regarding the historic preservation
goals and policies of the Central Community Master plan and why this application violates them.
More broadly, it is the responsibility and duty of all Salt Lake City Corporation departments and
bodies to help preserve and enhance both local and national historic districts, listed and
contributing properties. It is not simply the responsibility of Historic Landmarks Commission.
Nor do only locally designated districts matter to the preservation goals and needs of our city. As
I noted earlier, the tax credits afforded to owners of contributing structures are very important to
making preservation work possible for many of us. Additionally, research studies have shown
the economic value of historic districts, structures, and neighborhoods.
As I noted in my earlier comments (incorporated here by reference) the application states “The
non-historic homes on the Parcels have been converted to apartments” on page 4. This statement
is false for several reasons. All buildings are currently within the boundaries of the Salt Lake
City East Side Historic District (2001-2002 expansions). Moreover, this Historic District is
situated in the northeastern edge of Salt Lake City’s Plat B, the first expansion of the city to the
east that was surveyed in 1848 by the very first Mormon pioneer settlers. According to the SHPO
files, “Plat B had the same characteristics of the first plat: ten-acre blocks, each containing lots of
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 339 February 12, 2020
2
1 ¼ acres. …originally each lot was allowed the construction of one house with a standard
setback of 20 feet. …the semi-rural lots were subdivided into deep narrow lots and the
neighborhood became more urban in character.” This character is largely retained today thanks
to the preservation efforts and stewardship of many property owners over time, despite some
unfortunate periods of redevelopment and so-called urban renewal.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) maintains files for each of the 5
structures. The four houses on 200 South are contributing structures based on an intensive-level
survey. The house at 159 S. Lincoln Street may be non-contributing due to exterior modifications
such as siding applied over the underlying brick structure and inappropriate replacement
windows …”but may still have important local historical significance.” (p. 2 of the Historic Site
Form). SHPO notes that the changes appear superficial and could the reversed with proper
restoration and rehabilitation. Four of the five houses are designated as contributing, and the one
non-contributing house could likely be restored. All these structures are indeed historic.
The structures remain a crucial component of the National Historic District and should be
viewed in light of their role within the fabric of this district. Both 200 South from 900 E to 1000
E and Lincoln Street from 100 South to 200 South retain a great deal of integrity despite some
unfortunate teardowns and out-of-character apartment and commercial construction over the
years. The block faces contain mainly free-standing single historic structures per lot, with
consistent setbacks and generally well-maintained historic properties. The west side of Lincoln
Street is fully intact, while the west side has lost several historic houses to a temporary parking
lot for the medical buildings on 1000 E (excessive parking and not utilized by them, by the way,
and temporary has been a really long time now) and an out-of-character apartment building.
Therefore, that side of the street is already reaching the ~30% loss tipping point. This block face
will lose 2 more structures which the Applicant says they will do if the amendments are
approved. This will degrade the block face even further and arguably destroy its historic
character.
Likewise, other than the non-conforming commercial property that replaced a historic
home on the NW corner of 200 S and 1000E, the north side of 200S in this block is intact. West
of Lincoln Street, the homes and historic apartment buildings are well maintained. The houses
are exquisite, and the owners have put extensive work into restoring them. Losing all 4 historic
homes to the east of Lincoln St and adjacent to that nondescript commercial building would
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 340 February 12, 2020
3
permanently destroy the historic character and pattern language of the block face. This should be
avoided at all costs. The Planning Commission should certainly not pave the way for such
destruction. This would violate many of the goals and land use policies of the current Central
Community Master Plan.
The Central Community Master Plan Historic Preservation Goals (p. 18) state:
“Two areas within the Central Community are the focus of new preservation efforts.
The recently listed Bryant neighborhood is a National Register designation and was included
as an extension of the Central City Historic District in August 2001. The Bennion/Douglas
neighborhood received National Register designated in 2002. Other districts need to be
surveyed to determine their eligibility for National Register status.
Where Transit Oriented Development Districts are within local or national historic
districts, preservation of residential neighborhoods, structures, and viable commercial
buildings should be a priority. Transit Oriented Development can target specific properties,
such as those along the 400 South corridor, for redevelopment that do not affect the historic
character of the neighborhood. New development should occur on vacant or
noncontributing sites and should be compatible with the historic district. [emphasis
added] The goal is to allow higher density structures where commercial zoning exists to meet
the desired population density in TOD area while eliminating demolition pressures on
contributing historic structures [emphasis added].
The designation and regulation of historic districts and landmark sites provides a
mechanism to preserve the unique characteristics of Central Community’s historic residential
and commercial neighborhoods. Preservation of the historic areas and structures helps to
maintain a pedestrian scale and strengthen the continuity of land development patterns with
the City’s past.
Historic Preservation goals
Preserve the community’s architectural heritage, historically significant sites and
historic neighborhoods. Ensure that development is compatible with the existing architectural
character and scale of surrounding properties in historic districts.
Goals for individual districts
In addition to the global goals, there are specific goals which address the different
characteristics of the individual districts.”
The goal for the Central City Historic District is stated in Design Guidelines for
Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, Central City Historic District, July 1, 1996, p.
174. “The most significant feature of this district is its overall scale and simple
character of buildings as a group, as a part of the streetscape. As a result, the primary
goal is to preserve the general, modest character of each block as a whole, as seen from
the street. Because the overall street character is the greatest concern, more flexibility
in other areas, particularly renovation details should be allowed.” [emphasis added]
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 341 February 12, 2020
4
Relevant specific policies that this Application and amendments would violate include:
Policy HP-1.0 Central Community gives high priority to the preservation of historic
structures and development patterns.
HP-1.2 Ensure that zoning is conducive to preservation of significant and contributing
structures or properties.
HP-1.3 Improve and expand preservation measures to protect historic development
patterns such as subdivision lot layout, street patterns, neighborhood landscape features and
streetscapes.
HP-1.4 Encourage new development, redevelopment and the subdivision of lots in
historic districts that is compatible with the character of existing development of historic districts
or individual landmarks.
Policy HP 2.0 Use building codes and regulations to support preservation.
HP-3.2 Ensure building construction is compatible with existing historic structures.
Additionally, the following Residential Land Use policies in the CCMP relate to preservation
and would be violated by these amendments.
Policy RLU 1.0 – Based on the Future Land Use Map, use residential zoning to establish
and maintain a variety of housing opportunities that meet social needs and income levels of a
diverse population. (p. 9)
RLU-1.1 – Preserve low-density residential neighborhoods and keep them from being
replaced by higher density residential and commercial uses.
Policy RLU 2.0 – Preserve and Protect existing single and multi-family residential
dwellings within the Central Community through codes, regulations, and design review.
As we have witnessed over the years, Salt Lake City has largely failed to uphold the CCMP’s
stated policy for Prevention of Deterioration (p. 10): RLU-2.5 Promote reduction of deterioration
of residential neighborhoods through code enforcement practices.
Its failure to do so should not lead to justification for these otherwise misguided and
inappropriate proposed amendments.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 342 February 12, 2020
5
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 343 February 12, 2020
6
Below is a brief summary from the SHPO files for each property. Full files are attached.
159 S Lincoln Street: known as the Samuel and Emma Bjorkland house; built circa 1889 by
Samuel Bjorkland; 1 story crosswing Victorian Eclectic Italianate; brick;
949 E. 200 South: known as the Hector and Clintona Griswold House; built 1893 by Harvey
Bacon; 2 ½ story brick residence; Victorian Eclectic, numerous brickwork decorative elements
described in the SHPO file; Contributing. “The significance of the Griswold House falls within
the contextual period Transition, 1870-1900 as described in the Bryant Neighborhood
nomination.” (SHPO file p. 3).
955 E. 200 South: known as the Louis and Agnes Farnsworth House; built 1893; 2 ½ story brick
residence; rectangular block type Victorian Eclectic with Italianate influences; original porch
was removed around 1988 (the year the current owners acquired the property) and “some of the
stylistic integrity has been compromised….however the Farnsworth House continues to make a
contribution to the historical significance of the Bryant Neighborhood.” (SHPO file p. 2)
959 E. 200 South: known by SHPO as the Frances and John Jr. Judson House; also known
locally as “China Blue” of more recent cultural significance; built circa 1897 side-passage type
house, Victorian Eclectic with Shingle Style influence; some out of period alterations;
contributing.
963 E 200 South: known as the Roe and Nettie Frazier House; one-story brick residence built in
1894; …” the Frazier House is an interesting example of the conversion of a typical Victorian
Eclectic cottage to an English Tudor style residence. The Frazier House continues to make a
contribution to the historical significance of the neighborhood.”
For these reasons, as well as all the other criteria in the CCMP and other city plans that
contradict these amendments, I ask that you vote no on the application and give a negative
recommendation to this application.
Sincerely,
Jen Colby
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 344 February 12, 2020
ATTACHMENT I: DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Sustainability Comments (Vicki Bennet and Debbie Lyons): Sustainability provided comments with
concerns about the zoning amendment and a neighboring property owner solar access. There is an
impactful difference between the R-2 and RMF-35, in regards to solar access. Sustainability suggested that
perhaps a negotiation could be reached between the two property owners that would allow for full summer
solar access and partial-to-full winter access, in the case of approval of the amendments.
Police Review Comments: No comments were received.
Engineering Comments (Scott Weiler): No comments were received.
Public Utility Comments (Jason Draper): No objection to the proposed zone change. Development of these
properties will likely require additional offsite utility improvements at the developer’s expense.
Fire Code Review (Greg Mikolash): Building Services finds no fire code issues with this proposed amendment.
Future comments may be associated with a building permit review.
Building Code Review (Greg Mikolash): Building Services finds no building code related issues with this
proposed amendment. Future comments may be associated with a building permit review.
Zoning Review (Greg Mikolash): Building Services finds no zoning related issues with this proposed
amendment. Future comments may be associated with a building permit review.
Transportation Review (Michael Barry): There are no objections to the rezone by Transportation.
PLNPCM2019-00683 & PLNPCM2019-00684 345 February 12, 2020
3) PLANNING COMMISSION
c) Agenda/Minutes
February 12, 2020
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
In Room 326 of the City & County Building
February 12, 2020, at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
FIELD TRIP - The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m.
DINNER - Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00 p.m. in Room 126
of the City and County Building. During the dinner break, the Planning Commission may receive
training on city planning related topics, including the role and function of the Planning
Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM IN ROOM 326
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR JANUARY 22, 2020
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
1. Changes to Planning Commission Policies and Procedures – The Planning Director is requesting
the Planning Commission amend their rules of procedure to include Consent agenda matters. The
Planning Commission may consider what types of petitions may be reviewed in a Consent agenda.
This may include administrative petitions where the Planning Commission is the decision-making
authority.
2. Planned Development Extension Request at approximately 563 & 567 East 600 South - Kristen
Clifford, the consultant who represents the property owner, is requesting the Planning grant a one-
year time extension on approval of a Planned Development at approximately 563 E. 600 S. The
Commission originally granted approval for this project on March 28, 2018 and granted one extension
of that approval that will expire March 28, 2020. (Staff Contact: Amy Thompson at (801) 535-7281 or
amy.thompson@slcgov.com) Case number PLNSUB2017-00297
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3. Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment for 159 S. Lincoln, 949 E., 955 E., 959 E., 963 E. 200
S. - Graham Gilbert, on behalf of the property owners, is requesting to amend the Central Community
Future Land Use Map and the Zoning Map. The request includes an amendment to the Central
Community Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (1-15 dwelling units per acre) to
Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units per acre). The applicant is requesting to amend the
Zoning Map for these properties from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate
Density Multi-Family Residential). The master plan and zoning map amendments are requested
to allow more residential housing units than what is currently allowed. The subject property is located
within District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: Kelsey Lindquist at (801) 535-7930
or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case Numbers PLNPCM2019-00683 and PLNPCM2019-00684
4. The Revival Design Review at approximately 355 South 200 West - A request by Matt Krambule
of PEG Development, representing 4th South Associates LLC and SLHB B Investors, LLC for Design
Review for additional height at approximately 355 South 200 West. The proposed residential mixed-
use project, to be known as the Revival, consists of 5 stories of residential units above 2.5 stories of
parking, with a retail component on the ground floor. A midblock walkway will run east-west along the
north property line. The proposed height of the building is 89 feet and 10 inches. In the D-3 zone,
buildings located between corner properties have a permitted height of 75 feet. Buildings taller than
75 feet but less than 90 feet in may be authorized through the Design Review process. The property
is zoned D-3 (Warehouse/Residential District) and is located in Council District 4, represented by Ana
Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: Laura Bandara at (801) 535-6188 or laura.bandara@slcgov.com) Case
number PLNPCM2019-00640
5. Street Vacation at approximately 800 N and Warm Springs Rd - A request for street vacation by
Mark Greenwood of Granite Construction for vacation of a section of the 800 North right-of-way that
is adjacent to a former overpass from 800 West over I -15 to Warm Springs Road. The approximate
area of the street vacation is 1.3 acres. The subject property is located in a M-1 (Light Manufacturing)
zoning district and is located in Council District #3 represented by Chris Wharton. (Staff Contact: Sara
Javoronok at (801) 535-7625 or sara.javoronok@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00824
6. Conditional Use for an ADU at approximately 1083 S Blair - A request by Tom Candee of Brach
Design on behalf of the property owner, Heather Flanders, for a detached accessory dwelling unit
located at approximately 1083 S Blair Street. The ADU would have an approximately 459 square feet
footprint with a 186 square foot lofted area for a total of 645 square feet. The building height would
not exceed 17 feet. The subject property is located in an R-1/5,000 single family residential zoning
district and is located in Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff Contact: Sara Javoronok
at (801) 535-7625 or sara.javoronok@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-01051
7. Conditional Use Sacred Circle Group Recovery Home - Sacred Circle Healthcare is requesting
Conditional Use approval for a new medical detoxification/recovery facility to be located on the first
floor in their existing building at 660 South 200 East in the D-2 – Downtown Support zoning district.
The proposed use will consist of a 14-bed in-patient facility with 24-hour supervision and security and
counseling and medical services provided by a multi-disciplinary team. The facility is classified as a
Dwelling - Large Group Home and is allowed as a Conditional Use in the D-2 zoning district. The
property is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: David J.
Gellner at (801) 535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-01012
8. 700 North Zoning Map Amendment - 3 Properties - R-1/5000 to CB - Property owners Anna Tran
and Hoc Van Do are requesting that the City amend the zoning map for three (3) properties located
at 1616 W 700 N, 1632 W 700 N and 1640 W 700 N respectively. The properties currently contain
individual single-family dwellings, one on each property. The applicants are requesting to change the
zoning map designation of the properties from R-1/5000 (Single-Family Residential) to CB
(Community Business) in order to consolidate the parcels and develop a commercial use on the site.
No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this time. The Master Plan is not being
changed. The properties are located within Council District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff
Contact: David J. Gellner at (801) 535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2019-00923
9. 1612 West 700 North Zoning Map Amendment - R-1/5000 to CB - Salt Lake City has received a
request from property owner Bethany Christensen requesting that the City amend the zoning map for
her property located at 1612 W 700 N. The property currently contains an individual single-family
dwelling. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning map designation of the property from R-
1/5000 (Single-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business). No specific site development
proposal has been submitted at this time. The Master Plan is not being changed. The property is
located within Council District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff Contact: David J. Gellner at
(801) 535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2019-00986
The files for the above items are available in the Planning Division offices, room 406 of the City and County Building. Please
contact the staff planner for information, Visit the Planning Division’s website at www.slcgov.com /planning for copies of the
Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and
minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the
Planning Commission. Planning Commission Meetings may be watched live on SLCTV Channel 17; past meetings are recorded
and archived, and may be viewed at www.slctv.com. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities
may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids
and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the Planning
Office at 801-535-7757, or relay service 711.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 12, 2020 Page 1
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
City & County Building
451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah
Wednesday, February 12, 2020
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at 5:33:15 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period
of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Adrienne Bell; Vice Chairperson
Brenda Scheer; Commissioners Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Carolynn Hoskins, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon,
Andres Paredes, and Sara Urquhart.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were Molly Robinson, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson,
Attorney; Amy Thompson, Senior Planner; Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner; Sara Javoronok, Senior
Planner; David Gellner, Principal Planner; and Marlene Rankins, Administrative Secretary.
Field Trip
A field trip was held prior to the work session. Planning Commissioners present were; Maurine Bachman,
Brenda Scheer, and Sara Urquhart. Staff members in attendance were; Molly Robinson, Kelsey
Lindquist, and David Gellner.
• 660 S 200 E: Staff reviewed the request.
Q: Change of use?
A: Building code requirements for occupancy
• 900 E 200 S: Staff reviewed the request.
Q: Are seismic upgrades required for single family homes?
Q: Why is this not a LHD?
• 355 S 200 W: Staff reviewed the request.
Q: Where’s the mid-block walkway?
A: North side of property along ramp to Broadway lofts parking.
APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 22, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 5:34:30 PM
MOTION 5:34:36 PM
Commissioner Bachman moved to approve the January 22, 2020, meeting minutes.
Commissioner Scheer seconded the motion. Commissioners Paredes, Urquhart, Lyon, Barry,
Scheer, Lee, and Bachman voted “Aye”. Commissioner Hoskins abstained from voted as she was
not present during the said meeting. The motion passed 6-1.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:35:12 PM
Chairperson Bell stated she had nothing to report.
Vice Chairperson Scheer stated she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:35:20 PM
Molly Robinson, Planning Manager, suggested that the Commission move the changes to planning
Commission Policies and Procedures to the end of the meeting.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 12, 2020 Page 2
5:37:14 PM
Planned Development Extension Request at approximately 563 & 567 East 600 South - Kristen
Clifford, the consultant who represents the property owner, is requesting the Planning grant a one-year
time extension on approval of a Planned Development at approximately 563 E. 600 S. The Commission
originally granted approval for this project on March 28, 2018 and granted one extension of that approval
that will expire March 28, 2020. (Staff Contact: Amy Thompson at (801) 535-7281 or
amy.thompson@slcgov.com) Case number PLNSUB2017-00297
Amy Thompson, Senior Planner, provided a brief overview of the request for a one-year time extension.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• What has caused the delay
MOTION 5:38:32 PM
Commissioner Urquhart stated, I move to grant the one-year time extension. Commissioners
Hoskins seconded the motion. Commissioners Paredes, Urquhart, Lyon, Barry, Scheer, Lee,
Hoskins and Bachman voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
5:41:04 PM
Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment for 159 S. Lincoln, 949 E., 955 E., 959 E., 963 E. 200 S. -
Graham Gilbert, on behalf of the property owners, is requesting to amend the Central Community Future
Land Use Map and the Zoning Map. The request includes an amendment to the Central Community
Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential (1-15 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density
Residential (15-30 dwelling units per acre). The applicant is requesting to amend the Zoning Map for
these properties from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-
Family Residential). The master plan and zoning map amendments are requested to allow more
residential housing units than what is currently allowed. The subject property is located within District 4,
represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: Kelsey Lindquist at (801) 535-7930
or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case Numbers PLNPCM2019-00683 and PLNPCM2019-00684
Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case
file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation
to the City Council.
Chia-ih-Hui, applicant, provided a presentation with further detailed information.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:
• Whether there was a seismic report that could be provided to the Commission
• Clarification on what is up for consideration
• Clarification on why this site is more appropriately zoned as RMF-35 than R-2 as is now
• What the height limit is for the R-2 zone is
• Clarification on what can be built in the R-2 zone by right
PUBLIC HEARING 6:04:16 PM
Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing;
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 12, 2020 Page 3
Esther Hunter, Chairperson for the East Central Community Council, stated there was over 700 electronic
responses from the community survey as for as impacts. She also stated that this area is significant to
the neighborhood and it would have significant impact to change from the R-2.
Mark Bunce – Stated his opposition of the request. He also stated that there are several people in the
neighborhood that have had to make large investments for upgrades and maintenance and believes there
are housing developers who are willing to purchase the homes and rehab them to a high contemporary
standard in a great neighborhood like this.
DeGinna Toyn – Was not present to speak but provided a comment card to state her opposition.
Paul Toyn – Was not present to speak but provided a comment card to state his opposition.
Monica Hilding – Stated she personally collected almost 300 signatures on a petition that is included in
the staff report. She also stated her opposition.
Madison Limansky – Stated her opposition of the request and stated from her prospective the owners
don’t care about the safety, cleanliness, and quality of life in the neighborhood.
Ann O’Connell – Did not wish to speak but provided a comment card to state her opposition.
Howard Brough – Did not wish to speak but provided a comment card to state his opposition.
Tom Dickman – Questioned where the current residents will go if this request is approved.
Kathy Scott – Did not wish to speak but provided a comment card to state her opposition.
Peg Alderman - Did not wish to speak but provided a comment card to state her opposition.
Maha Barrani - Did not wish to speak but provided a comment card to state opposition.
Anny Lefebrre – Stated she does not believe the proposed zoning is compatible with the neighboring
properties. Stated her opposition to the request.
Christy Porucznik – Stated she supports the staff recommendation and oppose the rezoning on 2nd South.
Morgan Galbraith – Stated his opposition to the request.
Keenan Wells – Stated his opposition to the request.
Irina Zaletnaya – Read from the State Historic Preservation office files of the said structures.
Melissa Hubbell – Stated her opposition of the request. She also stated parking is an issue as it is.
Tim Funk – Stated that the project if approved, could mean that the loss of affordable housing and the
loss of current residents.
Jen Colby – Stated her opposition to the request.
Rich Wilcox - Did not wish to speak but provided a comment card to state his opposition.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 12, 2020 Page 4
Arthur Sangack – Stated his opposition to the request.
John Hunt - Did not wish to speak but provided a comment card to state his opposition.
Cindy Cromer – Stated owners control of multiple continuous properties is not a consideration, the central
community has precipitated more neighborhood plans and small area plans than any other part of the
city. She also stated that in addition to the volume and consistency of the master plan the decision of
previous planning commissions and city council’s in this neighborhood should inform your own
deliberations.
Zachary Dussault – Stated his support of the request.
Anne Beck - Did not wish to speak but provided a comment card to state her opposition.
Brad Beck - Did not wish to speak but provided a comment card to state his opposition.
James Wells - Did not wish to speak but provided a comment card to state his opposition.
Brent Barnett – Stated his opposition of the request. He also stated that it is important that the
neighborhood retain is historic character and that government incentives allow homes contributing to the
character of this neighborhood a full refund of 40% of construction cost.
Melinda Main – Stated that there would too much vehicle congestion in the area and shared her
opposition.
Scot Andrews – Stated his support and stated it will improve and stabilize the neighborhood and increase
values for everyone.
Keven and Karla Jensen – Stated their support in the project and believe it would have distinct
advantages.
Cory Cummings – Stated that this is not the solution in Salt Lake City and opposed the request.
Angela Jensen – Provided some history of the property.
Wayne Sander – Stated that government housing that has been abandoned can be used for the City.
Seeing no one wished to speak; Chairperson Bell closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant further discussed the following:
• Clarified the Central Community Future Land Use Map
• Clarification on what the intent was with the Future Land Use Map and why certain areas show
medium and high-density zoning
• Discussed the goals of the 5 Year Housing Plan and how staff is prioritizing the goals
• Discussed the National Historic District and the potential expansion of the University Local
Historic District
• Clarification on what could be built by right on the properties
Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 12, 2020 Page 5
MOTION 7:09:54 PM
Commissioner Lyon stated, based on the findings and analysis in the staff report, testimony, and
discussion at the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission recommend that the City
Council deny the proposed Zoning and Master Plan Amendment, PLNPCM2019-00683 and
PLNPCM2019-00684, for the properties located at 159 S. Lincoln, 949 E., 955 E., 959 E., and 963 E.
200 S., proposed zoning map amendment from R-2 (Single and Two-Family Residential) district
to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) district and the requested master plan
amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential.
Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Hoskins, Lee, Scheer,
Barry, Lyon, Urquhart, and Paredes voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
7:11:53 PM
The Commission took a short recess
7:18:55 PM
The Revival Design Review at approximately 355 South 200 West - A request by Matt Krambule of
PEG Development, representing 4th South Associates LLC and SLHB B Investors, LLC for Design
Review for additional height at approximately 355 South 200 West. The proposed residential mixed-use
project, to be known as the Revival, consists of 5 stories of residential units above 2.5 stories of parking,
with a retail component on the ground floor. A midblock walkway will run east-west along the north
property line. The proposed height of the building is 89 feet and 10 inches. In the D-3 zone, buildings
located between corner properties have a permitted height of 75 feet. Buildings taller than 75 feet but
less than 90 feet in may be authorized through the Design Review process. The property is zoned D-3
(Warehouse/Residential District) and is located in Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros.
(Staff Contact: Laura Bandara at (801) 535-6188 or laura.bandara@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2019-00640
Kelsey Lindquist, Senior Planner, represented Laura Bandara in her absence. Kelsey reviewed the
petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case file). She stated Staff recommended that the
Planning Commission approve the petition with conditions listed in the staff report.
Matt Krambule and Brian Mecham, applicants, provided a presentation with further design details.
PUBLIC HEARING 7:33:10 PM
Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing;
Curt Lund – Stated his opposition of the proposal. He stated the proposal would affect his business.
Vladimir Acosta – Provided a comment card in opposition of the petition but did not wish to speak.
Zachary Dussault – Stated his support of the height variance, his only concern is with the number of
parking spots being provided.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Bell closed the Public Hearing.
The applicants addressed the public concerns.
The Commission, Staff and Applicants further discussed the following:
• Whether the applicant has planned out how to minimize impact on the adjacent property
3) PLANNING COMMISSION
d) Staff Presentation Slides
February 12, 2020
Salt Lake City
Planning Commission
February 12, 2020
Planning Commission
Request to amend the Central Community Future Land Use
Map and the Zoning Map for the properties located at 159
S. Lincoln, 949 E., 955 E., 959 E., and 963 E. 200 S.
Zoning Map Amendment R-2 (Single and Two-Family
Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Residential)
Master Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential (1-15
dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density Residential
(15-30 dwelling units per acre)
Planning Commission
949 E. 200 S.
955 E. 200 S.
959 E. 200 S.
959 and 963 E. 200 S.
963 E. 200 S.
Photo of Lincoln Street Elevation of 949 E. 200 S.
159 S. Lincoln Street
CJ
CJ
CJ
CJ ..
CJ
CJ
~ .. ..
c=J
c=J
C:J
CJ
CJ
CJ
C:J
C:J
C:J
C:J ..
Low Density Residential (1-1 5 dwelling tmi ts/acre)
Low Medium Density Residential (10-20 dwelling Wlits /acre) *
Medium Density R esidential (15-30 dwelling wuts/acre) *
Mediwn High Density Residential (30-50 dwelling units/acre)
High Density Residential (SO or more dwelling units/acre)
Low Residential/Mixed Use (5-10 dwellng units/acre)
Mediwn Residential/Mixed Use (10-50 dwelling llllits/acre)
Residential/Office M ixed Use (10 -50 dwelling units/acre)
High Mixed Use (50 or more dwelling units/acre)
Neighborhood Commercial
Conununi ty Conllllercial
Central Business District
Central Business District Support
Regional CollUllercial/Industrial
•NOTE: The l.ow-Mtdium
and Medium Density Land Use
designations may include
nadtiple zoning designations
(e.g.; a single land use
designation and map color may
rqiresent RMF-35 or S'R-3
classifications)
Low Density Transit Oriented D evelopment (1-20 mvelling units/acre)
Medium Density Transit Oriented Development (10-50 dwe lling units/acre)
High D ensity Transit Oriented Development (50 or more dwelling units/acres)
Open Space
Institutional
Gateway Master Plan
Non-conforuling properties t o be evalua ted for appropriate land use designation.
(Interim land use policy would be adjacent land use classi.ficatioos)
Planning Commission
100 s
Zo ning Districts
OS Open Space
g
co
..,
0
0 co
0
0
llO
100 s
200 s
CN Neighborhood Commercial
cs Community Shopping
20Ci 200
s s
SR-3 Special De velopment Pattern Residential
R-2 Single -and Two-Family Residential
RMF-30 Low Density Mu/ti-Family Residential
RMF-35 ModerateD enslty Multi-Family Residential
RMF-45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential
RMF-75 Hig/1 De nsity Multi-Family Residential
RO Residential/Office
T SA-UN-C Urban Neig/1borl10 o d-Core
T SA-UN-T Urban Neig/1borl7o o d-Transition
UI Urban Institutional
100 s
.00 s
I '10 S 100 s
;;:;
w
0 .=
0 ~ C'I -
200 s 200 c;
..,
0
0
Cl
100 s
200 s
e
Cl
0
100 s 100 s
200 s
g -...
0
0
.....
0
0 ....
g
Comparison of R-2 and RMF-35
R-2 (Single and Two-Family)RMF-35 (Moderate Density)
Issues and Public Process
•Conflict with the Adopted Standards for Amendments
•Existing Master Plan Policies for the Area and the
Proposal
•National Historic Districts and Historic Preservation
•Public Opinion and Neighborhood Concerns
Public Process
•Staff attended the East Central Community Council on
September 19, 2019
•Open House was held on October 7, 2019
•Public comments received prior to February 5, 2020 are
found within Attachment H
Staff Recommendation
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a negative
recommendation to the City Council regarding PLNPCM2019-000683 and
PLNPCM2019-000684.
3) PLANNING COMMISSION
e) Applicant Presentation Slides
February 12, 2020
Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment
for
159 S Lincoln, 949 E,
955 E, 959 E, 963 E, 200 South
PLNPCM2019-00683 and PLNPCM2019-00684
February 12, 2020
Content
•Location•Current Structures•Explored Considerations•Proposed Plans•Evaluation Criteria•Benefits
Location of Proposal
900 East 1000 East
•949 East 200 South•955 East 200 South•959 East 200 South•963 East 200 South•159 South Lincoln Street
Current Structures View from 200 south of structures
Very little green space, room for revitalization, not in historic preservation overlay
Current Structures continued
159 Lincoln Street
A significant portion of Lincoln Street is Multifamily and Commercial
Explored Considerations
•We’ve repaired and restored 3 homes in Historic University District and The Avenues neighborhoods.•Original plan to remodel existing structures to more family-friendly floor plans with environmentally-friendly updates.
•Roadblock 1: The scope of remodel would trigger the requirement to bring all structures to current seismic code, which led us to commission a Structural Engineering Report from a reputable Structural Engineer.
•Roadblock 2: Recommendations from Structural Engineering Report indicated that building a new structure would be more structurally sound and more financially viable.
Neighborhood
Considered what would be compatible within the neighborhood
Proposed Plan
•From 9 –16 units•Energy efficient appliances•Energy efficient build materials•EV Chargers in garages•Bike racks•Designated Affordable Housing Unit•Working with Pacificorp Power
Site Plan
•16 units•3 3-bedroom/2-car garage units•Affordable housing unit•12 2-bedroom/2-car garage units•1 1-bedroom/1-car garage unit
•4 visitor parking stalls
•Significantly more green space
•Accessibility:•Bike racks•½ block away from bus stop both EB •and WB
Considerations
•Brick exterior•Mansard roof•Architectural elements•Engagement with street•Ample parking•Accessibility•Sustainability•Green space•Professional Property Management
Evaluation Criteria -Code 21A.50.050
1.🗸🗸Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents
2.🗸🗸Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance
3.🗸🗸The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties
4.🗸🗸Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards
5.🗸🗸The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. (Ord. 56-14, 2014)
Evaluation Criteria -Code 21A.50.050
1.Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents 🗸🗸•Plan Salt Lake (2015):•RMF-35: “By creating places with a diverse mix of uses, building types, connections, and transportation options, people have the choice of where they live, how they live, and how they get around. As our City grows and evolves overtime, having a diverse mix of uses in our neighborhoods citywide will become increasingly important to accommodate responsible growth and provide people with real choices.” •Medium density: “Density and compact development are important principles of sustainable growth, allowing for more affordable transportation options and creating vibrant and diverse places. Density in the appropriate locations, including near existing infrastructure, compatible development, and major transportation corridors, can help to accommodate future growth more efficiently. This type of compact development allows people to live closer to where they work, recreate, shop, and carry out their daily lives, resulting in less automobile dependency and greater mobility.”
Evaluation Criteria -Code 21A.50.050
2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance: 🗸🗸•The “statement of intent” for all residential districts within the City is: City Code 21A.24.010. “The residential districts are intended to provide a range of housing choices to meet the needs of Salt Lake City's citizens, to offer a balance of housing types and densities, to preserve and maintain the city's neighborhoods as safe and convenient places to live, to promote the harmonious development of residential communities, to ensure compatible infill development, and to help implement adopted plans (emphasis added).”•The purpose of the RMF-35 moderate density multi-family residential district is to provide an environment suitable for a variety of moderate density housing types, including single-family, two-family, and multi-family dwellings with a maximum height of thirty five feet (35').
Evaluation Criteria -Code 21A.50.050
3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties 🗸🗸•As noted in previous slides, there are already commercial properties abutting to the proposed property, as well as significant ratio of multi-family dwellings in the immediate area.•Proposed amendment would permit 35’ dwelling, which is what 3 of 4 structures on 200 south already are.•Plan Salt Lake (2015): Compatibility of development generally refers to how a development integrates into the existing scale and character of a neighborhood.New development should be context sensitive to the surrounding development, taking into account the existing character of the neighborhood while providing opportunities for new growth and to enhance the sense of place.
Evaluation Criteria -Code 21A.50.050
4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the
purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which
may impose additional standards 🗸🗸•The properties are located in the Bryant National Historical District,
but not in the City’s Historic Preservation Overlay District and not
subject to the rules in the Overlay District.
Evaluation Criteria -Code 21A.50.050
5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the
subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and
recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater
drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse
collection. (Ord. 56-14, 2014) 🗸🗸•All pertinent Salt Lake City Departments and Divisions have reviewed
the proposal and have recommended approval as specified
Benefits
•Supports Plan Salt Lake’s Growth Initiatives and Housing Initiative by adding medium-density housing stock in a high-growth area•Supports Plan Salt Lake’s Housing Initiatives by designated unit for affordable housing•Supports Plan Salt Lake’s first guiding principle that Neighborhoods provide a safe environment, opportunity for social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein by revitalization of 5 adjacent properties with goals of bringing more families into the neighborhood•Impacts to walkability, neighborhood engagement, area school funding•Sustainability green building
Thank You
3) PLANNING COMMISSION
f) Additional Written Comments
February 12, 2020
/('? / -> • ~ _.... I
I 7
,__ L-I l.I ~-I. ~ / ...., -,,
/ <;.. L;". I .??' v( A-t le"'_._~
.. J /..., :?' .5 .... '( o ,,,, ~c. v :_,, //, / _ /' c ' ..,.1..J • ._
.. oA/ ~~{7/ · ._S_N1 7.11 . >vJJ .,//, ~. a /q~~ -/;;/..., >.._/
~ .t.f_ ,,,0 .......,..-I
) '(' r-r"' • ..-10---~
. 0-v Q . .,r"7V(/1./t/e •. _L ";/ / 5 /vt/ . / "' q · /~r/o</1/4?,. .z -
-/ . //cf"1 c-~,"'c. l(
.. 7'/?o r ///:i vC ~7·:-~ -1-7'c:>qt' s hA.., ·, / v;; /--.q
/{., {~/--/ / ~ 5 <-f / ocl /' 0 be ;;----/ .'/d ::? 2 J -;// c_
;Y«~7-7'~4./ j/c-. .. 7
' -1 ?? r /~"'sr ._., .nt:?//;e..s .//:? /c_
,t//l..;a~,, J>.e>~ /1' -'l~ /' /'e//a..6/ // T.~ 7/d>~
t,.C' fe I L ._. t:i .......... ' .•
7/!c?-J,k_ -j'J~
b-1"'~ .£ $1/ 7/,"
.,//S:S-L/ ;,,/c ()/,'.../ :».T:
S L c;, ~~ f??"'/O~
·-
Attachment A
Sandack Opposition Correspondence to City Planner
RE: Project Name PLNPUM2019-00683& PLNPUM2019-00684
1595 Lincoln, 949, 955east, 959E. t and 963 East 200 S.
Chiao-ih Hui (address not provi ded) (Listed as Applicant w ith Portioner's Attorney. Peter and Plk Chi Hui
are the actual owners.)
1
Arthur F. Sandack
Attorney at law
925 E 200 So
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
February 7, 2020
REVISED CORRECTED PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR RESUBMISSION AND SUBSTITION of February 5 2020,
Comments to
Kelsey Lindquist
Senior Planner
Salt Lake City Planning Division
451 S State Street, Room 406
P.O BOX 148580
Salt Lake City Ut 84114-5480
Kelsey.lindquist@slc.com
RE: Project Name PLNPUM2019-00683& PLNPUM2019-00684
159S Lincoln, 949, 955east, 959E. and 963 East 200 S.
Chiao-ih Hui (address not provided) (Listed as Applicant with Petitioner’s Attorney.
Peter and PIk Chi Hui are the actual owners per Supplemental filing.)
Master Plan Petition to Amend Zoning Map and Master Plan from R2 to RMF-35 dated 7/19/19
Dear Ms. Lindquist,
I am an attorney, residing and doing business at 925 E. 200 South, Salt Lake City, where I have lived
since purchasing my home in February 1979, 41 years ago., I have raised 3 children here. I am strongly
opposed to the Petition to Amend the Salt Lake City Central Community Master Plan (Master Plan or MP
herein.) and its Land Use map, for the following reasons. I am representing solely myself in this matter
and no other person or entity.
Summary of argument- I submit that the above Petition should be denied given an unfavorable
recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council for the following reasons:
1. The Community is largely against it.
2. The Petition is not supported by and is contrary to the Master Plan’s overall land use goals and
policies promoting low density housing in our neighborhood.
3. The Petition is not supported by the Central City Community Historical District goals and
policies.
4. The Petitioner/Owner is a bad neighbor who should not profit from his wrongful, longstanding
acts detrimental to the neighborhood by allowing his properties to be a blight, eyesore, and
danger and by violating housing and other ordinances and codes for decades
5. Granting the Petition would harm me and the residential neighborhood.
2
I.
The Community is largely against The Petition.
The Petition is opposed by a substantial number of residents, as evidenced by Monica Hilding’s petition
signed by nearly 300 neighbors, and the surveys conducted by the East Central neighborhood council
demonstrating 714 of 731 people against and strongly opposed to the Petition., as is the Council itself.
Such opposition is significant acceptable evidence, upon which the City Council can rely to deny the
petition. See Petersen v. Riverton City, 2010 UT 58, 243 P.3d 1261 (Utah, 2010) and Bradley v. Payson
City Corp., 2001 UT App. 9, 2003 UT 16, 70 P.3d 47 (Utah 2003) (upholding City decisions not to rezone
on the basis of public residential petitions and comments), in which it is stated:
Ҧ 11 The Petersens urge us to overrule this long line of precedent and hold that the Council was
acting in a quasi-judicial capacity when it denied their rezoning request and, therefore, that the district
court should have applied the substantial evidence standard in reviewing the decision. We decline to do
so. The case law and statutory authority on which the Petersens rely in making this argument is
inapposite because it involves municipal appeal authorities hearing requests for variances and
interpreting and applying existing zoning ordinances. See, e.g., Xanthos v. Bd. of Adjustment, 685 P.2d
1032, 1034-35 (Utah 1984) (reviewing whether the board of adjustment's denial of a zoning variance
was arbitrary and capricious by applying the substantial evidence standard); Brown v. Sandy City Bd. of
Adjustment, 957 P.2d 207, 210-11 & n. 5 (Utah Ct.App.1998) (reviewing the Board's interpretation of a
zoning ordinance). The administrative bodies in these cases have been created specifically for the
purpose of applying existing ordinances and evaluating the possibility of individual variances. These
tasks are not of the same character as the Petersens' request to amend an existing zoning ordinance in
its entirety. Therefore, because we see no reason to depart from our precedent, we hold that the
Council's denial of the Petersens' rezoning request was a legislative decision.
¶ 12 Having determined that the district court in this case was reviewing a legislative decision under
the reasonably debatable standard, we must now determine whether the district court was correct in
holding that the City's decision was, in fact, reasonably debatable. A municipal board's decision will
meet this standard if "it is reasonably debatable that the [decision to grant or deny the new ordinance]
is in the interest of the general welfare." Bradley, 2003 UT 16, ¶ 14, 70 P.3d 47 (internal quotation marks
omitted).
¶ 13 In Bradley v. Payson City Corp., we were faced with facts very similar to the facts in this case.
The plaintiffs in Bradley submitted an application to the City Council to rezone property from a low-
density residential classification to a high-density classification. Id. ¶¶ 2-3. The Planning Commission
recommended a denial of the application to the City Council despite a recognition that Payson City's
General Plan did not prohibit the type of rezoning requested. Id. ¶¶ 3-4. At the City Council hearing to
consider the application, there were a number of public comments expressing concern over the traffic
implications of the proposed zoning ordinance and the ability to keep and raise horses "which might be
incompatible with high-density residential development." Id. ¶ 29. The City Council ultimately denied
the application based in part on these public comments. See id. ¶ 5.
3
And in the Bradley case, the court stated:
¶ 4 At the public hearing before the Planning Commission on Plaintiffs' rezone application, a petition
signed by thirty-eight people was submitted by a neighborhood group that opposed the zoning change.
In addition, thirteen individuals at the hearing expressed their opposition to the R-2-75 rezone. The
public opposition voiced concerns over the adequacy of the area's infrastructure as well as concerns
about maintaining the agricultural nature of the area, which includes using the land for raising horses.
Several public comments also supported the rezone. After public comment, the Planning Commission
recommended that the Payson City Council deny the R-2-75 rezone.
Bradley v. Payson City Corp., 2001 UT App. 9, 2003 UT 16, 70 P.3d 47 (Utah 2003)
¶ 28 It is beyond question, however, that public hearings and citizen comments are a legitimate source
of information for city council members to consider in making legislative decisions. See Harmon City,
2000 UT App 31 at ¶ 26, 997 P.2d 321 (noting that "a city may rely on the concerns of interested citizens
when performing legislative functions"). In reviewing the city council's decision, we do not apply trial-
like "formal rules of procedure or evidence" to evaluate the substance of public comments received by
the city council. Gayland, 358 P.2d at 635. Rather, we presume that city council members will measure
public comments against their own personal knowledge of the various conditions in the city that bear
upon zoning decisions. See id. at 636. A city council's ultimate decision, of course, reflects legislative
preferences that are entitled to a presumption of validity. Id.”
Bradley v. Payson City Corp., 2001 UT App. 9, 2003 UT 16, 70 P.3d 47 (Utah 2003)
Ҧ 30 Furthermore, with respect to the Plaintiffs' argument that there was no evidentiary support
behind public comments about increased traffic, we simply note that a city council is not required to
receive advice from experts before making a legislative zoning decision. Moreover, we are not
persuaded that the comments of the Plaintiffs' planning expert, Jim Wilbert, cast doubt on the
reasonability of Payson City's decision. Mr. Wilbert spoke at the public hearing in favor of the zone
change because it would bring affordable housing to the nearby industrial center. However, even
assuming that affordable housing is an important addition to the city plan, Mr. Wilbert's comments do
not directly refute the concerns raised by local business owners and other residents about the
compatibility of high-density residential housing in the industrial and agricultural zones. See Bradley,
2001 UT App 9, ¶ 27, 17 P.3d 1160. The City Council's decision to give greater weight to Mr. Wilbert's
opponents and deny the rezoning simply reflects the exercise of legislative policy preferences that are
entirely within its discretion. (emphasis added)
Bradley v. Payson City Corp., 2001 UT App. 9, 2003 UT 16, 70 P.3d 47 (Utah 2003)”
……..
Comment. Due to the overwhelming opposition to this Petition and other factors cited by myself and
neighbors, a non-favorable recommendation should be issued to the City Council and it consequentially
should deny it. The feeling and desire of the Bryant neighborhood within the East Central North
neighborhood planning area is to retain and preserve low density housing despite the history of mixed
use in this area, consistent with the Master Plan which was a result of Community input on Residential
land use, in regard to Future Residential land use changes, at page 9 states:
4
“Future Residential land use changes:
The Master Plan recognizes that the City is a living organism, subject to growth, decay, and renewal. Its
intent is to ensure that change occurs in response to the needs of, and in the best interests of, the
residents of the Central Community as well as the City as a whole. This section identifies areas of
potential change in the land use patterns.”(Italics added)
City representatives listened to residents in 2005 by designating Petitioner’s property as low density use
and they should listen to us now.
II.
The Petition is not supported by and is contrary to the Master Plan’s overall land use goals and
policies promoting low density housing in our neighborhood.
The first standard cited by the Planner in considering “A decision to amend in making a decision to
amend the zoning map amendment, states the city Council should consider the following:
1. Whether a proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of
the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents.”
Answer: The answer to this is decidedly No. No it is not consistent with the MP.
Petitioner’s property is marked light yellow for Low Density Residential on the area Zoning map for
Future Land Use Map, and is adjacent to and near other low density properties in the neighborhood. It
now seeks to amend to RMF-385 Moderate Density, multifamily Residential. District. The MP defines
low density housing as:
“Low/Medium-Density Residential 10-20 Dwelling Units/Acre (peach on map) This land use designation
allows zero lot line subdivision development, single-family detached residences on small lots (i.e., 2,500-
5,000 square feet per individual lots), and townhouses.” MP page 8
Low-Density Residential 1-15 Dwelling Units/Acre (light yellow on map) This land use designation allows
moderate sized lots (i.e., 3,000-10,000 square feet) where single-family detached homes are the
dominant land use. Low-density includes single-family attached and detached dwellings as permissible
on a single residential lot subject to zoning.MP p.9
Low/Medium-Density Residential 10-20 Dwelling Units/Acre (peach on map) This land use designation
allows zero lot line subdivision development, single-family detached residences on small lots (i.e., 2,500-
5,000 square feet per individual lots), and townhouses. Low/medium-density residential areas are mainly
low-density neighborhoods containing a broad mix of dwelling units ranging from single family detached
to single family attached dwelling units (three or more units per structure). This type of mix is established
in the areas located between South Temple and 800 South from 500 East to 1300 East.” MP p.9
5
In effect, the petitioner seeks to create a Subdivision by consolidating its lots and it should be reviewed
as such and prohibited. Its combined size of .682 acres on a corner lot, would have an oversized impact
on the face and streetscape as single family residential neighborhood in that quadrant.
It is also contrary to Master Plan Residential Land Use goals and policies, which provide at pp 9-10.
“Residential land use policies
The Future Land Use map identifies the location of residential land use categories including Low-Density,
Low/Medium-Density, Medium-Density, Medium/HighDensity, High-Density, Low-Density Residential
Mixed Use, Medium-Density Residential Mixed Use and HighDensity Residential Mixed Use. Residential
land use policies are organized into four main categories: Overall land use policy, policies for existing
housing, policies for new construction, and policies for residential mixed use page 9.
Overall land use policy,[includes] (italics original)
RLU-1.1 Preserve low-density residential areas and keep them from being replaced by higher
density residential and commercial uses.
RLU-1.4 Preserve the character of the inner-block courts.“ (bold added for emphasis)
Comment. While Lincoln street may not per se be an inner court block, it certainly has the character of
one without its disadvantages, and it should be preserved, with its lined small affordable homes like
courts.
Other mixed uses on the East block f Lincoln facing 1000 East R2 and Office buildings while zoned RMF
35, they are not occupied and are quiet at night. They were primarily serving the nearby Regional
Hospital but its uses have appeared to change over time., as other clinic space was erected on 10th East.
They also have their own sufficient sizable off-street parking lots which Petitioner is or may not be
building for services, guests, special events, in order to increase the space for maximum housing density
for the unaffordable units it portrays.
Further, see page 8 of the Master Plan referring to:
Existing housing policy Preservation and rehabilitation, under the Master Plan provides through
incentives and code enforcement by implementing the Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan.
RLU-2.1 Preserve housing stock
RLU-2.2 Consider opportunities for the City to purchase residential properties and market them through
City housing programs.
RLU-2.3 Provide improvement programs for redevelopment and rehabilitation of residential structures
and neighborhoods.
RLU-2.4 Assist homebuyers by marketing available government funding programs and residential
rehabilitation programs, such as tax benefits for owners of structures in National Register Historic
districts.
6
Comment. The Supplemental Petition states ‘as recommended by Housing Plan the proposed
development will increase medium density.” This is not correct. The Housing and master Plan, as seen
above “seeks to preserve the stock of low density housing “and in no wise clearly prefers medium
density as a priority but is quite the contrary. CF Residential issues in East Central North neighborhood
at p. 6, next discussed.
In regard to the Bryant area where this dispute is located in the Central Community, the Master Plan
provides at page 5-6, describing the neighborhoods in the East Central North neighborhood planning
area.
“Bryant neighborhood. The Bryant neighborhood is located between 700 and 1000 East from South
Temple to 400 South. The layout of the lots and the residential architecture of the Bryant neighborhood
are similar to those found in the neighborhoods directly west, across 700 East in the Central City area.
Both have the same 10-acre blocks and several examples of early, adobe Greek Revival architecture. It
has a rich collection of Central City many architectural styles, including handsome large homes with
classical porticos and expansive porches:
… This neighborhood was listed on the National Register in 2001.”
I regard to the National Register, the MP continues to present “Issues within the East Central North
neighborhood” (itlalics original )at page 6). as:
“Historic preservation
• Protect designated historic resources and National Register properties.
• Ensure that transit-oriented development and other development patterns are consistent with
historic preservation goals.
Residential:
•1Reduce excessive density potential, stabilize the neighborhood, and conserve the neighborhood’s
residential character.
• 2Improve zoning enforcement, including illegal conversion to apartments, yard cleanup, “slum lords,”
etc.
• 6Encourage higher density housing in East Downtown, Downtown, and Gateway to decrease the
pressure to meet those housing needs in this neighborhood.
• 8. Preserve historic structures and residential neighborhoods.” MP p.3
Contrary to Petitioner’s contention medium density
Under over all point 6 medium density over low density is not to be encouraged here at all but
downtown to take pressure off this area.
Further, “the implementation statement of the goals, objectives and policies contained in the Master
Plan can accomplish the following:
1. Protect and improve the quality of life for everyone living in the community, regardless of age or
ability.
7
2. Improve and support community involvement, public participation, and neighborhood activism in the
Central Community.
3. Provide a basis for funding specific programs that assist housing, capital improvement programs, and
public services.
4. Provide opportunities for smarter and more creative development practices to better serve the
community.
5. Prevent inappropriate growth in specific parts of the community.
6. Encourage specific types of growth in designated parts of the community.
7. Establish financial incentives to support alternative modes of mobility.
8. Preserve historic structures and residential neighborhoods.
9. Establish recommendations for better coordination and administrative review of construction
projects and city applications. (underlining added for emphasis)
The Petition if approved is tantamount to spot zoning. While it may not be prohibited per se by the
Master Plan, it is nevertheless an example of arbitrary and unreasonable designations of these parcels of
property allowing its use in a manner inconsistent with the overall Master Plan and accordingly may be
deemed illegal spot zoning. While the historical mixed uses in the Bryant area, have been a challenge to
it in the past, it is a perfect time now to roll back the clock and protect and promote low density housing
in the area. in view of all the other high density uses popping up in adjacent areas of the City, which may
turn sour over time due to landowner neglect when the sheen wears off the new premises. Petitioner
has offered no compelling reason to deviate from the future use plan other than to benefit themselves
personally, which is all they have ever cared about. Spot zoning makes a mockery of planned zoning and
is poor precedent in the Central Community which is vulnerable to development and undergoing fast
change. There should be a moratorium on unnecessary development now, considering all else that has
been going on and the alternatives that exist without rezoning this neighborhood.
III.
The Petition is not supported by the Central City Community Historical District goals and
policies
As just discussed rezoning and likely demolition, is against City Historic Preservation Policy and
regulations and Preservation Goals of the Master Plan as set forth on the preceding page. The Plan also
describes:
“Future Historic Preservation changes
Two areas within the Central Community are the focus of new preservation efforts. The recently listed
Bryant neighborhood is a National Register designation and was included as an extension of the Central
8
City Historic District in August 2001. The Bennion/Douglas neighborhood received National Register
designated in 2002. Other districts need to be surveyed to determine their eligibility for National
Register status.
“Goals for individual districts In addition to the global goals, there are specific goals which address the
different characteristics of the individual districts. The goal for the Central City Historic District is stated
in Design Guidelines for Residential Historic Districts in Salt Lake City, Central City Historic District, July 1,
1996, p. 174. “The most significant feature of this district is its overall scale and simple character of
buildings as a group, as a part of the streetscape. As a result, the primary goal is to preserve the general,
modest character of each block as a whole, as seen from the street. Because the overall street character
is the greatest concern, more flexibility in other areas, particularly renovation details should be
allowed.” see page 18.(italics and emphasis added)
HP-1.1 Coordinate transit-oriented development corridors with historic preservation requirements.
HP-1.2 Ensure that zoning is conducive to preservation of significant and contributing structures or
properties.
HP-1.3 Improve and expand preservation measures to protect historic development patterns such as
subdivision lot layout, street patterns, neighborhood landscape features and streetscapes.
HP-1.4 Encourage new development, redevelopment and the subdivision of lots in historic districts that
is compatible with the character of existing development of historic districts or individual landmarks
Page 18
And
Education
HP-5.1 Assist community organizations as resources are available to present and provide informational
workshops on historic preservation and building conservation for the general public, property owners,
and contractors through neighborhood community council organizations, web sites, street fairs, the
Utah Heritage Foundation, the Building Permits office, and other channels of information.
HP-5.2 Showcase good examples of preservation to encourage residents to participate in preservation
based on the positive outcomes of the projects.
HP-5.3 Explore joint educational efforts with governmental, community, and non-profit preservation
groups
Comment- Petitioner plans to demolish a group of homes of affordable housing in this area that was
built by immigrants for immigrants who in turn were vital to building the City. Do we want to eradicate
that area? To the extent loss of historic features becomes a pattern, the entire district tax incentive
provisions are jeopardized for the district as a whole. The streetscape of Lincoln street on the West side
is mostly single family homes and it has that character overall. It would be the same on the east side
were the Petition to be denied, at least in part by not approving the Petition or 159 S Lincoln, a
somewhat well-preserved single-family residence., next door to Monica Hilding’s well preserved home.
9
IV.
The Petitioner/Owner is a bad neighbor who should not profit from his wrongful, longstanding
acts detrimental to the neighborhood by allowing his properties to be a blight, eyesore, and
danger and by violating housing and other ordinances and codes for decades
Petitioner has been bad neighbor, aka Slumlord, for reasons next explained. This is relevant to the
decision to approve the Petition or not for a number of reasons,
First it violates the spirit of the Master Plan itself which recognizes:
“Inadequate property maintenance and enforcement Lack of regular maintenance causes deterioration
of the buildings and compromises the livability of the neighborhood. In some cases, property owners
cannot afford to maintain or repair their residences and do not know about programs that could help. In
other cases, the neglect is deliberate. Neglect should not be tolerated when it impacts a neighborhood’s
image, its reputation, and residents’ quality of life. Property owners and managers, both resident and
absentee, should be held accountable for deliberate property degradation through the enforcement of
existing codes. Residents recognize that property maintenance and code enforcement represent a
combination of legal, social, and moral issues difficult to address with limited administrative resources.
They also see a need to educate homeowners on assistance programs” Page 9.
Secondly, such actions alienate and have brought down the values of the neighborhood, which residents
have to live with and may well understandably account for the public outrage against this project. As
shown below they have not lived by the code in renting it out and maintaining it. And are repeat
offenders. Accordingly, it impeaches their representations and comments, they cannot be trusted and,
in my opinion, to develop the property of maintain it for that matter. Nor have not been forthright anor
transparent with the neighborhood and council during this public review process, and their record
shows why.
The City Council and Planning Division should not ignore misconduct if it is by an Applicant seeking to
amend the Master Plan and map itself. It is no answer to say well that is enforcement’s job, when clearly
that course has not worked due to recalcitrance. Someone has to say no to this kind of behavior. It is
the Planning Department’s job too to further the goals of the City. It is unacceptable, that Applicants
should not be allowed to take advantage of a process they have so abused, If enforcement has fallen
short. It still be made to work and can. The neighborhood and the City can be more vigilant. Many
neighbors only approved of the project because they have given up on the City doing something about
the unsightly mess they see and perceive and believe its better just to tear it down and move on, but
that only encourages more and more misconduct, and no Lessons are Learned. Property owners
beware, you have responsibilities to your neighbors that the city takes seriously to earn the privilege of
rezoning. This should be the message, treat the neighborhood better.
And treat your tenants better, this is clearly a city policy to be a good neighbor and maintain suitable
housing. Granting the Petition will displace them. Their tenants have been curiously silent on these
issues or silenced, for fear of speaking out. At one of the neighborhood meetings, a tenant spoke but
refused to answer any questions regarding the occupancy rate of her building, in obvious fear of doing
10
so, awkwardly attempting to assert the Landlord’s privacy interests. Nor did the Petitioner
applicant/representative, the owner’s daughter, who has most to gain by the approval, answer that
question, disingenuously claiming she did not know the numbers of occupants, and never providing that
information. It is relevant to truly appreciating what the density of the neighborhood actually is and
how many people will be displaced, it cannot be brushed off so easily. They claim they reside in
apartments, but evidence shows they have rented by the room, and I have been told that by a tenant.
Nor was the Petitioner aware one of their renters had at the time of the neighborhood meeting,
undertaken to hurriedly and sloppily chop a number of frontage trees. Who does that without direction
and permission from the owner to do so? The petitioner/owner himself never appeared at any of the
meetings or the Open House to support his petition and answer questions, yet his daughter suggested
the problems were his making and now that he was getting too old and they were taking control to
make improvements. Yet the Owner has been spotted at the premises going about his business. She
and her want to put things in shape and tear down the unsafe buildings that allegedly cannot be
repaired because of the settling foundations ((an engineering report was claimed to support this but
never furnished.) Settling is a concern I and many neighbors have but we have improved our homes
nevertheless at great cost. They said at one point they have only owned the property about a decade
while in private conversations with me admitted it is decades longer.
in all likelihood, they never intend to build the development. It is doubtful the family has any interest
other that selling the property at an appreciated rezoned value., now and getting Dad’s este in order is
more of a priority than managing and maintaining housing on any scale which appears to be a costly
challenge for them.
Petitioner has shown no interest or regard for this neighborhood in all the time I have lived here, so why
now? The have created a blight, and have visibly failed to improve their property as many otherss have ,
including myself at a cost well over six figures. They have rented to felons and disruptive threatening
individuals who have caused me problems over the years, and just recently it was reported there was
drive by shooting at their building, the White house, for the first time ever in this neighborhood of which
I am aware.
As far back as 1988 numerous certificates of noncompliance were issued to the owner of the property
by Salt Lake City. (See Attachment A.) I have seen no signs of improvements to the outside of the
property, in all this time, none to the roof, such as a replacement roof which you would expect. I just
replaced my roof in 2019, with a 50 year roof, and replaced it when I first bought the house.
At some time they painted the building in nonconforming colors, of blue, red and white, a real
distraction- resulting in one which notoriously became known as the China Blue House, which was
notorious for loud and frequent summer parties for years with live bands outside which we reported
numerous times to the police for continuing to disturb the neighborhood well past midnight with noise
and fighting. Elizbeth Smart was photographed at one house at a party during her captivity in 2002.
In 2018 there appeared to be a half-baked effort to improve the parking landscape on 200 S. with two
guys hurriedly spreading gravel over it and planting some vegetation which are all dead and gone now,
the landscaping has never been kept up, but is uncut weeds, overgrown and junk spread out all the
front lawn and in the back parking area, old junk cars, a dump, attracting rodents. it’s a wonder the
city tolerates it, in plain sight. Piles of leaves and mud on the front parking and street.
11
I have spoken with residents and been informed that they are renting by the room, and the heating was
dysfunctional during the winter of 2018-2019, ex-felons seems to have been given a preference as
tenants. I believe the place is over occupied and fire hazard.
In reviewing building inspection records provided me at Attachment A for 955 E 200 South, substandard
deficiencies occur from March 14, 1988. Upon which a Certificate of Non Compliance was issued. On
November 21, 2000 inspection numerous problems are cited as well as concerns about life, fire and
safety codes that the inspector needed to be assured would be addressed. It also reflects on August 23,
2007, a detailed report of a complaint about “junk(1-/13/99)”, that eventually went to before a hearing
officer for all four properties 959, 955, and 965 E 200 S., who reduced the fine to $100,00 per month,
dated 5/3/00. But again, on October 24, 2008 they were given a Notice of Deficiencies and a Warning
Letter from the Health Department for multiple substandard conditions. Also, the Division of Housing in
October 26, 2006. cited numerous work actions against, them. These people don’t learn or don’t care.
On information and belief, I believe that each building has a similar pattern of violations and problems
addressed by city inspectors over the year and other records exist, I have not had a chance to review. I
can’t imagine that these continued problems are anything else but deliberate practices.
This property has always been an eyesore as long as I have lived in the neighborhood, dilapidated, a
blight and fire hazard. Despite constant improvement to property and investments by good neighbors
such as my next door neighbor who has admirably restored his Victorian home at 929 E 200 S. , a real
gem, directly across the street from 955 E. 200S. The City has contributed significantly by adding
landscaped islands on 200 S from 900 E to 1200 E, in the 1early 90’s, I believe when it eliminated a lane
of traffic on 2nd South.
This neighborhood has so much potential, as an attractive corridor to the University crowned by the
Park building overlooking it. It would be attractive to single families, seniors and young professionals
who work downtown, to invest in these buildings and fix them up in preference to living in a high rise
and big apartment complex, with all its problems. At least two of the 5 structures are small homes on
each end of the project and have good potential for being fixed up at a reasonable cost, especially with
the historical tax incentives. There is no reason to rezone these two lots for all the same reasons none of
them should be rezoned.
The neighborhood is close the down town and many services. It is a perfect neighborhood to preserve
for single families and seniors such as myself. It has excellent public transportation advantages and easy
biking.
Based on their past history, I have no reason to trust or believe their development plan, or interest in
rezoning or developing the property or numerous of their representations are reliable regarding the
state of their property. They only want to rezone, to sell out, and profit further at this neighborhood’s
expense. Rezoning would encourage other developers with bigger and more intrusive projects to come
in and forgo them from building suitable single family residences.
V.
s
Rezoning would Harm My Interests
As to the harm this rezoning may cause me, I submit the following, in conclusion.
12
1. Any project would Increase parking and traffic problems. This does not appear to have been
reviewed by traffic at this time on the basis of only a proposed development. I believe it would
result in congestion at the intersection of Lincoln and 200 S, where access to and from both is
through a break in the islands which can be held up due to increasing traffic to and from the
university and bus service, i.e. traffic trying to turn left off 200 S, or left onto 200 So, from and to
Lincoln can bottleneck the whole street.
2. More difficulty with off street parking. This is already a big problem; I believe students from the
U park on the street and bus free to the U. Traffic is backed up on 200 S in front of my house
due to the single lanes and new bus service and stops and the stop light, Cars attempt to make
the light at 200 S speed up.to beat the light. It has become quite dangerous for me to exit my
own driveway, cars cannot see me due to the great number of oversized vehicles parking next to
it, and it is hard for me to see them.
3. It will degrade the single family residential appearance and character of the neighborhood to a
marked extent on 2 streets, Lincoln street, a quiet little used street where it is safe for residents
to walk away from the bustle of 200 S.
4. I fear that the destruction of Petitioner’s homes if not done carefully will damage my building
structures, and crack foundation and walls. I urge a condition be imposed to conduct
engineering and seismic and other appropriate studies during, before and after construction of
nearby properties that could be built there of the neighborhood that could be affected by any
such destructions and rebuilding. I do not believe engineering has considered this risk.
5. Lighting, is one of the biggest neighborhood nuisances to me. The abundance of lighting in the
neighborhood, which impacts us from as much as a block away, shining directly in our windows,
all night long, means we either cover our windows which we do not wish to do or live with it
Presumably lighting for 16 more units would only increase the nuisance, significantly and
perhaps create a need for more street lighting on Lincoln Street itself which would increase the
nuisance.
6. Impact on walkability, was described and Lincoln street.
7. More noise during the evening is projected and during construction.
8. Impact of the look and identity of the area and street scheme.
9. Protentional devaluation of my property due to higher density housing poorly maintained by
absentee landlords.
Thank you for your consideration.
s/ Arthur F. Sandack
AUG-23-2007 ntU 02:46 PH FOUNDERS TITLE FAK HO. 8012622741 P. 02 ... --
COllMUNRY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPlll!NT
Houaing and Neighborhood Development
461 South state Street. Room 406
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
I, Fosa Osazuwa. Housing and zoning Oft1car for the Cfly of Salt Lake, do hereby certify that the
follOWing property does not conform to 1he housing coda provisions of salt Lake Cft.Ys Revised
Ordinancee as adopted:
1. Type or Building:
2. Shat Addrass:
3. Legal Description:
4 . Sidwell Number.
5. OWner:
Reaidentlel
955 east 200 Souttl, satt t.a1ca City, Utah
BEG 200 FTW FR SE CCR LOT 1, BU< 561 PLAT B, SLC SUR; W 35
FT; N 147 % FT; E 35 FT; S 147 % FT TO BEG 4339-037'1 5478-1308
572A-2870
18-08--135-012 -
I further certify that the violations to be corrected ant u follows: Failure to comply with Board of
Ad;ustment Caa9# 701-B of March 14, 1988.
A Certlflcale of Compliance and Correction ehal be fted by this olnce when all work ha been
accamplilhed.
STATE OF UTAH )
)st
COUNTY OF SALT~ )
on this 8th day of October, 1999, personally •ppeared befora ma. Fosa Osaz:uwa, Housing and
Zoning O!fteer for S!ft ~-c;tty. Ulab, Who aoknowladged that he Issued the abcMt certlftcate and =-
the statements Coma1iied therein are true. ~
. . --. . . .. : . ... . .
co
~
Dale: Thursday August 23, 2007
Time: 03:02 pm Detllled Requaet Report
R8qH1t: "141111 JUNK: RESIDENTIAL (CEM)
Service Add,_:955 E 200 8 84102·2418
Request.-:
Reque11er Address:
Page1 Of1
CouncH Oisbtd: 4
Phone:
Input Date: Wedne9day OctOber 13, 1' lnpm Department: BH ; Input Person: Kris Neugalt
Perosn Assigned: 4'
Department Assigned: BH
Com!nerD: (10tt3f18118) COMPLAINT ABOUT JUNK AND TOO MANY OCCUPANTS ,
ALSO FAILURE TO COll'l YWITH B.O.A. CABE f 'IOll TO CONVERT TO
A DUPLEX. WILL 8END A CIVIL N&O ASSIGN TO l2IJ 1221KN
Ac:UonT8ken
(1213atW) Junk .. ir.e..-. Allobullll\1 IHU .... Dlglilly.-1. Will ..
Una Fdlawup1-30-CI>. G24d
(492000) MET OWNER ON PROPERTYYESTEltOAY, THE JUNK HAS
NOW BEEN CLEANED UP AND ntE TEMANTSARE DOWN TOJUST3,
AND THE HOUSE IS NOT BEING RENTED OUT HMA ROOMING HOUSE
ANVMORI!. WILL CLOSI THE CASES ON THIS HOUSE. THE HOUSE HAS
NOT MET THE BOARD 01 ADJUSTMENT REQUIAEIENTS BUT rr IS
BEING ua!DA8A llNGLE FAlaY OWEWNG NOW. CL08E Til8 CASE
WI.LADD UP FINES A IENDA MQUUT FOR A HEARINGTO THE
OWNER. ICN
(4'8QIOOO)
(418r.ZOOO) Raqueet cloled bW nk8203 hm dlpaltment HOUSING &
NEIGHBORHOOD 8ERV .•
(S1212DOO) __ NCll*llllbf~Ham.lhlnl ... _. HOUSING&
NEIOHBORHOOD SERV .. Wentto ...... dllcsllfourota.pioper111159
E.; 161E.88S E. lftCl 805 E. 20Q &«Ill,.,.. ID 2.4JO llStOOplrmordh .
beglnnlllf .U, 1, OOID .-, StCJ0.00 per month. 11
DeUvel8d ·--Deltwred # __
Pielcup# __
Pickup# __
Leftt __
Repair# __
Status: Resolved
Close Date: 05I03l2000
Stolen# __
.. ...
KAREN DENTaN, P'H.D,
-IU:YCltt
November 21, 2000
Dear Property Owner:
CDMMUNITV AND CCDNDMIC DEV&L.DP'MENT
DIVIBIDN DF' HDU81N8 ANO Nll:laHB09'HDDD DIEVCl.QPMl:NT
Rall& C. ANDEA8DN
RE: Unit legalization of 955 East 200 South, Salt Lake City, Utah.
On November 11, 2000, Salt Lake City's Housing and Neighborhood Development conducted an
inspection for the property that you wish to legalize at 955 East 200 South, Salt Lake City, Utah.
The following deficiencies were found and need to be remedied before I can assure that this
buHding meets the minimum life, fire and safety codes.
PremlH
P•rklna Provide a copy of a •cross Access Agreement•. This agreement must be
Recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder office.
Apartment Business License required.
Exterior
18.50.140.B
18.50.140.A
18.50.140.D
18.50.140.F
18.50.140.F
18.50.210A 7
Common Area
18.50.160.A.
Building requires paint as per Chapter 14 of Uniform Building Code.
structural maintenance required on chimney .
Repair or maintain window glazing, sashes, trim and sills.
House address numbers are required to be 3• high and of a contrasting
color.
Apartment dwelling unit identification numbers or letters are required to
be 2· high and of a contrasting color.
Exterior plumbing vent pipe requires repair on North side of building.
Unit #A and Unit #8 are required to have entry doors, trim and hardware
in good working condition.
41U 8DUTH 8TAft 8TREET, llDDM 4D•• SALT LAICE CITY, UTAH 84111
ttLEPHGNEs eat1a•'7•aa TODs ea1-aa...aa1 """* ao1·11a••1s1
.Gll. --·--·-
'
lnterlortA
~
Kltcl!en
18.50.180.0
B!throom#I
18.50.190.B.2.A
18.50.150.B
18.50.180A3
eathrooml2
18.50.150.C
8edroomt3
18.50.707.A
Interior&
Note:
Entrv/Stalrway
18.50.200.C.7
Bedroomt3
18.50.230.C.3
18.50.070.A
Interior IC
Living room is being used as a bedroom.
Kitchen required to have a refrigerator in good working condition.
Window needs to open for the purpose of providing ventilation.
Floor covering requires repair.
Bathroom ceiling height does not meet minimum standard e·-0· at toilet.
The ceiling and walls require a clean. washable surface.
Replace keyed door locks with privacy or passage type locks.
Living room is being used as a bedroom.
Stairs are required to have a minimum headroom clearance height of
6'-4·.
Grounded type outlets are not permitted in a non-grounded electrical
system, no 3 prong plugs allowed.
Replace keyed door locks with privacy or passage type locks.
Three rooms located in Unit #B, northeast comer may be used for
storage purposes only as per our conversation November 17. 2000, this
also included aH attic space.
Llvlna Room/Bedroom n
18.50.200.E.4 All habitable rooms with a ceiling height less than 1·a· need 120 volt
18.50.230.C.3
18.50.070.A
electrical powered smoke detectors.
Grounded type outlets are not permitted in a non-grounded electrical
system, no 3 prong plugs allowed .
Remove hasp lock from bedroom door.
If you have any questions regarding this inspection, please call me at 535-7983 Tuesday
through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. or between 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Sincerely,
C~-:\2~--.JJ., -----:.
Craig Richardson
Housing/Zoning Officer/Building Inspector
CR:jb
Enc. Business License Application
HAAB Form
Addr8ss .idl . H. No loi.J ~
87115 955 E 2008 5003978 A FL 10l12/1999
87115 955 E 200S 358 F FL 02/1811988
87115 955 E 200S 0 11117/2000
8 7115 955 E 200$ (155823 F ME 10l03l2000
7115 8 955 E 200S 155143 A BL 09/18/2000
8 7115 955 E 2008 I 152825 F ME 07l05/2000
8 7115 955 E 2008 151325 F ME 05l26l2000
8 7115 955 E 200$ 151324 F PL 05l26l2000
\.. ---.
8 7115 955 E 200$ r 150334 F ""P[ 04/rT/2000
87115 955 E 200S 150333 F ME 04/27/2000
87115 955 E 2008 150119 F ME 04/21/2000
I
87115 955 E 2008 ""--149428 F BL 03l29l2000 -
87115 955 E 2008 85462 QJBL 02if411994
87115 955 E 200$ 50104 F PL 05l01/1990
87115 955 E 200$ 44417 F EL 0Si1911989
87115 955 E 200$ 44328 F PL 0Si1811969
87115 955 E 200S 43809 F Bl 08/3111989
fta 0
Ila 0
0
gen 0
bid 0
gen 0
gen 0
gen 0
gen 0
gen 0
gen 0
bid 0
bid 0
gen 0
gen 0
gen 0
bid 0
:::::-\
~
' ~
'l ""' ~
~ \"'"~
_. ~a.. ~L-.J.....
~~~ ~"
Q
·7oc. en
It -~ ..,
£(\~ ·~
~...lo~ Ci.F.'
~ 1' -fl\lTQ«7~
..•
~l ..•. • •
. . ~
..
··' .·
: .
;. ..
..... 1. -eM •·•O
Address <f.j-~-e44;tez7f,/,,,,zt, ,Oat~ 11--,~-19.S-t .
Buildin Permit No. c;l.
E1ectrical Permit No.
PJ~mbing Permit No . ..,t 7tp.9-.; .. 1 ~fJ
Bui1ding Permit No. ;3J{t•;. J/-I ;z. -;! -I· (J •
Electiical Permit No. / ~ ;'/. 71)-11-1..S'· .5b
Electrical Permit No.
---................ ~.-.--· .. ~ ... ____ .__. __
SLVHD
/ .. 1 (. ~·~. ,/ ...
\ /·, ·. / .
..... ~f"'
'".:-_ ~ ~/~
Sa lt lake Valley Health Department
;c:s E.i•SI \\'Gut:<ia l: lane
t:.urr;iy, .JT 84107-6 37<;
phor.p 80 :-;.13 ·6600
fox &01-311·660&
~-·w ·;:.slvh ':'al!h .or r,
October 24. 2008
RE: 955 East 200 South
Royal Deleggc, M.P.A., L.E.H.S. • Div b i1J !l Di r H l01
Warning Letter
The Salt Lake Valley Health Department has been referred to the above address for which you are the mvners of
record.
On October 17 & October 21 , 2008. Bruce Boggess and Greg Langfcld, Health Department inspectors.
along with Craig Richardson a Salt Lake City Housing and Zoning Enforcement officer, conducted an
inspection al 955 East 200 South. The following conditions were observed:
1st Level:
• Bathroom
c Missing window screen
o Missing toilet tank lid
o Floors not sealed
c Light fixture in disrepair
• Kitchen
o Walls have holes; paint peeling
o Sink faucet is loose
o Sink cabinet floor has water damage
o Ceiling has water damage
o Cockroach residue on walls and ceiling
• Common hallway
o Walls , ceilings, floors were filthy
2nl1 Level:
• Kitchen
o Holes in the walls
o Sink cabinet floor has water damage and there are holes in the wall
0
• Furnace room
o Exposed wires
o Intake air vent plugged
• Bathroom:
o Broken toilet seat
o Exhaust fan falling from the ceiling
o Air vent falling off wall
o Ceiling has water damage
o Light fixture in disrepair
o Hole in wall
• North bedroom
o Inhabitable living space
o Roaches in light fixture
• West. bedroom
o Ceiling has water damage
o Large hole in the ceiling
• Common hallway
o Holes in the walls
o Walls, ceilings, floors were filthy
• Outside premises
o Missing window pane on west side
o Vents not sealed on east side; pigeon roosts
o Windows and walls covered with pigeon droppings
o Entry sites for rodents or vennin on the east side
o Solid waste in back parking lot, including but not limited to a refrigerator, carpet, pallets,
bags of garbage, and miscellaneous trash
o Missing lids on the dumpster
o No Dumpster company information on the dumpster
You are notified that these conditions are in violation of Health Department Regulation #3 Housing and #7
General Sanitation (Health Regulations may be obtained in their entirety at www.slvhealth.org or you may
contact our office):
3-4.1.2. Letting of Unfit Dwelling or Dwelling Unit Unlawful. No owner, manager, or
other person shall let to another person, or permit occupancy of any dwelling or
dwelling unit unless it complies with this regulation.
3-4.1 .3. Failure to Maintain Dwelling or Dwelling Unit Unlawful. No owner or manager, of any
dwelling or dwelling unit shall permit interior surfaces to become soiled from accumulations of
garbage, fecal matter, bodily fluid, or other infectious materials. If the affected area cannot be
cleaned and restored to a sanitary condition, the Director may require the owner to repair or
replace it before further habitation.
3-4. l .5. Maintenance of Common Areas. An owner or manager of a building or structure containing
two or more dwelling units shall maintain the common areas of the premises in a clean and
sanitary manner.
.,-
NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES
Property Inspected: 955 East 200 South, Salt Lake City. Utah
Date of Inspection: October 241 2008
Name of Inspector: Craig Richardson
Case Number. HAZ2008-01594
This Notice of Deficiencies must be submitted when application for the construction and repair
permits is made. A Hcensed contractor may be required to do the repairs. For addltional permit
and contractor infonnltion, please caU (535-7752).
·substandard condition• means a structural, eledrical, mechanical or plumbing system condition in
a residential building or dwelUng unit which violates applicable codes but with maintenance or
repair can be fully safe.
Prem It!
21A.40.140
Exterior
V18.5Q.220.B.3.G
18.50.140.D
18.50.170.A
tA&.50.220.A.3
ln1lrlor lmpectlon
Untt!A
Hallway
18.50.170.A
18.50.170.C
18.50.200.A
18.50.200.E.1
It is unlawful to permit the outdoor storage of Inoperable, oouaed or
unRcensed ~. vehicle parts, appliances, interior furniture, discarded
building materials, landscape debris; or other spent and useless Items
commonly known as junk in a residential di8trict. All residential accessory
storage must be In an encloaed building.
AH ducts and vents shan be maJntained according to original Installation
requirements. (cap miaing on vent)
Broken or missing doors, door frames, windows, operating systems, and
window eashes shall be rapalred or replaced.
All premises shall be maintaiied clean, safe, sanitary and free from an
accumulation of rubbish.
Al mechanical equipment shaft be properly maintained and operated In a
safe man."181'. (Install gutter spike where pigeon's nest)
All premises shaD be maintained clean, safe, sanitary and free from an
accumulation of rubbish.
There shall be no Insect or rodent Infestation In violation of the County Health
Department regulations.
No hazard of fire or explosion shall be created or allowed to exist In •Y
building, premises, equipment or apparatus. (Fire extlngLiahera are
mfuing.)
Smoke detector required In hallway or area giving accesa to rooms used for
sleeping (installed • per manufacturer's in8tructiona).
Batbroom
{' 18.50.170A
118.50.140.D
V18.50.210A.2
All premises shall be maintained clean, safe, sanitary and free from an
accumulation of Rlbbish.
Broken or missing doors, door framee, windows, operating systems, and
window sashes 8haJI be repaired or replaced. (Window needs to be
openable .)
Plumbing, piping and fixtures shall have no leaks and shall be maintained In
good condition. (Toilet Is loose.)
Bathroom In Hallway
v1i.50.150.C All walls and ceiUngs shall be maintained so that they are secure and intact.
~OA ,.. premises shall be mainlained clean, safe, aanilarY and free from an
-J accumulation of rubbish.
116 18.50.170.C There shaH be no insect or rodent infestation in violation of the County Health
J Department regulations.
vb 18.50.150.C All walls and celllngs shaR be maintained so that they are 88CU'8 and intact.
(Repair an cracks, missing plaster and repair holes.) ~50.150.C SurfaceS shan be painted or covered with an approved wallpaper or
paneling.
/18.50.150.E
?50.230.A
vi 18.50.230.A
Ba8ement
v"ii.56.220A3
0a.50.220A2
v<s.50.230.F.1
~50.200.C.1
vi8.50.200.C.6
18.50.170.A
UnlttB
H1llway
D 18.50.200.A
'O 18.50.200.E.1
All fixtures shall be maintained in a safe and operable condition. (Kitchen
cabinets require replacement at aink with a new faucet)
All electrical equipment, wiring and appliances shall be used in a safe
manner and installed in accordance with the electrical code in effect at the
time of installation. (ventilation fan)
All electrical equipment, wiring and appliances shaH be used in a safe
manner and Installed in accordance with the electrical code in effect at the
time of installation. (Repair refrigerator freezer door.)
Al mechanical equipment shal be property maintained and operated in a
safe manner. (Combustion air vent Is blocked.)
AR mechanical equipment ahan be In accordance with the code In effect at
the time of Installation. (Remove unused duct work.)
Al electrical panels, boxes. outlets and lighting fixtures shall have proper
covers .
Stairs with four (4) or more risers require a handraU.
Stains shall be repaired and maintained in a safe condition.
All premises shall be maintained clean, safe, sanitary and free from an
accumulation of rubbish.
No hazard of fire or explosion shall be created or allowed to exist in any
building, premises, equipment or apparatus. (Fire extinguishers me
milsing.) :
Smoke detector required in hallway or area giving access to rooms used for
sleeping (installed as per manuractuw's instrudions).
0 18.50.170.A
l> 18.50.170.C
Batbrpom
./ 18.50.210A 1
"'1&5o.170.A
Q18.50.170.C
.150.C
"1'6:50.220.A.3
Kitchen
V1i.56.17o.A
() 18.50.170.C
0'18.50.150.C
V18.50.220A3
Furnace Room r 18.50.230.F.1
ilta.so.230.A
All premises shall be maintained clean, safe, sanitary and free from · an
accumulation of rubbish. .
There shall be no insect or rodent inlestatlon in violation of the County Health
Department regulations.
All plumbing, piping and fixtll'e8 shall be in accordance with the code in
effect at the time of installation. (Escutcheon is missing on shower apout.)
All premisea shall be maintained clean, safe, sanitary and free from an
accumulation of rubbish.
There shaU be no insect or rodent infestation in violation of the County Health
Department regulations.
All walls and ceilings shall be maintained so that they are aecure and intact.
All mechanical equipment shall be properly maintained and operated in a
safe manner. (Repair and secure vent)
All premises shall be maiUJned clean, safe, sanitary and free from an
accumulation of rubbish.
There shaU be no lnaed or rodent infestation In violation of the County Health
Department regulations.
AM wall and ceilings shall be rnaiitained so that they are secure and lntaQ.
All mechanical equipment shal be properly maintained and operated in a
safe mamer. (Secura vent behind cabinet)
All electrical panels, boxes, outlets and lghting fixtures shall have proper
covers.
All electrical equipment, wiring and appliances shall be used In a safe
manner and installed in accordance with the electrical code In effect at the
time of Installation. (Clean combustion and retum ducts.)
NOTE: North room Is not to be occupied!
a.ctroom -Middle
J.i8.50.210A2 Plumbing, piping and fixtures ahall have no leaks and shall be malntaiied in
/ good condition.
~.170.A Alt premises shalt be maintained clean, safe, sanitary and free from an
aca.mulation of rubbish.
50.150.C AU walls and ceilings shall be maintained so that they are secure and Intact.
18.50.230.A All electrical equipment, wiring and appliances shall be used in a safe
manner and Installed in accordance with the electrical code In effect at the
Unite
Hallway
18.50.200.E.1
time of lnataHation. -( 1 l ' ~~tel£, C,. \ 0vl L&v· \.«)')( $~C:. •t (.I\
Smoke detector required In hallway or area gMng ac:cess to rooms used for
aleeplng (Installed as per manufacturer's instructions).
/
DIVISION OF HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
SERVICE REQUEST
Thursday, September OS, 2019 INFORMATION
Sidwell#
Address
. ... . • ~ ~ .. ~ '-. ~:· ...... -·.,'\:··.::=,'(-: .. :-· ... HAND District: -. ~ • . • , • • • •i. • •
Owner Info:
Status: Closed
Inspector: •
HAZE
Comment Type
Case C omment
Case Comment
Case Comment
Case Comment
Case Comment
Case Comment
Case Comment
Case Comment
Case Comment
Action
Result Comment In Progress
Result Comment In Progress
Result Comm ent In Progress
Result Comment In Progress
Result Comment In Progress
Inspector
Date Created:
Created By:
Complete Date:
VIOLATIONS
WORK ACTIONS
Action Description
Inspected interior for remaining de f list item of
counter space. Counter has been installed and meet
requirments .
bs
Owner has completed def li st items .
OK to close
Call to owner, ins pection scheduled for l/2S/07 at
12:00 pm.
BS
Inspection for deficiency li st conducted. All but one
item remains. Requirement of four square feet of
counter space. Will wait for the owner to call for a
final in spection. cz
Owner has not called for final inspection of
remai ning deficiency list items . Follow up visit
needed to final inspection, call placed to owner to
finish inspection. dh
Deficiency list is OOoAi complete. Still some
remainin~ issues. Extens ion ~iven. cz
Inspection is done on the interior. Deficiency items-
holes in che floor wall and ceiling are taken care of
but there is more to do. cz
Outs ide is okay, inside is a mess. cz
Hous ing II letter with deficiency list. cz
AD 22 -PHONE CALL : Call to owner, inspection
scheduled for 1/25/07 at 12:00 pm.
BS
AD 19 -INSPECTION: Owner has not called for
final inspection of remaining defici ency list items.
Follow up v isit needed to final inspection, call
placed to owner to finish inspecti(Hl. dh
AD 19 -INSPECTION; inspected interior for
remaining de f list item of counter space. Counter bas
been installed and meet requinnents.
bs
AD 19 -INSPECTION: Inspection for deficiency
list conducted. All but one item remains.
Requirement of four square feet of counter space.
Will wait for the owner to call for a final inspection.
CZ
AD 19 -INSPECTION: Deficiency list is GO%
complete. Still some remaining issues. Extension
given. cz
Case# HAZ2000..156070
10/26/2006
Date-Time
10/26/2006 9: 17 AM
10/26/2006 10:00 AM
10/2 6/2006 12:00 PM
10/26/2006 1 :00 PM
10/26120061:00 PM
From:Judi Short
To:Lindquist, Kelsey
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Proposed Lincoln Street and 2nd East Development
Date:Wednesday, February 12, 2020 1:43:24 PM
Dear Planning Commissioners:
This is a very detailed and well written staff report, I hope you have read every word. We are in a housing crunch in
Salt Lake City, but that does not mean that we should tear down the wonderful old buildings in our city for the sake
of a few additional units. There is plenty of available land in the city to build units. Look at the downtown empty
parking lots.
This property is not for sale. Of course not, because the recent owner has now sold it to a developer who wants to
tear it down and expand and make a lot of money.
This property is part of the Bryant Historic District, and forms the fabric of this neighborhood. If we start allowing
exceptions to the huge number of Master Plans that have been written and include this neighborhood, we are
undermining all the work planning and the citizens of Salt Lake City do to plan our neighborhoods. if we start with
one project, there will be another one, and another one, until this neighborhood won't look like the neighborhood it
is now. Do we really want that to happen? Why bother with doing a master plan at all if we are just going to ignore
its recommendations. R-2 is the perfect ensity for this area.
What about the 50 or so individuals who live in the existing five homes. I guarantee the rent is extremely low, and
evicting them could contribute to additional homeless people. There is no plan for them to relocate. The list of
people waiting for affordable housing is long, how long will it take for them to move up to the top of the list and
find a placement? In the meantime, where are they to live?
These are five affordable units. Are you willing to demolish these and replace them with no affordable units?
There is no compelling reason to rezone these parcels. I vote no, and I recommend that you vote no as well. Page
60 and 61 give you a couple of reasons why you should vote this down. There are other reasons throughout the staff
report.
VOTE NO!
--
Judi Short, Land Use Chair, Sugar House Community Council
801.487.7387 h
801.864.7387 c
4) ORIGINAL APPLICANT PETITION
~;~%
='·~l Master Plan Amendment
D Amend the text of the Master Plan ~ Amend the Land Use Map
OFFICE USE ONLY
Address of Subject Property (or Area):
See attached supplemental information
Name of Applicant: .....
Chiao-ih Hui c/o, Graham Gilbert, Snell & Wilmer LLP
Address of Applicant:
15 West South Temple, Suite 1200, Salt Lake City, UT 84070
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~! _ce_l-1/-Fa_x_:~~~~~~~~~
Applicant's Interest in Subject Property :
D Owner D Contractor D Architect ~ Other: Owner's Agent
Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant):
See attached supplemental information
E-mail of Property Owner:
chiaoih@gmail.com
Phone :
801 -414-8041
\ Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate
information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and
made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public
review by any interested party.
AVAILABLE CONSULTATION
\ Planners are available for consultation prior to submitting this application. Please call (801) 535-7700 if
you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application.
REQUIRED FEE
\ Filing fee of $948 plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre .
\ $100 for newspaper notice.
\ Plus additional fee for mailed public notices.
SIGNATURE
\ If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required.
Signature of Owner or Agent: Date:
See attached signature page
Updated 7 /1/17
D
D
D
D
D
SUBMITIAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Project Description (please attach additional sheets .)
A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment.
A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned .
List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area.
Is the request amending the Zoning Map?
If so , please list the parcel numbers to be changed .
D Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance?
If so , please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed.
WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION
Mailing Address: Planning Counter In Person: Planning Counter
PO Box 145471 451 South State Street, Room 215
Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Telephone: (801) 535-7700
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
_x __ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I
understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the
submittal package.
Upd ated 7/1/17
Supplemental Information/or Project Description
Applicant: Chiao-ih Hui
Zoning Amendment Application
1. Owner Names and Address of Subject Property (or Area):
This Zoning Amendment Application applies to the parcels li ste d m the following table
(collectively, the "Parcels").
Parcel No. Owner Address Acres
16051350100000 Peter & Pik Chi Hui 159 South Lincoln Street 0.15
16051350110000 Nung-Wa Hui; Pih-Fhai 949 East 200 South 0.12
Hui; & Pik-Chi Hui
16051350120000 Pih Fhai & Pik Chi Hui 955 East 200 South 0.12
16051350130000 Hawk II; Pih-Phai Peter 959 East 200 South 0.12
Hui; & Nung-Wa Hui
16051350140000 Pik Chi & Peter Hui 963 East 200 South 0.18
2. Project Description
a. A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment.
The Parcels are currently located in the City's R-2 Single-and Two-Family Residential Zoning
District ("R-2 District"). The current zoning for the Parcels is shown on Exhibit A. The purpose
of this Application is to amend the Zoning Map to include the Parcels in the RMF-35 Moderate
Density Multi-Family Residential District ("RMF-35 District"). This amendment is necessary to
allow Applicant's proposed use of the Parcels, which is described below.
b. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned.
Applicant proposes to construct a multi-family project with 16 dwelling units on the Parcels . A
site pl~n for the Parcels is attached as Exhibit A.
c. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area.
The Parcels are currently located in the R-2 District. They are adjacent to properties in the RMF-
35 District. The immediately surrounding area has a wide variety of zoning districts, including
the RMF-35 District; R-2 District; RMF-30 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District; RMF-
45 Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District; SR-3 Special Development Pattern
Residential District; and UI Urban Institutional District. These zoning districts are shown on
Exhibit B.
The area surrounding the parcels has a mix of different land uses, including single-family homes;
small, medium, and large apartments; commercial buildings; offices; and institutional buildings
4827-5507-9574
(e.g ., Salt Lake Regional Hospital). This mix of land uses results from approved, conditional uses
and changes to land use policies over time .
The Central Community Master Plan encourages use of residential zoning to provide opportunities
for medium-density housing. It also encourages infill development designed in a manner that is
compatible with the appearance of existing neighborhoods. Similarly, the City's Housing Plan
recommends increasing medium density housing types and options. It recommends directing new
growth towards areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-
oriented. The Housing Plan also encourages development of affordable housing .
The non-historic homes on the Parcels have been converted to apartments . Existing City approvals
permit 9 apartment units on the 5 parcels. The present zoning does not allow Applicant to develop
its proposed multi-family project on the Parcels. As a result, Applicant requests an amendment to
the zoning map to include the Parcels in the RMF-35 District. This proposed amendment is
consistent with surrounding zoning . Properties adjacent to and northeast of the Parcels are located
in the RMF-35 District. Numerous other properties in the immediately surrounding neighborhood
are in the RMF-35 District, or other multi-family zoning districts, like RMF-45 and RMF-30 . A
medium-density housing development is compatible with the existing neighborhood. The
surrounding neighborhood has a variety of land uses, including small , medium, and large
apartment buildings. As recommended by the Housing Plan, the proposed development will
increase medium density housing stock in an area with existing infrastructure and close proximity
to mass tran sit and services (e.g. medical and commercial services). In addition, Applicant is
willing to work with the City to provide one affordable housing unit in the project. For these
reasons, Applicant requests that the Parcels be rezoned to the RMF-35 District.
d. I s the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers
to be changed.
This Application proposes amending the Zoning Map for Salt Lake County Parcel Nos .
16051350100000; 16051350110000; 16051350120000; 16051350130000;and 16051350140000.
Additional information regarding the Parcels may be found in the table , above.
e. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include
language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed.
This Application does not request amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance.
4827-5507-9574
34.5'
Col
,...:·
J
I
PARCEi!: # PARCEL # PARCEL# I I 1ao513so110000 ( 16051sso120000115051350130000 I
ZONE R-2 ZONE R-2 ZONE R-2
0.12ACRES 0.12ACRES 0.12~RES ~1 I~ I l'l t ~ ~
-1 I~ i ~
I
I~ -
I
I
I I
L -'--' 34.5' 34.5'
200 South
3(;" n
I
b ~
I
PARCEL#
16051350140000
ZONE A-2
0.18 ACRES I i8 ....
I
I
--_J 47'
P!lRCEL fa
1605130.02 70000
",4RCLL ~ I 60~ lj~02BDDOD
SAS£CAMP FRANCHISING LlC
@ SITE PLAN : EXISTING CONDITIONS
S-! ---o· 5' ro' 20· 40'
Ex hibit A -Site Plan
Applicant: Chiao-ih Hui
Zoning Amendment Application
NORTH
~
~ .
"' c :i:
0 f--.
.c .
3
0 en .
0
0
N
1 ..
I~
i!
~:
AS-100
S R -3 .~
R MF -30
IRMFl .. -~
~ =
-5
I• , ~.
RMF-35
Existi ng Commercial
Use
Exhibit B -Map of Surrounding Zones
Applicant: Chiao-ih Hui
Zoning Amendment Application
UI
RMF-45 Ill
-z
j
:;
.:
Zoning Amendment
D Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance ~ Amend the Zoning Map
OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Received : Project#:
fJt!U ~ot -Orit;23
-3-5
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
Address of Subject Property (or Area):
See attached supplemental information
Name of Applicant: ......
Chiao-ih Hui c/o, Graham Gilbert, Snell & Wilmer LLP
Address of Applicant:
15 West South Temple, Suite 1200, Salt Lake City, UT 84101
E-mail of Applicant: I Cell/Fa x:
----~~~~~~~-~~~~-Applicant 's Interest in Subject Property:
0 Owner 0 Contractor 0 Architect ~ Other: Owner's Agent
Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant):
See attached su lemental information
E-mail of Property Owner:
chiaoih@gmail.com
Phone :
801 -414-8041
\ Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate
information is provid ed for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and
made public, including profes sional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of publ ic
review by any interested party.
AVAILABLE CONSULTATION
\ If you have any questions regardin g the requirements of this application, plea se contact Salt Lake City
Planning Counter at (801) 535-7700 prior to submitting th e application.
REQUIRED FEE
\. Filing fee of $1,011 plu s $121 per acre in excess of on e acr e,
\ Text amendments will be charged $100 for newspaper notice.
\ Plu s additional f ee for mailed public notices .
SIGNATURE
\. If applicabl e, a notarize d sta teme nt of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required.
Signature of Owner or Agent: Date:
See attached signature page
Updated 7 /1/17
SUBMITIAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Project Description (please attach additional sheets.)
D EJ Describe the proposed master plan amendment.
D EJ A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment.
D EJ Declare why the present master plan requires amending.
D EJ Is the request amending the Land Use Map?
If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed .
D D Is the request amending the text of the master plan?
If so, please include exact languag e to be changed.
WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION
Mailing Address: Planning Counter In Person : Plannin g Counter
PO Box 145471 451 South State Street, Room 215
Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Telephone: (801) 535 -7700
IN COMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
_x __ I acknowled ge that Salt lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I
understand that Planning will not accept my app li cation unless all of the following items are included in the
submittal package.
Updated 7 /1/17
Supplemental Information for Submittal Requirements
Applicant: Chiao-ih Hui
Master Plan Amendment Application
1. Owner Names and Address of Subject Property (or Area):
This Master Plan Amendment Application applies to the parcels listed in the following table
(collectively, the "Parcels").
Parcel No. Owner Address Acres
16051350100000 Peter & Pik Chi Hui 159 South Lincoln Street 0.15
16051350110000 Nung-Wa Hui ; Pih-Fhai 949 East 200 South 0 .12
Hui; & Pik-Chi Hui
16051350120000 Pih Fhai & Pik Chi Hui 955 East 200 South 0 .12
16051350130000 Hawk II ; Pih-Phai Peter 959 East 200 South 0.12
Hui ; & Nung-Wa Hui
16051350140000 Pik Chi & Peter Hui 963 East 200 South 0.18
2. Project Description
a. Describe the proposed master plan amendment.
This Application requests an amendment to the Central Community Master Plan ("Master Plan").
The Parcels are currently located in the Low Density Residential land use designation on the
Master Plan's Land Use Map. The current land use designation for the Parcels is shown on Exhibit
A. This Application requests an amendment to the Land Use Map to include the Parcels in the
Medium Density Residential land use designation. This amendment is necessary to allow
Applicant's proposed use of the Parcels, which is described below.
b. A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment.
Applicant proposes to construct a multi-family project with 16 dwelling units on the Parcels. A
site plan for the Parcels is attached as Exhibit A.
c. Declare why the present master plan requires amending.
The Parcels are currently located in the Low Density Residential designation. They are adjacent
to properties in the Medium Density Residential designation. The immediately surrounding area
has a wide variety of land use designations , including Medium Density Residential; Low Density
Residential ; Low Medium Density Residential; Medium High Density Residential; Neighborhood
Commercial; and Institutional.
The area surrounding the parcels has a mix of different land uses, including single-family homes;
4843-3 167 -9 126
small , medium, and large apartments; commercial buildings; offices; and institutional buildings
(e .g ., Salt Lake Regional Hospital). This mix ofland uses results from approved , conditional uses
and changes to land use policies over time.
The Master Plan supports use of residential zoning to provide opportunities for medium-density
housing. It also encourages infill development designed in a manner that is compatible with the
appearance of existing neighborhoods . Similarly, the City's Housing Plan recommends increasing
medium density housing types and options. It recommends directing new growth towards areas
with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-oriented. The Housing
Plan also encourages development of affordable housing.
The non-historic homes on the Parcels have been converted to apartments. Existing City approvals
permit 9 apartment units on the 5 Parcels. The present land use designation does not allow
Applicant to develop its proposed multi-family project on the Parcels. As a re sult, Applicant
requests an amendment to the Land Use Map to include the Parcels in the Medium Density
Residential designation. This proposed amendment is consistent with surrounding land use
designations. Properties adjacent to and northeast of the Parcels are located in the Medium Density
Residential designation. Numerous other properties in the immediately surrounding neighborhood
are in the Medium Density Residential designation, or other multi-family land use designations,
like Medium High Density Residential or Low Medium Density Residential. A medium-density
housing development is compatible with the existing neighborhood. The surrounding
neighborhood has a variety of land uses, including small, medium, and large apartment buildings.
As recommended by the Housing Plan, the proposed development will increase medium density
housing stock in an area with existing infrastructure and close proximity to mass transit and
services (e.g. medical and commercial services). In addition, Applicant is willing to work with
the City to provide one affordable housing unit in the project. For these reasons , Applicant requests
that the Land Use Plan be amended to include the Parcels in the Medium Density Residential land
use designation.
d. Is the request amending the Land Use Map? If so, please list the parcel
numbers to be changed.
This Application proposes amending the Land Use Map for Salt Lake County Parcel Nos.
16051350100000; 16051350110000; 16051350120000; 16051350130000;and 16051350140000.
Additional information regarding the Parcels may be found in the table, above.
e. Is the request amending the text of the master plan? If so, please include exact
language to be changed.
This Application does not request amendments to the text of the Master Plan.
4843-3167-9 126
-Q)
~ -V)
c
0 u c
::J
io I
d -
11) I
I
35.5'
I PARCEL#
PARCEL ,
16051 J50090000
105.1'
PARCEL#
16051350100000
0 .15ACRES
LAND USE DESIGNATION:
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
34.5' -I' 34.5'
.m-' 30'
_r
<O ,...:-
:J
I
b . ..,,.
I
16051350110000
PARCEL" I PARCEL # I
16051350120000 -16051350130000
0 ,12ACRES I 0.12ACRES
PARCEL#
16051350140000
0 .18ACRES
L.ANOUSE
DESIGNATION:
I 6 .12 ACRES
LAND U,sE
· DESIGNATION: I LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
36.1'
LAND USE LAND USE
DESIGNATION: -DESIGNATION:
LOW DENSITY I LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL
LOW DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL
I
L
I
I_ -'·-34.5' 34.5' 47'
PARCEL #
16051 J50270000
Exhibit A -Site Plan
Applicant: Chiao-ih Hui
Master Plan Amendment Application
(/) c
PARCEL I 16051350280000
BASECAMP FflANCHISING LL C
~
0 I-. l .s::..
'5 . I~ 0 -~ CJ). ~u
0 l3 0 ~! N
@ SITE PLAN: EXISTING CONDITIONS
NORTH
~ o· s· 10· 20· 40•
200 South AS-100
5) MAILING LIST
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:February 2, 2021
RE: 2903 South Highland Drive Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments
PLNPCM2020-00053/00054
The Council will be briefed about an ordinance to amend the Sugar House Master Plan and zoning map for
the property located at approximately 2903 South Highland Drive in City Council District Seven. This
property is currently “split zoned” with the western portion of the parcel zoned CB (Community Business)
and the eastern portion is zoned R-1/7,000 (Single-Family Residential). The proposal would amend zoning
for the eastern portion of the property (approximately 30%) from R-1/7,000 to CB, matching the parcel’s
western portion. The parcel’s eastern portion is currently used as a parking lot. Nearby properties fronting
Highland Drive are primarily zoned CB and those fronting Zenith Avenue to the east are R-1/7,000.
The proposed master plan and zoning map amendments are intended to accommodate a future
development on the entire parcel. The subject parcel is located at the northeast corner of Highland Drive,
an arterial street, and Zenith Avenue, a local street, as shown in the image below.
Planning staff recommended and the Salt Lake City Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous positive
recommendation to the City Council for the master plan and zoning map amendments.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: February 2, 2021
Set Date: February 2, 2021
Public Hearing: March 2, 2021
Potential Action: March 16, 2021
Page | 2
Aerial view with subject property outlined in red and R-1/7,000 portion outlined in yellow
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map amendment, determine if the Council supports
moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.The Council may wish to ask what changes, if any, were made as a result of the public process
since the May 13, 2020 Planning Commission meeting.
2.Does the Council support the Planning Commission’s recommendation to adopt the proposed
changes?
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The western portion of the subject property currently houses the Visual Art Institute. A small parking lot is
to the south of the building. The eastern portion of the property is also currently used as a parking lot and
is noncomplying with that zoning designation.
The subject property is in the Clermont Subdivision Plat, created in 1910. When the site and surrounding
sites were subdivided, they were all platted as residential lots. Through the years as the area developed,
properties fronting on Highland Drive were rezoned to allow commercial uses. The subject property
became “split-zoned” in the 1950s when the western portion was rezoned, but the eastern portion was not.
Under the current split zoning, the subject property’s western portion could be developed for any permitted
or conditional use within the CB zoning district. However, this would be limited to only that portion of the
property.
The eastern portion of the property zoned R-1/7,000 could remain as a parking lot serving potential new
uses of the western portion or be developed for uses permitted within that zoning district. If the zoning
remains as is, in order to develop the eastern portion of the property it would need to be subdivided. The
resulting parcel would meet R-1/7,000 zoning district standards.
Page | 3
Permitted uses and standards for the CB zoning district are found in Attachment G (pages 42-48) of the
Administration’s transmittal. R-1/7,000 permitted uses and standards are in Attachment F (pages 37-41) of
the Administration’s transmittal.
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Three key considerations were identified through Planning’s analysis of the proposed project and during
the Planning Commission public hearing held May 27, 2020. A summary of each is below. See pages 17-22
of the Administration’s transmittal for the complete analysis.
Consideration 1: Consistency with Master Plan Policies
The subject property is within the Sugar House Community Master Plan area. Included in the Master Plan
are general land use policy guidelines for the community along with more specific guidelines in the Plan’s
Future Land Use Map.
The Sugar House Community Master Plan’s stated purpose is to provide:
“Policies to help protect the stable, well-kept residential neighborhoods of Sugar House;”
And policies that support the preservation of neighborhood character…”
Planning staff believes the proposed Master Plan amendment maintains the Sugar House Community
Master Plan’s purpose because these amendments will not alter the residential neighborhood by rezoning
the property to CB since the site has not been developed as a residential lot. Planning also stated the
proposed amendment will allow continuation of a well-kept residential neighborhood by allowing
integration of a low intensity use to buffer the residential area with the Highland Drive arterial street.
The Sugar House Master Plan addresses nonconforming properties such as the subject parcel and
converting them to commercial uses. The Plan recommends exercising caution when rezoning these types
of properties and “each one should be considered on its own merits, with the public and surrounding
residents given the opportunity to provide input into the decision-making process.”
Surrounding property owners and others in the Sugar House community were provided multiple
opportunities to share feedback on this project as outlined in the Public Process section below. Comments
to Planning staff primarily were focused on increased traffic on Zenith Avenue, height differences allowed
with CB zoning and the adjacent single-family homes, buffering between the subject parcel and nearby
homes, and potential aesthetics and green space at the proposed development.
Consideration 2: Zoning Compatibility with Adjacent Properties
Building Height
A concern expressed by those who commented on the proposed rezone is compatibility of a commercial
zoning district adjacent to a single-family neighborhood. This concern included privacy of surrounding
neighbors and parking at the subject site.
The CB zoning district allows a maximum building height of 30 feet. Building size and massing standards
in the CB zone require developments to be consistent with building height and roof pitch of existing
structures on the block face. If the Council approves the requested rezone, there is potential for an
additional two feet of height than what is allowed under the current R-1/7,000 zoning.
Landscape Buffer
A landscape buffer is required in the CB zoning district when the property abuts a residential district. The
buffer must be not less than seven feet from the property line and meet standards in the zoning code. These
Page | 4
include a shade tree for each 30 linear feet of the buffer, shrubs at least four feet high at maturity along the
landscape buffer length, and a fence between four and six feet high along the property line. The landscape
buffer is intended to separate differences between commercial and residential uses and mitigate the impact
of a more intense use.
Parking
Available parking at a potential townhome development was another concern expressed to Planning staff.
In the R-1/7,000 zone two parking spaces are required for each dwelling unit. Multi-family uses within the
CB zone require two parking spaces for each dwelling unit with two or more bedrooms and one space for
one-bedroom or efficiency units.
Design Review
Buildings within the CB zoning district that exceed 7,500 gross square footage on the first floor or exceed
15,000 overall gross square feet are required to be reviewed through the design review process. This
process allows Planning staff and the Planning Commission to review the project’s compatibility with
surrounding developments for height, massing, vehicular access, landscape buffers, appropriateness of
step-backs, and acceptable façade design. Planning Commission approval is required before changes are
made on site if the proposed development exceeds the floor area standard for the CB zone.
Current Conditions
This site also has specific considerations. There is an approximately three-foot grade change between the
subject property and single-family residences to the north. There is a fence approximately six feet tall on
top of an approximately three-foot-tall retaining wall. This grade change reduces impact of building height
differences between the existing residential and proposed commercial zoning districts. In addition, the
property to the north has a rear yard approximately 47 feet deep.
The property east of the subject parcel has a side yard setback of approximately six feet. If the rezone and
master plan amendment are approved by the Council, the required minimum seven-foot landscape buffer
would include shrubs and trees.
Planning staff’s opinion is the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments will be generally
compatible with adjacent properties and uses.
Consideration 3: Relevance of Applicant’s Concept Drawing and Site Plan
Requesting concept land use and drawings for master plan and zoning map amendments is intended to
provide a general idea of what the amendments are proposed to accomplish. Though the concept plans are
helpful, the developer is not required to use them if the amendments are approved. Any development
would still need to meet all zoning standards including providing required off-street parking and landscape
buffers between the commercial and residential districts.
Whether the City Council approves or denies the proposed amendments, any development on the site will
be reviewed through the building permit process ensuring standards of the applicable zoning district are
met before building permits are issued.
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment H of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 49-51 of the Administration’s transmittal)
outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal.
Planning staff found this proposal generally complies with applicable standards. Please see the Planning
Commission staff report for full details.
Page | 5
PUBLIC PROCESS
• February 25, 2020 Planning staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all
residents and property owners located within 300 feet of the project site providing notice of the
project and information on how to give public input.
• April 10, 2020 Planning staff mailed notice of an online public open house. Open house fact sheet
posted online.
• April 20, 2020 Planning staff presented to the Sugar House Community Council. Public comments
were received at the online meeting.
• April 24, 2020 Online public open house closes.
• May 1, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed to property owners living within
300 feet of the subject property.
• May 4, 2020 Planning Commission public hearing notice posted at property.
• May 13, 2020 The Planning Commission reviewed the petition and held a public hearing. The
Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Minutes
of the meeting are found on pages 70-72 of the Administration’s transmittal.
•Vicinity and Site Map
Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments:2903 S Highland Drive
Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments:2903 S Highland Drive CB
R-1-7000
RMF-30
RBLOW INTENSITY –MIXED USE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
Master Plan Zoning Map
Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments:2903 S Highland Drive
Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments:2903 S Highland Drive
Erin Mendenhall
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
and NEIGHBORHOODS
BLAKE THOMAS
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
Date Received:
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council:
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:
Chris Warton, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
SUBJECT: PLNPCM2020-00053/00054 -- 2903 South Highland Dr. Master Plan and Zoning
Map Amendments
STAFF CONTACT: Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner, nannette.larsen@slcgov.com
801-535-7645
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: City Council follow the recommendations of the Planning
Commission to approve the proposed Master Plan and Zoning Map amendments.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In January a representative with Axis Architects initiated a
petition to amend the Sugar House Master Plan and Zoning Map. The request is for a property
located at approximately 2903 South Highland Drive and would amend the eastern portion of the
property from Low Density Residential to Low Intensity – Mixed Use in the Sugar House Master
Plan and from R-1-7000 (Single-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business). The
Planning Commission heard the petition on May 13th and forwarded a positive recommendation
to City Council to amend the Sugar House Master Plan and the Zoning Map.
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5460 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6269
November 2, 2020
Lisa Shaffer (Nov 9, 2020 07:36 MST)
11/09/2020
11/09/2020
The property under
review is located at
the corner of
Highland Drive, an
arterial street, and
Zenith Avenue, a
local street. The
subject property is
“split zoned” with
the majority of the
property within the
CB (Community
Business) zoning
district and in the
Low Intensity -
Mixed Use land use
designation in the
Sugar House
Master Plan.
The eastern portion of the property, constituting approximately 54’ width and approximately
7,100 square feet is currently designated as R-1-7000 (Single-Family Residential) on the Zoning
Map and Low Density Residential on the Master Plan’s Future Land Use Map. The applicant
with Axis Architects is requesting an amendment on this 54’ portion of this property to match the
zoning map and future land use map designation on the western portion, with a CB (Community
Business) zoning district and Low Intensity – Mixed Use in the Sugar House Master Plan.
Figure 1: Amendment Location
Figure 2: Zoning Map Figure 3: Master Plan
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• The surrounding property owners within 300’ received an early notification by mail on
February 25th.
o Staff received multiple comments from the neighborhood which arefound in the
staff report in Attachment 3b. .
• Information concerning this petition was sent to the chair of the Sugar House Community
Council.
o The chair included the proposed amendments on their April 20th online meeting
and heard public comment during this meeting.
• Public Notification for the Open house was mailed to property owners and residents on
April 10th. The open house was held online on the Salt Lake City’s Planning webpage
and open for public comments from April 10 to April 24.
o No public comments were submitted during this open house.
• Public notification for the Planning Commission Hearing mailed May 1st to all neighbors
within 300’ of the proposed Master Plan and Zoning Map amendment site.
o There were a number of public comments received after the notices were sent.
Those comments were concerned with parking, open space, and height of the
potential development.
• The petition was heard by the Planning Commission on May 13th. The Planning
Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding this
proposed alley vacation.
o There were multiple public comments heard from the public during this hearing.
The comments included concerns over increased traffic on Zenith Avenue,
potential aesthetics of the new development, the height differences allowed, green
space, and a buffer area between the different zoning districts.
EXHIBITS:
1) Project Chronology
2) Notice of City Council Hearing
3) Planning Commission Record
a) Original Notice and Post Mark
b) Planning Commission Staff Report of May 13, 2020
c) Planning Commission Agenda and Minutes of May 13, 2020
4) Petition Submitted by Applicant
5) Mailing List
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 202_
(Amending the zoning of property located at approximately 2903 South Highland Drive
from R-1-7,000 Single Family Residential District to CB Commercial Business District, and
amending
the Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at approximately
2903 South Highland Drive from R-1-7,000 Single Family Residential District to CB
Commercial Business District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00054, and amending the
Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map pursuant to Petition No.
PLNPCM2020-00053.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 13,
2020 on an application submitted by the Pierre Langue (“Applicant”) on behalf of the property
owner, Highland Row, LLC, to rezone property located at 2903 South Highland Drive (Tax ID
No. 16-29-236-002) (the “Property”) from R-1-7000 Single Family Residential District to CB
Commercial Business District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00054, and to amend the
Sugar House Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to that parcel from
Low Density Residential to Mixed Use – Low Intensity pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-
00053; and
WHEREAS, at its May 13, 2020 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of
forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said applications; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and
hereby is amended to reflect that the Property identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be
and hereby is rezoned from R-1-7000 Single Family Residential District to CB Commercial
Business District.
SECTION 2. Amending the Central Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use
Map of the Sugar House Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the
future land use designation of the Property identified in Exhibit “A” from Low Density
Residential to Mixed Use – Low Intensity.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________,
202_.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 202_.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance amending zoning and MP 2903 S Highland
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
September 21, 2020
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description of Property to be Rezoned
and Subject to Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment:
2903 South Highland Drive
Tax ID No. 16-29-236-002
CLERMONT SUBDIVISION. LOTS 1 TO 4 INCL & LOTS 60 BLK 1 CLERMONT SUB
TOGETHER WITH 1/2 VACATED ALLEYS ABUTTING SD LOTS 6110-2016 6110-2018
6186-1370 6251-0665 8331-0551
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
2903 South Highland Drive Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment
Project Chronology
Located at approximately 2903 S Highland Dr.
PLNPCM2020-00053; 00054
January 21, 2020 Master Plan and Zoning Amendment application received by the
City.
January 28, 2020 Petition assigned to and received by Nannette Larsen
February 27, 2020 Application deemed complete and forwarded project review to
applicable City departments.
February 25, 2020 Early Notification sent to neighbors located within 300’ of property
February 13, 2020 The Sugar House Community Council chair notified of the petition
and forwarded information.
April 10, 2020 Mailer noticing online public open house sent out. Open house
fact sheet is posted online.
April 20, 2020 Sugar House Community Council hears petition. Public comments
were heard and received during this online meeting.
April 22, 2020 Public comment received through email regarding building height,
setbacks, and open space.
April 24, 2020 Online public open house closes.
April 24, 2020 Received phone call from adjoining neighbor with concerns
regarding building height and parking.
May 1, 2020 Notice for Planning Commission Hearing mailed to property
owners and residents within 300’ of the subject property
May 8, 2020 Staff Report for Master Plan and Zoning Map amendment public
hearing posted online
May 4, 2020 Notice of Planning Commission Hearing posted at the property
May 13, 2020 Public comment received through email regarding maintaining the
property as a community gathering space and creative expression.
May 13, 2020 Public comment received through email regarding density and
traffic.
May 13, 2020 Planning Commission Public Hearing. Planning Commission
recommended approval to the City Council for the Master Plan
and Zoning Map amendments on the subject property.
2. NOTICE OF COUNCIL HEARING
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
a. Original Notice and Postmark
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
b. Staff Report, May 13, 2020
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-5357757 FAX 801-535-6174
PLANNING DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner, 801-535-7645 or Nannette.larsen@slcgov.com
Date: May 13, 2020
Re: PLNPCM2020-00054/00053 – 2903 S. Highland Dr. Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments
Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2903 South Highland Drive
PARCEL ID: 16-29-236-002
MASTER PLAN: Sugar House – Mixed Use- Low Intensity/Low Density Residential (5-10 du/acre)
ZONING DISTRICT: CB/R-1-7,000 (Commercial Business/ Single Family Residential 7,000 Sq. Ft. Lots)
REQUEST: Salt Lake City received a request from, Pierre Langue with Axis Architects,
representing the property owner Highland Row LLC, for approval of an amendment to the
Sugar House Master Plan and the zoning map for a property located at approximately
2903 South Highland Drive. The proposal would rezone the eastern portion of the
property (approximately the eastern 55') from R-1-7000 (Single-Family Residential) to CB
(Community Business) and would amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from
Low Density Residential to Mixed Use – Low Intensity. The proposed Master Plan
amendment to Mixed Use – Low Intensity and rezone to CB is intended to accommodate
a future development on the entire property located at 2903 South Highland Drive.
The subject property is presently “split-zoned” with the majority (approximately 16,600
square feet) of the property currently zoned CB (Community Business) and has a Master
Plan land use designation of Mixed Use-Low Intensity. The remainder of the parcel
(~7,100 square feet) presently designated as R-1-7000 (Single Family Residential) on the
Zoning Map and as Low Density Residential on the Sugar House Future Land Use Map.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the information in this staff report, Planning Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for
the proposed zoning map and master plan amendment.
ATTACHMENTS:
A.Applicant Submittal and Information
B.Zoning Map
C.Sugar House Future Land Use Map
D.Concept Plans
E.Site Photos
4 | Page
The key considerations listed below have been identified through the analysis of the project, neighbor
and community input, and department review comments.
1.Consistency with Master Plan Policies
2.Zoning Compatibility with Adjacent Properties
3.Relevance of Applicant’s Concept Drawing and Site Plan
Consideration 1 – Consistency with Master Plan Policies
The property under review is part of the Sugar House Community Master Plan. This plan lays out
general land use policy guidelines for the community paired with more specific guidelines in the master
plan’s Future Land Use Map.
The stated purpose of the Sugar House Community Master Plan is to provide:
•“Policies to help protect the stable, well-kept residential neighborhoods of
Sugar House;
•And, policies that support the preservation of neighborhood character…”
The proposed amendments to the Master Plan maintains the purpose of the Sugar House Community
Master plan in that the proposed amendment will not alter the residential neighborhood by rezoning
the property to CB as the subject site has not been developed as a residential lot. Also, the proposed
amendment will allow for the continuation of a well-kept residential neighborhood by allowing for the
integration of a low-intensity use to buffer the residential area with the Highland Drive arterial street.
The proposed amended future land use on the eastern portion of the lot is Low-Intensity Mixed Use.
The Sugar House Master Plan defines this land use as:
“Low-Intensity Mixed Use allows an integration of residential with small business
uses, typically at ground floor levels. Height limits generally include one- and two-
story structures. The intent is to support more walkable community development
patterns located near transit lines and stops. Proposed development and land uses
within the Low-Intensity Mixed Use area must be compatible with the land uses and
architectural features surrounding each site.”
The master plan amendment to this future land use designation is appropriate as this land use allows
for, “an integration of residential with small business uses”, this limits the intensity of commercial areas
along Highland Drive and requires that the architecture of the building is compatible with the built
environment surrounding the site. The appropriate zoning district which meets the intent of the Low-
Intensity Mixed Use land use is the CB district. The purpose of the CB (Commercial Business) zoning
district is to, “provide for the close integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent
residential neighborhoods”.
The Sugar House Master Plan addresses nonconforming properties, as the subject property is, and the
process of converting them to commercial uses. It recommends that the City is cautious in rezoning
these types of properties and that, “each one should be considered on its own merits, with the public
and surroundings residents given the opportunity to provide input into the decision-making process”.
The surrounding property owners and interested parties in the Sugar House Community were given
the opportunity to voice their concerns or support of this project. The feedback City Staff received is
attached to this report as Attachment J. As previously stated, it appeared the majority of the concerns
expressed included building height and availability of on-street parking. These concerns are addressed
in Key Consideration 2 of this report.
9 | Page
due to the location of the subject site, the amendments will meet the intent of the CB zoning district by
acting as a, “integration zone between moderately sized commercial areas and residential
neighborhoods”.
Further, the building standards of the single-family residential properties to the east are generally
similar to the CB zoning district. The height, setbacks, and parking have similar restrictions, and the
difference between the grading of the subject site and the properties to the north further minimize those
differences. Additionally, the CB zoning district requires certain design elements, such as providing a
similar roofline along to the block face, 40% ground floor glass, one building entrance per 40’ of
building façade, a 15’ maximum blank wall length, and screening all mechanical equipment.
NEXT STEPS:
A recommendation of approval or denial by the Planning Commission will result in the proposed
Master Plan and Zoning Map amendment to be sent to the City Council for a final decision.
Master Plan and Zone Amendment Approval
If the master plan and zone amendment is approved, the applicant will be permitted to build for any
use allowed in the CB zone on the site. A list of uses allowed by the zone is included in this report as
Attachment G. The developer will need to obtain a building permit for any development and will need
to comply with the necessary zoning standards, including buffering where the property is adjacent to
single-family zones
Master Plan and Zone Amendment Denial
If the master plan and zone amendment is denied, a portion of the property will remain zoned R-1-
7000, Single Family Residential. This zone allows the development to build one single-family
dwelling on the property at a maximum. Or, the property could continue to be used as a parking lot
or developed for other uses allowed in the R-1-7000 zone. The remaining portion of the site will still
be able to be developed as the existing CB zoning allows.
ATTACHMENT A: APPLICANT SUBMITTAL AND
INFORMATION
ATTACHMENT D: CONCEPT PLANS
3.Maximum exterior wall height adjacent to interior side yards shall be twenty feet (20')
for exterior walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required
yard. Exterior wall height may increase one foot (1') (or fraction thereof) in height for
each foot (or fraction thereof) of increased setback beyond the minimum required
interior side yard. If an exterior wall is approved with a reduced setback through a
special exception, variance or other process, the maximum allowable exterior wall
height decreases by one foot (1') (or fraction thereof) for each foot (or fraction
thereof) that the wall is located closer to the property line than the required side yard
setback.
a.Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill exterior wall
height may be increased by one-half foot (0.5') for each one foot (1') difference
between the elevation of the average grades on the uphill and downhill faces of the
building.
b.Exceptions:
(1)Gable Walls: Walls at the end of a pitched roof may extend to a height
necessary to support the roof structure except that the height of the top of
the widest portion of the gable wall must conform to the maximum wall
height limitation described in this section.
(2)Dormer Walls: Dormer walls are exempt from the maximum exterior wall
height if:
(A)The width of a dormer is ten feet (10') or less; and
(B)The total combined width of dormers is less than or equal to fifty
percent (50%) of the length of the building facade facing the interior
side yard; and
(C)Dormers are spaced at least eighteen inches (18") apart.
4.Building height for initial construction of a building shall be measured as the vertical
distance between the top of the roof and the established grade at any given point of
building coverage. Building height for any subsequent structural modification or
addition to a building shall be measured from finished grade existing at the time a
building permit is requested. Building height for the R-1 districts, R-2 District and
SR districts is defined and illustrated in chapter 21A.62 of this title.
5.Where buildings are stepped to accommodate the slope of terrain, each step shall
have a horizontal dimension of at least twelve feet (12').
6.a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, additional
building height may be granted as a special exception by the Planning Commission
subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the
proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block
face. The Planning Commission will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the
request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title.
b.Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic
Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the Historic Landmarks
Commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section
21A.34.020 of this title.
E.Minimum Yard Requirements:
1.Front Yard: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be
equal to the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face.
Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth
shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum front yard is specified in the
recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. For
Alcohol, bar establishment (2,500 square feet or less in floor area)
Alcohol, brewpub (2,500 square feet or less in floor area)
Alcohol, tavern (2,500 square feet or less in floor area)
Animal, veterinary office
Art gallery
Artisan food production (2,500 square feet or less in floor area)
Bed and breakfast inn
Bed and breakfast manor
Clinic (medical, dental)
Commercial food preparation
Community garden C C C C C
Community recreation center
Crematorium
Daycare center, adult
Daycare center, child C22 C22
Daycare, nonregistered home daycare P22 P22 P22 P22 P22
Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P22 P22 P22 P22 P22
Dwelling, accessory guest and servant's quarter P11 P11 P11
Dwelling, accessory unit C C C C C
Dwelling, assisted living facility (large)
Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity) C C C C C
Dwelling, assisted living facility (small)
Dwelling; dormitory, fraternity, sorority
Dwelling, group home (large)14
Dwelling, group home (small)15 P P P P P
Dwelling, manufactured home P P P P P
Dwelling, multi-family
Dwelling, residential support (large)16
Dwelling, residential support (small)17
Dwelling, rooming (boarding) house
Dwelling, single-family (attached)
Dwelling, single-family (detached) P P P P P
Dwelling, twin home and two-family
Eleemosynary facility C C C C C
Financial institution
Funeral home
Governmental facility C C C C C
Home occupation P24 P24 P24 P24 P24
Laboratory (medical, dental, optical)
Library
Mixed use development
Mobile food business (operation on private property)
Municipal service use, including City utility use and police and fire
station C C C C C
Museum
Nursing care facility
Office, excluding medical and dental clinic and office
Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P P P P P
Park P P P P P
Parking, off site (to support nonconforming uses in a residential
zone or uses in the CN or CB Zones)
Parking, park and ride lot shared with existing use P P
Place of worship on lots less than 4 acres in size C C C C C
Reception center
Recreation (indoor)
Restaurant
Restaurant with drive- through facility
Retail goods establishment
Retail goods establishment, plant and garden shop with outdoor
retail sales area
Retail service establishment
School, music conservatory
School, professional and vocational
School, seminary and religious institute C C C C C
Seasonal farm stand
Studio, art
Temporary use of closed schools and churches C23 C23 C23 C23 C23
Theater, live performance
Theater, movie
Urban farm P P P P P
Utility, building or structure P5 P5 P5 P5 P5
Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe or pole P5 P5 P5 P5 P5
Wireless telecommunications facility (see section 21A 40.090,
table 21A.40.090E of this title)
Qualifying provisions:
1.A single apartment unit may be located above first floor retail/office.
2.Provided that no more than 2 two-family buildings are located adjacent to one another and no more than 3
such dwellings are located along the same block face (within subdivisions approved after April 12, 1995).
3.Must contain retail component for on-site food sales.
4. Reserved.
5.See subsection 21A.02.050B of this title for utility regulations.
6.Building additions on lots less than 20,000 square feet for office uses may not exceed 50 percent of the
building's footprint. Building additions greater than 50 percent of the building's footprint or new office building
construction are subject to a design review.
7.Subject to conformance to the provisions in section 21A.02.050 of this title.
8.Subject to conformance with the provisions of subsection 21A.24.010S of this title.
9.Subject to conformance with the provisions in section 21A.36.300, "Alcohol Related Establishments", of this
title.
10.In the RB Zoning District, the total square footage, including patio space, shall not exceed 2,200 square feet
in total. Total square footage will include a maximum 1,750 square feet of floor space within a business and a
maximum of 450 square feet in an outdoor patio area.
11.Accessory guest or servant's quarters must be located within the buildable area on the lot.
12.Subject to conformance with the provisions of section 21A.36.150 of this title.
13.Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District.
14.No large group home shall be located within 800 feet of another group home.
15.No small group home shall be located within 800 feet of another group home.
16.No large residential support shall be located within 800 feet of another residential support.
17.No small residential support shall be located within 800 feet of another residential support.
18.Large group homes established in the RB and RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor.
19.Small group homes established in the RB and RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor.
20.Large residential support established in RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor.
21.Small residential support established in RO Districts shall be located above the ground floor.
22.Subject to section 21A.36.130 of this title.
23.Subject to section 21A.36.170 of this title.
24.Subject to section 21A.36.030 of this title.
ATTACHMENT G: CB ZONING STANDARDS
21A.26.030: CB COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT:
A.Purpose Statement: The CB Community Business District is intended to provide for the
close integration of moderately sized commercial areas with adjacent residential
neighborhoods. The design guidelines are intended to facilitate retail that is pedestrian in
its orientation and scale, while also acknowledging the importance of transit and
automobile access to the site.
B.Uses: Uses in the CB Community Business District as specified in section 21A.33.030,
"Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Commercial Districts", of this title are
permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.26.010 of this chapter
and this section.
C.Planned Development Review: Planned developments, which meet the intent of the
ordinance, but not the specific design criteria outlined in the following subsections, may be
approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of chapter 21A.55 of this
title.
D.Lot Size Requirements: No minimum lot area or lot width is required, however any lot
exceeding four (4) acres in size shall be allowed only through the design review process
(chapter 21A.59 of this title).
E.Building Size Limits: Buildings in excess of seven thousand five hundred (7,500) gross
square feet of floor area for a first floor footprint or in excess of fifteen thousand
(15,000) gross square feet floor area overall, shall be allowed only through the design
review process (chapter 21A.59 of this title). An unfinished basement used only for
storage or parking shall be allowed in addition to the total square footage. In addition
to the design review standards in chapter 21A.59 of this title, the Planning
Commission shall also consider the following standards:
1.Compatibility: The proposed height and width of new buildings and additions shall
be visually compatible with buildings found on the block face.
2.Roofline: The roof shape of a new building or addition shall be similar to roof
shapes found on the block face.
3.Vehicular Access: New buildings and additions shall provide a continuous street
wall of buildings with minimal breaks for vehicular access.
4.Facade Design: Facade treatments should be used to break up the mass of larger
buildings so they appear to be multiple, smaller scale buildings. Varied rooflines,
varied facade planes, upper story step backs, and lower building heights for portions
of buildings next to less intensive zoning districts may be used to reduce the
apparent size of the building.
5.Buffers: When located next to low density residential uses, the Planning
Commission may require larger setbacks, landscape buffers and/or fencing than
what are required by this title if the impacts of the building mass and location of the
building on the site create noise, light trespass or impacts created by parking and
service areas.
6.Step Backs: When abutting single-story development and/or a public street, the
Planning Commission may require that any story above the ground story be stepped
back from the building foundation at grade to address compatibility issues with the
other buildings on the block face and/or uses.
F.Minimum Yard Requirements:
1.Front Or Corner Side Yard: No minimum yard is required. If a front yard is
provided, it shall comply with all provisions of this title applicable to front or corner
side yards, including landscaping, fencing, and obstructions.
2.Interior Side Yard: None required.
3.Rear Yard: Ten feet (10').
4.Buffer Yards: Any lot abutting a lot in a Residential District shall conform to the
buffer yard requirements of chapter 21A.48 of this title.
5.Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures
may be located in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B
of this title.
6.Maximum Setback: A maximum setback is required for at least seventy five percent
(75%) of the building facade. The maximum setback is fifteen feet (15'). Exceptions
to this requirement may be authorized through the design review process, subject
to the requirements of chapter 21A.59 of this title, and the review and approval of
the Planning Commission. The Planning Director, in consultation with the
Transportation Director, may modify this requirement if the adjacent public
sidewalk is substandard and the resulting modification to the setback results in a
more efficient public sidewalk. The Planning Director may waive this requirement
for any addition, expansion, or intensification, which increases the floor area or
parking requirement by less than fifty percent (50%) if the Planning Director finds
the following:
a.The architecture of the addition is compatible with the architecture of the
original structure or the surrounding architecture.
b.The addition is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to subvert
the intent of the ordinance.
Appeal of administrative decision is to the Planning Commission.
7.Parking Setback: Surface parking is prohibited in a front or corner side yard.
Surface parking lots within an interior side yard shall maintain a twenty foot (20')
landscape setback from the front property line or be located behind the primary
structure. Parking structures shall maintain a thirty five foot (35') minimum
setback from a front or corner side yard property line or be located behind the
primary structure. There are no minimum or maximum setback restrictions on
underground parking. The Planning Director may modify or waive this
requirement if the Planning Director finds the following:
a.The parking is compatible with the architecture/design of the original
structure or the surrounding architecture.
b.The parking is not part of a series of incremental additions intended to
subvert the intent of the ordinance.
c.The horizontal landscaping is replaced with vertical screening in the form of
berms, plant materials, architectural features, fencing and/or other forms of
screening.
d.The landscaped setback is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood
character.
e.The overall project is consistent with section 21A.59.050 of this title.
Appeal of administrative decision is to the Planning Commission.
Clinic (medical, dental) P P P P P P
Commercial food preparation P P P P P P
Community correctional facility, large
Community correctional facility, small C7,21
Community garden P P P P P P P
Contractor's yard/office C P
Crematorium C C C C
Daycare center, adult P P P P P P
Daycare center, child P P P P P P
Daycare, nonregistered home daycare or preschool P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22
Daycare, registered home daycare or preschool P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22 P22
Dwelling:
Assisted living facility (large) P P P P
Assisted living facility (small) P P P P
Group home (large)17 P C C
Group home (small) when located above or below first
story office, retail, or commercial use, or on the first story
where the unit is not located adjacent to street frontage18
P P P P P P P
Living quarter for caretaker or security guard P P P P P P
Manufactured home P
Multi-family P P P P P P
Residential support (large)19 C C
Residential support (small)20 C C
Rooming (boarding) house P P P P P
Single-family attached P
Single-family detached P
Single room occupancy
Twin home P
Two-family P
Eleemosynary facility P
Equipment rental (indoor and/or outdoor) P P
Farmers' market C C P P
Financial institution P P P P P P
Financial institution with drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9
Flea market (indoor) P P P P
Flea market (outdoor) P
Funeral home P P P P
Gas station C P P P P
Government facility C C C C C C
Government facility requiring special design features for
security purposes P P P P P P
Home occupation P23 P23 P23 P23 P23 P23 P23
Homeless resource center C25
Homeless shelter C25
Hotel/motel C P P P
House museum in landmark sites (see subsection 21A.24.010S
of this title) C
Impound lot C12
Industrial assembly P
Intermodal transit passenger hub P
Laboratory (medical, dental, optical) P P P
Laboratory, testing P P P
Large wind energy system P P P
Laundry, commercial P
Library P P P P P P C
Limousine service (large) P
Limousine service (small) C C P
Manufactured/mobile home sales and service P
Mixed use development P P P P P P P13
Mobile food business (operation on private property) P P P P P P
Municipal service uses, including City utility uses and police and
fire stations C C C C C C
Museum P P P P P P P
Nursing care facility P P P
Office P P P P P P P15
Office, single practitioner medical, dental, and health P
Offices and reception centers in landmark sites (see subsection
21A.24.010S of this title) C
Open space P P P P P P
Open space on lots less than 4 acres in size P
Park P P P P P P P
Parking:
Commercial C P P
Off site C P P P P P
Park and ride lot C C P P
Park and ride lot shared with existing use P P P P P
Place of worship on lot less than 4 acres in size P P P P P P C
Radio, television station P P P P
Reception center P P P P P
Recreation (indoor) P P P P P P P
Recreation (outdoor) C C P
Recreational vehicle park (minimum 1 acre) C
Recycling collection station P P P P P P
Research and development facility
Restaurant P P P P P P
Restaurant with drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9
Retail goods establishment P P P P P P P
Plant and garden shop with outdoor retail sales area P P P P P P P
With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9
Retail service establishment P P P P P P P
Furniture repair shop C P P P P P
With drive-through facility P9 P9 P9 P9 P9
Reverse vending machine P P P P P P
Sales and display (outdoor) P P P P P P
School:
College or university P P P P P
Music conservatory P P P P P
Professional and vocational P P P P P
Seminary and religious institute P P P P P C
Seasonal farm stand P P P P P P
Sexually oriented business P5
Sign painting/fabrication P
Small brewery C P
Solar array P
Storage (outdoor) C P
Storage, public (outdoor) C P
Storage, self P P
Store:
Department P P
Mass merchandising P P P
Pawnshop P
Specialty P P P P
Superstore and hypermarket P P
Warehouse club P
Studio, art P P P P P P P
Studio, motion picture P
Taxicab facility P
Theater, live performance P12 P12 P12 P12 P12
Theater, movie C P P P P
Urban farm P P P P P P
Utility, building or structure P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
Utility, transmission wire, line, pipe, or pole P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2 P2
Vehicle:
Auction P
Automobile repair (major) P P
Automobile repair (minor) C P P P P P
Automobile sales/rental and service P P
Automobile salvage and recycling (indoor) P
Boat/recreational vehicle sales and service P P
Truck repair (large) P
Truck sales and rental (large) P P
Vending cart, private property P
Warehouse P P
Welding shop P
Wholesale distribution P P
Wireless telecommunications facility (see section 21A.40.090,
table 21A.40.090E of this title) C
Qualifying provisions:
1.Development in the CS District shall be subject to planned development approval pursuant to the provisions of chapter 21A.55
of this title. Certain developments in the CSHBD Zone shall be subject to the design review process pursuant to the
provisions of subsection 21A.26.060D and chapter 21A.59 of this title.
2.Subject to conformance to the provisions in subsection 21A.02.050B of this title for utility regulations.
3. When located in a building listed on the Salt Lake City register of cultural resources (see subsections 21A.24.010S and
21A.26.010K of this title).
4.Subject to Salt Lake Valley Health Department approval.
5.Pursuant to the requirements set forth in section 21A.36.140 of this title.
6.Greater than 3 ambulances at location require a conditional use.
7. A community correctional facility is considered an institutional use and any such facility located within an Airport Noise
Overlay Zone is subject to the land use and sound attenuation standards for institutional uses of the applicable Airport
Overlay Zone within chapter 21A.34 of this title.
8.No check cashing/payday loan business shall be located closer than 1/2 mile of other check cashing/payday loan businesses.
9.Subject to conformance to the provisions in section 21A.40.060 of this title for drive-through use regulations.
10. Subject to conformance with the provisions in section 21A.36.300, "Alcohol Related Establishments", of this title.
11. In CN and CB Zoning Districts, the total square footage, including patio space, shall not exceed 2,200 square feet in total.
Total square footage will include a maximum 1,750 square feet of floor space within a business and a maximum of 450
square feet in an outdoor patio area.
12.Prohibited within 1,000 feet of a Single- or Two-Family Zoning District.
13.Residential units may be located above or below first floor retail/office.
14. In the SNB Zoning District, bed and breakfast use is only allowed in a landmark site.
15.Medical and dental offices are not allowed in the SNB Zoning District, except for single practitioner medical, dental and
health offices.
16.Permitted in the CG Zoning District only when associated with an on site food service establishment.
17. No large group home shall be located within 800 feet of another group home.
18.No small group home shall be located within 800 feet of another group home.
19.No large residential support shall be located within 800 feet of another residential support.
20.No small residential support shall be located within 800 feet of another residential support.
21.Prohibited within 1/2 mile of any Residential Zoning District boundary and subject to section 21A.36.110 of this title.
22. Subject to section 21A.36.130 of this title.
23.Allowed only within legal conforming single-family, duplex, and multi-family dwellings and subject to section 21A.36.030 of
this title.
24.Must contain retail component for on-site food sales.
25.Subject to conformance with the provisions of section 21A.36.350 of this title, the City may not prohibit construction of a
homeless resource center or homeless shelter if the site is approved by and receives funding through the State Homeless
Coordinating Committee, with the concurrence of the Housing and Community Development Division within the
Department of Workforce Services, in accordance with section 35A-8-604 of the Utah Code.
ATTACHMENT J: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS
Public Notice, Meetings, Comments
The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related
to the proposed project:
PUBLIC PROCESS AND INPUT
Timeline
• The application was submitted on January 21, 2020.
• Notice of the proposal, and request for input, was provided to the Sugar House Community
Council on February 13, 2020.
o The Sugar House Community Council met on April 20th, 2020 to discuss this project.
o The project was posted on the Sugar House Community Council website and interested
parties were welcome to comment on the project.
The comments received on their website are attached to this staff report.
• The concerns expressed during the public comments period are
addressed in Key Consideration 2 of this report.
An email from the Sugar House Community Council’s Land Use Chair is included
in this Staff Report.
• The Community Council is recommended approval with no concerns for
the proposed Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments.
• Early Notification mailings were sent out on February 25, 2020 to property owners and residents
within 300’ of all four corners of the project site.
o Emails were received by interested parties and are included in this Staff Report.
• Public notice of the Planning Commission hearing was mailed to property owners and residents
within 300’ of the subject site.
• A public notice sign was posted on both frontages of the subject site on May 8, 2020. No further
public comments were received before this report was finalized.
COMMENTS 2903 HIGHLAND DRIVE
Diane Miller Downhour wordpress@www.sugarhousecouncil.org via sendgrid.net
From: Diane Miller Downhour
Subject: 2903 Highland Drive Website Feedback
UGH! Another high density housing unit in the Sugarhouse area, already flooded with high density
housing. As a resident who has lived in this area for nearly 30 years I VOTE NO. Please put an END to
the endless, mindless, ugly apartment/condo building that is currently oversaturating the Sugarhouse
area. The traffic and congestion is unbearable. STOP turning Sugarhouse into a ghetto.
From: Ben Burdett
Subject: 2903 Highland Drive Website Feedback
Do we really need more high priced apartments? If there were some comments about mixed use
residential with some percentage of affordable housing units, I think it would be more palatable.
I recognize that the future of our area is going to include a larger percentage of high density housing; but
it also needs to include additional retail intermixed with affordable housing.
We also need to consider green space. This appears to have no green space and no allowance for
pleasant walkable areas.
2309 Highland Drive: not sure how I feel about this one. It is a really nice lot with great potential.
Sue Watson
Sent from my iPad
Kathleen S henriod wordpress@www.sugarhousecouncil.org via sendgrid.net
to me
From: Kathleen S henriod
Subject: 2903 Highland Drive Website Feedback
NO, NO, NO, NO. I Love this neighborhood . I do not want any more development. That is why we
voted not to become part of Millcreek. We want to keep our community. I will do almost anything to
prevent further encroachment on our lives. NO, NO NO. Sugarhouse has been destroyed and it must
stop somewhere.
From:Chris Gamvroulas
To:Larsen Nannette
Cc:Norris Nick; Otto Rachel; Suzanne Thomas; Fowler Amy
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) 2903 South Highland Drive Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment
Date:Friday, May 8, 2020 12:45:57 PM
Nannette:
Thanks for the follow up. Yes, you may make the email part of the public record. I’ve also attached some photos that you can share with the
planning commission and city council to demonstrate the situation created by not including meaningful open space for pets within the
Moda project. Of the three issues I mentioned in my email, this is, believe it or not, the most frustrating. Best,
Best,
Chris P. Gamvroulas
Ivory Development
www.ivoryhomes.com
This email message and attachments (if any) are RESTRICTED, CONFIDENTIAL, may be subject to a LEGAL PRIVILEGE, and are sent in trust intended solely for the recipient to
whom addressed. Unauthorized use, access, copying, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or other form of reproduction of this information is strictly prohibited. If you are
not the intended recipient, please immediately notify me by electronic message or telephone and kindly delete the message permanently from your system.
Thank you
1
Larsen, Nannette
From:Bruce Robertson
Sent:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 5:34 PM
To:Larsen, Nannette
Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2020-00054 and PLNPCM2020-00053
Dear Amy Fowler and Nannette Larsen:
My name is Bruce Robertson. I am the Executive Director of the Visual Art Institute located in the building 2901/2903
South Highland Drive. We are Utah's oldest nonprofit art organization dedicated to serving youth through visual art. We
have been in this building and location for 8.5 years. It was our intention to purchase and expand the current building to
better accommodate the public and community with a beautiful, creative gathering place. We partner with many
community organizations, and serve youth and adults by providing opportunities for creative expression. In our 42 year
history we have worked with thousands of children and hundreds of adults. We offer classes in drawing, oil painting,
watercolor painting, ceramics, sculpture, digital arts, stained glass, and figure drawing to name but a few of the
offerings. We had begun to raise the funds to purchase the building to continue our mission which is to
nurture creative expression, teaches imagination and fosters artistic development through in-depth
study and experimentation, inspiring individuality and confidence regardless of age or ability.
We think the community needs a safe haven for creative expression more than it needs a row of
town homes along Highland Drive. The master plan for this area and business district is to give this
area a real facelift and make this a community gathering space.
I just learned of this meeting or I would have reached out earlier.
I would appreciate this space not being converted to more housing.
Sincerely,
Bruce D. Robertson
Executive Director, Visual Art Institute
1
Larsen, Nannette
From:Kristopher Shampeny
Sent:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 5:50 PM
To:Larsen, Nannette
Subject:(EXTERNAL) zoning changes at 2903 S Highland
Hi Nannette, you were listed as the contact during tonight’s hearing about rezoning 2903 S
Highland Dr. As a resident of the neighborhood, less than 2 blocks away, I’d like to speak out
against another apt/multi unit complex in the area. This is a predominantly single family,
residential neighborhood and we’d like to keep it that way. One note able reason involves traffic -
we live on Zenith Ave and cars frequently speed down our busy street already. Adding more density
will only increase the traffic, accidents and population density. The relevant case numbers were
listed as PLNPCM2020-00054 and PLNPCM2020-00053.
Thank you for your consideration,
Kris
‐‐
Kris Shampeny NTG Women's Assistant Coach
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
c. Agenda & Minutes, May 13, 2020
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency
Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b)
May 13, 2020 at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission Members
will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings
can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning
Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms:
• YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
• SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide general
comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at:
• http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-05132020
Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR APRIL 22, 2020
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Conditional Use ADU at approximately 1020 S Lincoln Street - Andrea Palmer, property owner
representative, is requesting Conditional Use approval for a detached 425 square feet accessory
dwelling unit (ADU) on a property located at approximately 1020 S Lincoln Street. The property is
zoned R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential and is located within Council District 5, represented by
Darin Mano. (Staff Contact: Linda Mitchell at (801) 535-7751 or linda.mitchell@slcgov.com) Case
number PLNPCM2019-01079
2. Conditional Use ADU at approximately 1371 South 500 East - Alexis Suggs, property owner
representative, is requesting Conditional Use approval for a detached 650 square foot accessory
dwelling unit (ADU) on a property located at approximately 1371 South 500 East. The property is
zoned R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential and is located within Council District 5, represented by
Darin Mano. (Staff Contact: Linda Mitchell at (801) 535-7751 or linda.mitchell@slcgov.com) Case
number PLNPCM2019-01147
3. Conditional Use ADU at approximately 613 S Emery Street - Andrea Palmer, representing the
property owner, is requesting Conditional Use approval for a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) at
approximately 613 S Emery Street. The applicant is proposing a one-bedroom structure with a building
footprint of approximately 432 square feet. The structure will be approximately 11 feet 8 inches in height
and located in the rear of the lot. The property is zoned R-1/5000 Single-Family Residential and is located
within Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff Contact: Mayara Lima at (801) 535-7118
or mayara.lima@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00107
4. Zephyr Lofts Design Review at approximately 360 West 200 South - Micah Peters, property
owner, is requesting Design Review approval for a 138-unit apartment building on a 0.73-acre lot
located at approximately 360 W 200 S in the D-4 – Downtown Secondary Central Business
District. The building is proposed to be eighty-five feet tall. Buildings in excess of seventy-five feet
tall in the D-4 district are allowed through the Design Review process with Planning Commission
approval. The subject property is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros.
(Staff Contact: David J. Gellner at (801) 535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2020-00067
5. Crossing at 9th Design Review at approximately 880, 876, & 866 West 200 South and 181, 175,
151, 153, & 141 South 900 West – Gary Knapp, with JZW Architects, representing the property
owner, is requesting approval of modifications to the design standards to construct a new mixed-use
development at 880, 876, & 866 West 200 South and 181, 175, 151, 153, & 141 South 900 West.
The standards proposed to be modified include the maximum length of a street-facing facade (360'
where 200' would be required) and the maximum spacing between operable building entrances (50'
where 40' would be required). The project site is located in the TSA-UN-T (Transit Station Area Urban
Neighborhood- Transitional) zoning district and is located within Council District 2, represented by
Andrew Johnston (Staff Contact: Eric Daems at (801) 535-7236 or eric.daems@slcgov.com) Case
number PLNPCM2020-00015
6. Granary on 9th Planned Development at approximately 110 West 900 South – Alec Harwin of
Sojourn Development SLC. LLC, is requesting Planned Development approval petition for a proposed
mixed-use development at approximately 110 West 900 South. The proposal includes two separate
principal buildings with a total of 19 residential units and two commercial units. The buildings will be
approximately 40 feet tall. The reason for planned development review is for vehicles backing into
the adjacent alley and for vehicle parking occupying more than 25 percent of the front facade
length. The site is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff contact:
Casey Stewart at (801) 535-6260 or casey.stewart@slcgov.com) Case number PLNSUB2019-
01033
7. Azure Place Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision at approximately 637 North
300 West, 641 North 300 West and 642 N Pugsley Street - Paul Garbett of Garbett Homes, the
property owner, is requesting approval for a new residential development at 637 N 300 West, 641 N
300 West and 642 N Pugsley Street. The request is to consolidate the three parcels and subdivide
the property to create 29 residential three-story townhomes. The proposed project is subject to the
following applications:
a. Planned Development – The Planned Development approval is needed to address the lack
of street frontage and any modifications to the MU (Mixed Use) zoning regulations. Case
number PLNSUB2020-00074
b. Preliminary Subdivision - A preliminary plat is necessary to consolidate the existing three
parcels and create individual new lots. Case number PLNSUB2020-00073
The site is located within Council District 3, represented by Chris Wharton. (Staff Contact: Katia Pace
at (801) 535 6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com)
8. Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 2903 South Highland Drive - Pierre
Langue with Axis Architects, representing the property owner Highland Row LLC, is requesting to
amend the Sugarhouse Master Plan and the zoning map for a property located at approximately 2903
South Highland Drive. The proposal would rezone the eastern portion of the property (approximately
the eastern 55') from R-1-7000 (Single-Family Residential) to CB (Community Business) and amend
the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Mixed Use – Low Intensity.
The proposed master plan amendment to Mixed Use – Low Intensity and rezone to CB is intended
to accommodate a future development on the entire property located at 2903 South Highland Drive.
The site is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff Contact: Nannette
Larsen at (801) 535-7645 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00054
and PLNPCM2020-00053
For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public-
meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified,
which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission May 13, 2020
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b)
Wednesday, May 13, 2020
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at 5:40:34 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period
of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Chairperson Adrienne Bell, Vice Chairperson
Brenda Scheer; Commissioners Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes,
Sara Urquhart and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Commissioner Carolynn Hoskins was excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Division Director; Molly
Robinson, Planning Manager; John Anderson, Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Linda Mitchell,
Principal Planner; Mayara Lima, Principal Planner; David Gellner, Principal Planner; Eric Daems, Senior
Planner; Casey Stewart, Senior Planner; Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner; and Marlene Rankins,
Administrative Secretary.
Molly Robinson, Planning Manager, provided participation options and instructions to the public.
APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 22, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 5:44:11 PM
MOTION 5:44:25 PM
Commissioner Lyon moved to approve the April 22, 2020, meeting minutes.
Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Lee, Lyon, Paredes,
Scheer, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:45:19 PM
Chairperson Bell stated she had nothing to report.
Vice Chairperson Scheer stated she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:45:30 PM
Molly Robinson, Planning Manager, stated she had nothing to report.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission May 13, 2020
9:30:30 PM
Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 2903 South Highland Drive -
Pierre Langue with Axis Architects, representing the property owner Highland Row LLC, is requesting
to amend the Sugarhouse Master Plan and the zoning map for a property located at approximately
2903 South Highland Drive. The proposal would rezone the eastern portion of the property
(approximately the eastern 55') from R-1-7000 (Single-Family Residential) to CB (Community
Business) and amend the Sugar House Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Mixed
Use – Low Intensity. The proposed master plan amendment to Mixed Use – Low Intensity and rezone
to CB is intended to accommodate a future development on the entire property located at 2903 South
Highland Drive. The site is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. (Staff
Contact: Nannette Larsen at (801) 535-7645 or nannette.larsen@slcgov.com) Case numbers
PLNPCM2020-00054 and PLNPCM2020-00053
Nannette Larsen, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the
case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
•Clarification on setback
Pierre Langue, applicant, provided further information and address public comments that were previously
received.
The Commission and Applicant discussed the following:
•Rear-yard setback
•CB setback requirement clarification
PUBLIC HEARING 9:49:34 PM
Chairperson Bell opened the Public Hearing;
Judi Short, Land Use Chair for Sugar House Community Council – Stated she researched this parcel and
as far as she can tell it’s never been developed, so it’s not like we are losing a house. She also suggested
to the petitioner to make the buffer wider.
Steve Davis – Raised concern with additional traffic and safety of his children. He also raised concern
with parking.
Zachary Dussault – Stated his support of the request.
Christine Frank – Raised concern with traffic and height difference.
Rachel Louchnor – Raised concern with added traffic, height and green space.
Bruce Robertson – Provided an email comment stating his opposition of the request.
Khristopher Shampeny – Provided an email comment stating his opposition of the request and his
concern regarding traffic.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Chairperson Bell closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION 10:06:44 PM
Commissioner Lyon stated, based on the information in the staff report I move that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council approved the proposed master plan amendment,
as presented in petition PLNPCM2020-00053. Additionally, I move that the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council approve the proposed zoning map amendment, as presented in
PLNPCM2020-00054.
Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Barry, Lee, Lyon,
Paredes, Scheer, Urquhart, and Young-Otterstrom voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
The following is a list of Q&A’s that were received during the meeting:
Q&A Session for Planning Commission Meeting - May 13, 2020
Session number: 961164179
Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2020
Starting time: 5:02 PM
Salt Lake City Planning Commission May 13, 2020
________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_
Christine Franke (franke38@comcast.net) - 9:51 PM
Q: It used to be a restaurant. The beefeater I suggest you do more research
Priority: N/A
________________________________________________________________
Steve Davis (sadavis1978@hotmail.com) - 9:55 PM
Q: tha
Priority: N/A
________________________________________________________________
Steve Davis (sadavis1978@hotmail.com) - 9:56 PM
Q: this street is too wide for that traffic flow nonsense
Priority: N/A
________________________________________________________________
Zachary Dussault (zacharytdussault@gmail.com) - 10:00 PM
Salt Lake City Planning Commission May 13, 2020
Salt Lake City Planning Commission May 13, 2020
Q: @previous commeter, drivers will drive at a speed they feel the road supports, regardless of spped
limit. A narrower street provides trafic calming and make drivers hesitate. Hevily utilized on street
parking also slows traffic and protects the sidewalk
Priority: N/A
________________________________________________________________
Zachary Dussault (zacharytdussault@gmail.com) - 10:09 PM
Q: we made it! goodnight everyone
Priority: N/A
The meeting adjourned at 10:11:07 PM
4. MAILING LIST
2903 South Highland Drive
Mailing List
CAROLYN MACFARLANE; SHELLEY
MCMURDIE (JT)
2856 S 1335 E SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
SUSAN M DOWNS; JAMES R DOWNS
(JT)
2853 S 1335 E SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
SHIN KU KANG; KYUNG HEE KANG
(JT)
2866 S 1335 E SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
CHRIS P GAMVROULAS; SUZANNE P
GAMVROULAS (JT)
2865 S 1335 E SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
JOHN G BORER 4305 S DIANA WY MILLCREEK UT 84124
JAMES MCCONKIE; LAUREL
MCCONKIE (JT)
1322 E
CRANDALL AVE
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
BRENT D. POPP; LYNN M. POPP 1328 E
CRANDALL AVE
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
JUDITH PLOWDEN 1334 E
CRANDALL AVE
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
STEVEN L ANDERSON; KRISTIN
ANDERSON (JT)
1340 E
CRANDALL AVE
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
ADAM HISCOCK; BONNIE MACKAY
(JT)
1352 E
CRANDALL AVE
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
JENNIFER L WHITTLE; SCOTT B
WHITTLE (JT)
1360 E
CRANDALL AVE
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
GREGORY A GREER 5032 FORBES
AVE # 1121
PITTSBURGH PA 15213
BRYAN VOGEL; LISA VOGEL (JT) 1349 E ZENITH
AVE
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
ANTHONY D BLACK 1355 E ZENITH
AVE
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 4504 S
BROCKBANK DR
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84124
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1865 E
ORCHARD CIR
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
NANCY J COWIE, LLC 2927 S
HIGHLAND DR
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
OLAFSSON ENTERPRISES LLC 2943 S
HIGHLAND DR
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
COLIN G ROBINSON; JEANETTA P
ROBINSON (JT)
13741
SARATOGA AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070
KEITH CHAN; YURI BAE CHAN (JT) 2486 S SCENIC
DR
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84109
NATHAN H GUNN; TAYLOR G GUNN
(JT)
50 W
BROADWAY ST #
39087
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84101
NICHOLAS B COOK; JENESSA E
COWLEY (JT)
1354 E ZENITH
AVE
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
OMER PRSTE; MARINA PRSTE (JT) 1335 E HUDSON
AVE
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
DANIEL CROOKER; KATHRYN
CROOKER (JT)
1350 E ZENITH
AVE
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
KRISA MCGILLIS; MITCHELL A
MCGILLIS (JT)
1329 E HUDSON
AVE
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
WILLIAM M III FARRAR; KATHLEEN
A BJORK
3704 SUNNYSIDE
AVE N
SEATTLE WA 98103
SCOTT D SWEATFIELD; PAOLA
BRAVO (JT)
1347 E HUDSON
AVE
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
1272 CRANDALL LLC 267 STARLIGHT
CREST DR
LA CANADA CA 91011
SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOLS CREDIT
UNION
3675 S 900 E SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
19TH CENTURY HOLDINGS LLC 2892 S
HIGHLAND DR
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
2876 HIGHLAND DRIVE LLC 1961 S LA
CIENEGA BLVD
LOS
ANGELES
CA 90034
JF SUGARHOUSE, LLC 1148 W LEGACY
CROSSING BL
CENTERVILL
E
UT 84014
H FAM TRUST; SUK WAI HSU 2885 S
HIGHLAND DR
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
VIVA CORPORATION 160 S 1000 E #
320
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84102
SUSHI GROOVE, LLC 4564 W LENNOX
DR
SOUTH
JORDAN
UT 84009
DE LA CRUZ; AQUILES H 1269 E HUDSON
AVE
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
MARK W SARGENT; LOUISE M
SARGENT (JT)
1275 E HUDSON
AVE
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 4719 S QUAIL
POINT RD
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84124
VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS 2920 S
HIGHLAND DR
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
HIGHLAND PROFESSIONAL PLAZA,
LP
2936 S
HIGHLAND DR
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
ANDREW M WALLMAN; KATHLEEN K
WALLMAN (JT)
2970 S
HIGHLAND DR
SALT LAKE
CITY
UT 84106
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget & Public Policy Analyst
DATE:February 2, 2021
RE: Awarding U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act grant funds for
Community Development Block Grants (CDBG-CV), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG-CV),
and Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA-CV)
NEW INFORMATION
At the January 19 meeting, the Council received a briefing about the process leading up to the proposed grant
awards, deadlines to use the funds, program funding categories, the 23 applications and remaining funds
without applications for how to use them.
The Council can decide to approve some or all the applications including at funding amounts different than what
is requested or recommended. The Council could also decide how to use the remaining funds at a separate time;
approving funding for the applications is not dependent upon deciding how to use remaining funds. The Council
may wish to discuss with the Administration gathering more information on options for the remaining funds
and whether the Council is comfortable moving forward awarding funds to some or all eligible applications.
The Council asked several questions for follow up. The questions and responses are shown below.
1. Could the Health Department provide a response / details about whether the remaining HUD-CV funds
are a viable option to expedite distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, especially in low income and
underserved communities in the City? It would be helpful to have details on how the Health Department
would utilize these funds such as setting up a temporary distribution center in low income
neighborhoods, hiring more staff, transportation for individuals, etc.
o HAND Staff is in communication with SLCo Health Department. Health Dept is responsible
for equitable access and distribution of vaccinations. Per conversation with Health
Department Director responsible for vaccines, the need is additional support for outreach,
education, and transportation. The Health Department has an open RFA (request for
applications) to solicit requests that will help ensure equitable access and distribution of
vaccines. Available funding is limited to $200,000. Current applications exceed $760,000.
SLC could help fill the gap with the remaining CDBG-CV funds. We hope to have more info in
advance of the 2/2 Council meeting and identify potential partners and the need that could be
filled.
o Fourth Street Clinic could use additional funding to support staff and supplies as they
administer vaccines.
Project Timeline:
1st Briefing: January 19, 2021
2nd Briefing: February 2, 2021
3rd Briefing: TBD, if needed
Potential Action: February 16, 2021
Page | 2
o Soap to Hope could use additional funding to help with outreach, follow up reminders for
second shot, and transportation services
o Volunteers of America could use additional funding to help with outreach, coordination of
vaccine shots, and transportation.
2. Council Member Johnston also suggested asking the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness
about how they could use the remaining funds.
o Per Katherine at Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness, there is not a strong need for
motel operations as a non-congregate shelter option. The scalable need is additional Rapid
Rehousing supports to get homeless individuals and families housed.
3. Does Nourish to Flourish have eligible expenses for some of the HUD-CV funds? Some Council
Members expressed interest in using the funds for food assistance.
o Nourish to Flourish received funding in the past from City and County. They have utilized all
previous funding that has been allocated. They can scale any dollar amount to quickly deploy
food to low-income populations.
o CDBG-CV – Community Stabilization could be utilized for this purpose.
4. Could you please provide the relevant regulations for using CDBG-CV and ESG-CV for purchasing
housing to provide emergency pandemic housing? The idea shared by Council Members is to purchase a
property such as a motel to provide emergency housing with social distancing (as opposed to traditional
congregate settings).
o State, City and County explored the use of ESG-CV funding for purchasing a motel to use as a
non-congregate shelter, then transition it to an affordable housing opportunity (SRO, PSH,
etc.) once the pandemic subsides. City would have to pay back any ESG-CV funding utilized to
accomplish that goal. See attached for more details. Please reach back if you have additional
questions.
Staff Note: See Attachment 3 for notices and regulations related to this topic. It may be possible to dispose
of a motel purchased with these funds by transferring the title to a third party instead of selling and
paying back HUD with the proceeds. The City Attorney’s Office would need to review this option if the
Council is interested in exploring further.
5. Could the Council use remaining ESG-CV funds for any CDBG-CV applications as a way to free up
CDBG-CV funds for other uses?
o Short answer yes. However, this would require parceling out specific budget requests of
applications. Here are two examples.
First Step House’s CDBG-CV COVID-19 Response Program:
o ESG-CV can pay for some of the outreach supplies they are giving to individuals
o ESG-CV can also pay for Hazard Pay and any training they may have to give to
their staff
4th Street Clinic:
o ESG-CV can pay for staff training and hazard pay
o ESG-CV can pay for any of the supplies they can are giving to individuals
— The Council was briefed on the information below at the January 19 work session —
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
As part of the CARES Act, Salt Lake City was awarded $7,138,203 in HUD grants for projects and programs
directly related to responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. The funds must be spent by September 2022. All
CDBG-CV funds must be under contract with community partners by June 1, 2021 and by May 17, 2021 for ESG-
CV and HOPWA-CV funds. The CARES Act HUD grants are subject to separate regulations than the regular
annual awards so the target area limitation and Consolidated Plan objectives do not control how these funds can
be used. If the Council approved awards based on mayoral funding recommendations, then there would be
remaining funds without applications for how to use them. Specifically, there would be $468,900 CDBG-CV and
Page | 3
$460,828 ESG-CV remaining. The advisory board recommended remaining funds go to vaccination efforts for
vulnerable communities (see Policy Question #1).
In Budget Amendment #5 the Council approved the administrative portion of the three grants which award
funds to the Attorney’s Office, Finance Department and Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND)
Division for managing the grants. In Budget Amendment #6 the Council supported via straw poll the $750,000
request from SwitchPoint for operating expenses at the temporary emergency winter shelter at the Salt Lake
Airport Inn. These actions still need to be formalized in the CARES Act HUD grants adoption resolution and
attached funding log.
The Administration used an expedited public process allowed by HUD which included shortened public
engagement steps and waiving the public hearing requirement so funds could benefit the community faster. The
expedited process still mirrored the regular annual HUD grant awards process by offering an open application
period for all interested parties, followed by resident advisory board review in public meetings, competitive
scoring and funding recommendations from the advisory board and a second set of funding recommendations
from the Mayor. The City Council makes the final funding decisions after considering the two sets of funding
recommendations, public feedback and deliberation. The Administration allowed applicants to submit requests
for additional funds after the open application period ended because requests were significant less than available
funding. As a result, some applicants increased their funding requests and others did not such as if the
program/project was not easily scalable.
Attachment 1 shows projects ranked by the combined score within each grant category. Attachment 2 is the
funding log for all three federal grants. The funding log combines advisory board and Administration scores as
shown in the far-right column which also lists maximum potential scores. The Additional Info section has a
timeline showing key dates over the past year on this topic and a table comparing the regular annual HUD grant
awards to the City to the one-time CARES Act HUD grants (labeled “CV” to distinguish from regular grants).
Comparing Requested Funding to Available Funding
Unusually, the requested funding from applicants is less than available funds. Requests are 90% of available
funding: $6,438,375 is requested compared to $7,138,203 in available funding. HUD has provided Salt Lake
City’s final CARES Act grant award amounts. The table below summarizes requested and available funding by
grant and the dollar difference.
Grant Request Available Requests as % of
Funding Available $ Difference
CDBG
Community Development
Block Grant
$ 2,810,449 $ 3,063,849 92% $ 253,400
ESG
Emergency Solutions Grant $ 3,540,483 $ 3,986,911 89% $ 446,428
HOPWA
Housing Opportunities for
Person with AIDS
$ 87,443 $ 87,443 100% $ -
TOTAL $ 6,438,375 $ 7,138,203 90% $ 699,828
Goal of the briefing: Discuss the Council’s priorities for the one-time CARES Act HUD grants, award
funding across eligible programs and projects, and decide how to use remaining funds.
Scoring Applications and Funding Recommendations
CDBG and ESG projects receive scores and funding recommendations from the Community Development and
Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) Board. HOPWA projects receive funding recommendations from the
Housing Trust Fund (HTF) Advisory Board. The advisory board funding recommendations are provided to the
Mayor and City Council. The Council receives another set of funding recommendations from the Mayor. The
final decision is made by the Council for grant award amounts. Attachment 1 shows projects ranked by the
combined score within each grant category.
Disqualified Applications
Page | 4
Three applications for CDBG-CV were fully disqualified and one was partially disqualified for proposing
expenses ineligible under the pandemic relief grant regulations. One application for ESG-CV was fully
disqualified. The applications are listed below.
CDBG-CV:
Housing Stability #4 NeighborWorks SLC Homebuyer down payment assistance and home repair assistance
Note: the applicant submitted a new request for mortgage assistance to keep low income households
from losing housing. This new application was not reviewed by the advisory board.
Community Stabilization #12 Shelter the Homeless: Homeless Resource Center COVID Response
Note: the application was partially disqualified for ineligible expenses such as an ADA door opener
Small Business #14 9th South LLC Maven District
Note: the applicant would have been paying themselves and HUD requires greater separation when
awarding grants to for-profit firms
Other Category #15 Salt Lake City: Healthy Home Program replacing and upgrading air systems
Note: the application was ineligible because not directly related to pandemic responses
ESG-CV:
Emergency Shelter #7 The Inn Between: Medical Respite / Emergency Shelter
Note: the application did not meet HUD’s definition of emergency temporary shelter
Differences between Advisory Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
A majority of board and mayoral recommendations are identical; however, three exceptions exist. Below is a
table comparing the different funding recommendations for those applications.
RecommendationsGrant
Category Project # and Name Board Mayor
Difference
Between Notes
Housing Stability #4
NeighborWorks SLC
Mortgage Assistance
Program
$0 $200,00
0 $200,000
The original application
was disqualified as
ineligible; a new
application was submitted
and not reviewed by the
advisory boardCDBG-
CV Small Business #13
International Rescue
Committee Spice Kitchen
Incubator Pandemic
Resiliency Project
$75,000 $150,000 $75,000 The applicant requested
$75,000
ESG-CV
Rapid Rehousing #3
The Road Home Eviction
Prevention Assistance
$50,000 $150,000 $100,000 The applicant requested
$50,000
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.What to do with $929,728 of Remaining Funds – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration what options are preferred with the remaining funds that did not receive applications to use.
Remaining funds based on the Mayor’s recommendations are $468,900 CDBG-CV and $460,828 ESG-CV.
The advisory board recommended remaining funds go to vaccination efforts for vulnerable communities.
Another option is the competitive application process could be reopened for another round. Staff note:
public health services are usually funded by and provided by the local health department, in this case Salt
Lake County, which has received its own share of COVID relief funds. The Council may wish to encourage
the Administration to discuss with the County if these funds would be helpful at this point, or if there are
other ways to augment public health efforts. Alternately the Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration if there are other eligible traditionally city services that could use these funds.
Page | 5
2.Different Recommendations from Board and Mayor – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration why the Mayor’s recommendations for three applications (detailed in the table above) are
different than the resident advisory Board’s funding recommendations.
3.Disqualified Applications – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for details on why four
applications were disqualified, one was partially disqualified and if other City resources could help meet
these community needs.
4.Coordination with Funding Our Future (FOF) Housing Programs – The Council may wish to
discuss with the Administration how HUD grant awards are being coordinated with FOF housing programs.
Most of the community organizations that received FOF housing allocations also have mayoral funding
recommendations for HUD grant awards. Some of the community organizations are receiving FOF and
HUD grant dollars for the same or similar programs. This approach could help the City and community
organizations leverage multiple funding sources.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Timeline
The below timeline provides a general summary of key dates leading up to the Council’s consideration of
individual applications seeking award of CARES Act HUD grants. This timeline is not comprehensive, for
example meeting dates of resident advisory boards and internal City staff meetings are not listed.
April 2 – HUD notifies City about first round of CARES Act grant awards
June 9 – HUD notifies City about second round of CARES Act grant awards
September 10 – HUD notifies City about third round of CARES Act grant awards
September 11 – beginning of a two-week public comment period held by HAND for substantial amendments
(updating) the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan
October 13 – the Council held a briefing about amending the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and associated
2020-2021 Annual Action Plan to utilize $7.1 million in CARES Act funding from HUD
October 20 – the Council adopted amendments to the Consolidated Plan that identified the 13 project/program
categories that organizations could submit applications for funding
November 2 – beginning of three-week window for organizations to submit applications in an open and
competitive process
November 6 – HAND held a training session for interested applicants
November 10 – the Council held an electronic public hearing as part of Budget Amendment #5 to establish the
budgets to accept the $7.1 million
November 17 – the Council held a second electronic public hearing as part of Budget Amendment #5 to establish
the budgets to accept the $7.1 million
December 8 – the Council adopted Budget Amendment #5 which established the budgets to accept the $7.1
million and approved the administration applications for CDBG-CV, ESG-CV and HOPWA-CV which provides
funding to the Attorney’s Office, Finance Department HAND to manage the programs
January 5 – at the Budget Amendment #6 briefing the Council unanimously supported via a straw poll early
approval of the $750,000 ESG-CV request from SwitchPoint for operating expenses of the Salt Lake Emergency
Winter Overflow Shelter at the Airport Inn
Comparing One-time HUD-CV CARES Act Funds to Ongoing Annual Awards
The below table compares the FY2021 annual grant awards from HUD to the one-time COVID relief funds.
Overall, these relief funds represent a significant increase over the City’s annual HUD grant awards for FY2021.
The ESG funds are more than three times as large as the annual awards. Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG)
funds are for preventing homelessness and providing services to persons experiencing homelessness.
Grant FY2021 Annual
Awards
HUD-CV CARES
Act Funds
Relief Funds as %
of Annual Awards
CDBG
Community Development
Block Grant
$ 3,509,164 $ 3,063,849 87%
Page | 6
ESG
Emergency Solutions Grant $ 301,734 $ 3,986,911 1321%
HOME
Investment Partnership $ 1,632,427 N/A -
HOPWA
Housing Opportunities for
Person with AIDS
$ 720,867 $ 87,443 12%
TOTAL $ 6,164,192 $ 7,138,203 116%
ATTACHMENTS
1. Funding Recommendations Combined Score Sheet
2. Funding Log
ACRONYMS
CARES – Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security Act
CDBG – Community Development Block Grant
CDCIP – Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board
ESG – Emergency Solutions Grant
FOF – Funding Our Future
FY – Fiscal Year
HAND – Housing and Neighborhood Development
HOPWA – Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS
HTF – Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board
HUD – U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department
APPLICANT PROJECT/PROGRAM SCORE REQUEST
CDCIP BOARD
FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS
MAYOR FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS
CDBG-CV
HOUSING
STABILITY NeighborWorks Salt Lake Community Resiliency Program (Mortgage Assistance Program) Not Eligible 200,000$ Application Not Eligible 200,000$
200,000$ -$ 200,000$
4th Street Clinic COVID-19 Response 108.80 300,000$ 300,000$ 300,000$
The Road Home Advocates for Gail Miller Resource Center 108.22 132,990$ 132,990$ 132,990$
Utah Community Action Public Service Agency 107.20 137,389$ 137,389$ 137,389$
First Step House First Step House COVID-19 Response Program 104.60 445,266$ 445,266$ 445,266$
The INN Between End of Life and Temporary Housing of Terminally Ill 94.90 154,221$ 154,221$ 154,221$
1,169,866$ 1,169,866$ 1,169,866$
First Step House First Step House COVID-19 Response Program 104.40 178,320$ 178,320$ 178,320$
Salt Lake City Corporation Expand Emergency Food Delivery 100.22 141,334$ 141,334$ 141,334$
Shelter the Homeless HRC COVID-Response 78.10 183,159$ 142,659$ 142,659$
502,813$ 462,313$ 462,313$
International Rescue Committee Spice Kitchen Incubator Pandemic Small Business Resiliency Project 105.10 75,000$ 75,000$ 150,000$
9th South LLC Maven District Not Eligible 100,000$ Application Not Eligible -$
175,000$ 75,000$ 150,000$
CDBG-CV
OTHER Salt Lake City Corporation SLC Healthy Home Program Not Eligible 150,000$ Application Not Eligible -$
150,000$ -$ -$
CDBG-CV
ADMIN Salt Lake City Corporation Administration of Grant Programs *105.57 612,770$ 612,770$ 612,770$
612,770$ 612,770$ 612,770$
2,810,449$ 2,319,949$ 2,594,949$
Remaining to Allocate 468,900$
2020-2021 Mayor's CARES Act HUD-CV Grant Funding Recommendations
CDBG-CV
COMMUNITY
STABILIZATION
* $314,748 Has been appropriated by City Council to cover administration costs for 2020-2021. Balance will be utilized for the remainder of the
grant period.
CATEGORY
CDBG-CV
PUBLIC SERVICE
AGENCY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT - $3,063,849
CDBG-CV
SMALL BUSINESS
Page 1 of 2
APPLICANT PROJECT/PROGRAM SCORE REQUEST
CDCIP BOARD
FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS
MAYOR FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS
ESG-CV
HOMELESS
PREVENTION Utah Community Action Homeless Prevention 108.42 1,212,940$ 1,212,940$ 1,212,940$
1,212,940$ 1,212,940$ 1,212,940$
Utah Community Action Rapid Rehousing 110.81 773,355$ 773,355$ 773,355$
The Road Home Prevention Assistance 105.89 50,000$ 50,000$ 150,000$
823,355$ 823,355$ 923,355$
Volunteers of America Homeless Outreach Program 107.6 128,917$ 128,917$ 128,917$
Soap to Hope Street Outreach Program 71 112,180$ 112,180$ 112,180$
241,097$ 241,097$ 241,097$
Friends of Switchpoint Salt Lake Winter Overflow Shelter 96.7 750,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$
The INN Between Medical Respite Emergency Shelter Housing Not Eligible 114,400$ Application Not Eligible -$
864,400$ 750,000$ 750,000$
ESG-CV
ADMIN Salt Lake City Corporation Administration of Grant Programs *103.9 398,691$ 398,691$ 398,691$
* $314,748 Has been appropriated by City Council to cover administration costs for 2020-2021. Balance will be utilized for the remainder of the grant period.398,691$ 398,691$ 398,691$
3,540,483$ 3,426,083$ 3,526,083$
Remaining to Allocate 460,828$
APPLICANT PROJECT/PROGRAM SCORE REQUEST HTF BOARD FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS
MAYOR FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS
HOPWA-CV
HOUSING
STABILITY Utah Community Action Housing Stability 119.83 82,196$ 82,196$ 82,196$
82,196$ 82,196$ 82,196$
CATEGORY
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS - $87,443
CATEGORY
$3,986,911EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT -
ESG-CV
RAPID
REHOUSING
ESG-CV
STREET
OUTREACH
ESG-CV
EMERGENCY
SHELTER
Page 2 of 2
2020‐2021 Funding Available: $3,063,8491 Attorney's OfficeNew REQUEST: 26,042$ Administration of Grant Programs*CDCIP: 26,042$ MAYOR:26,042$ COUNCIL:‐$ Maximum Score 129Applicant Score: 105.572 Finance DivisionNewREQUEST:53,249$ Administration of Grant Programs*CDCIP:53,249$ MAYOR:53,249$ COUNCIL:‐$ Maximum Score 129Applicant Score: 105.573NewREQUEST:533,479$ CDCIP:533,479$ MAYOR:533,479$ Administration of Grant Programs*COUNCIL:‐$ Maximum Score 129Applicant Score: 105.57REQUEST:612,770$ CDCIP:612,770$ MAYOR:612,770$ COUNCIL:‐$ 4 NeighborWorks Salt LakeNewREQUEST:200,000$ CDCIP:‐$ MAYOR:200,000$ COUNCIL:‐$ REQUEST:200,000$ CDCIP:‐$ MAYOR:200,000$ COUNCIL:‐$ 2020‐2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID‐19 ELIGIBILITY % OF GRANT AWARDThe applicant's original application (homebuyer and home repair assistance) was HUD‐CV ineligible, and the CDCIP did not score this application due to it's ineligibility.Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to COVID‐19 requirement of the CARES ACT.The Mayor recommended the applicant to administer a Mortgage Assistance Program, which the applicant said that they could administer.CDBG‐CV HOUSING STABILITY TOTALSALT LAKE CITY CDBG‐CV PROGRAM: FUNDING LOG 2020‐2021APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAMEPROJECT DESCRIPTIONPREVIOUS GRANT AWARDSREQUEST/RECOMMENDED2020‐2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID‐19 ELIGIBILITY % OF GRANT AWARDCDBG‐CV HOUSING STABILITYMortgage Assistance Program for households 80% AMI and affected by COVID‐19.Mortgage Assistance ProgramCDBG‐CV ADMINPartial funding for staff salary to provide contract administration for CV federal grants. * $314,748 Has been appropriated by City Council to cover administration costs for 2020‐2021. Balance will be utilized for the remainder of the grant period.Partial funding for staff salary to provide financial administration and accounting services for CV federal grants. * $314,748 Has been appropriated by City Council to cover administration costs for 2020‐2021. Balance will be utilized for the remainder of the grant period.Housing & Neighborhood Development DivisionAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAMEFunding for salaries and operational expenses of HAND to administer and monitor the CV federal grants and to conduct the community processes.* $314,748 Has been appropriated by City Council to cover administration costs for 2020‐2021. Balance will be utilized for the remainder of the grant period.(Note: 20% is the maximum CDBG‐CV administration amount.) CDBG‐CV ADMIN TOTALPROJECT DESCRIPTIONPREVIOUS GRANT AWARDSREQUEST/RECOMMENDEDLast Updated January 28, 2021FY2021 CARES Act HUD Grants Funding LogPage 1
54th Street ClinicNew REQUEST: 300,000$ CDCIP:300,000$ MAYOR:300,000$ COUNCIL:Maximum Score 129Applicant Score: 108.806The Road HomeNewREQUEST:132,990$ Advocates for Gail Miller Resource CenterCDCIP:132,990$ MAYOR:132,990$ COUNCIL:Maximum Score 129Applicant Score: 108.227Utah Community Action NewREQUEST:137,389$ Public Service AgencyCDCIP:137,389$ MAYOR:137,389$ COUNCIL:Maximum Score 129Applicant Score: 107.208First Step House NewREQUEST:445,266$ First Step House COVID‐19 Response CDCIP:445,266$ MAYOR:445,266$ COUNCIL:Maximum Score 129Applicant Score: 104.609The INN Between NewREQUEST:154,221$ CDCIP:154,221$ MAYOR:154,221$ COUNCIL:Maximum Score 129Applicant Score: 94.90REQUEST:1,169,866$ CDCIP:1,169,866$ MAYOR:1,169,866$ COUNCIL:‐$ Provide funding for temporary staff for the Intake Center, provides coordinated entry for all six Utah Community Action programs—Adult Education, Case Management and Housing, Head Start preschool, HEAT Utility Assistance, Nutrition and Weatherization.In order to prepare. respond, & prevent further spread of COVID‐19 in our congregate living facilities, this program will provide additional staff capacity & costs to ensure the continuation on‐site behavioral health, medical, & housing services to clients. This request is focused on providing a hazard pay increase to 37.5 staff to help with retention and bringing in temporary staff. First Step House also submitted an application for CDBG #10 in the Community Stabilization category. APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAMEPROJECT DESCRIPTIONPREVIOUS GRANT AWARDSREQUEST/RECOMMENDED2020‐2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID‐19 ELIGIBILITY % OF GRANT AWARDEnd of Life and Temporary Housing of Terminally IllAligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to COVID‐19 requirement of the CARES ACT.Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to COVID‐19 requirement of the CARES ACT.Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to COVID‐19 requirement of the CARES ACT.Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to COVID‐19 requirement of the CARES ACT.Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to COVID‐19 requirement of the CARES ACT.Staffing costs for medical respite and end of life costs for homeless Salt Lake City residents who are vulnerable to COVID‐19.CDBG‐CV PUBLIC SERVICE AGENCY Funds will be used to pay the salaries, taxes, and benefits for FTE staff dedicated to the dorms at the Gail Miller Resource Center (GMRC). Fourth Street Clinic (FSC) will use funding to pay for contractual labor for a medical assistants to support testing for COVID‐19 as well as operation costs which include PPE supplies and increased utility cost to provide heating and electric to medical tents.In Budget Amendment #2 the Council approved $150,000 for temporary outdoor shelters at the clinic in coordination with the County. COVID‐19 Response CDBG‐CV PUBLIC SERVICE AGENCY TOTALLast Updated January 28, 2021FY2021 CARES Act HUD Grants Funding LogPage 2
10First Step HouseNew REQUEST: 178,320$ First Step House COVID‐19 Response CDCIP:178,320$ MAYOR:178,320$ COUNCIL:‐$ Maximum Score 129Applicant Score: 104.4011Salt Lake City CorporationNewREQUEST:141,334$ CDCIP:141,334$ MAYOR:141,334$ COUNCIL:‐$ Maximum Score 129Applicant Score: 100.2212Shelter the HomelessNewREQUEST:183,159$ HRC COVID‐ResponseCDCIP:142,659$ MAYOR:142,659$ COUNCIL:‐$ Maximum Score 129Applicant Score: 78.10REQUEST:502,813$ CDCIP:462,313$ MAYOR:462,313$ COUNCIL:‐$ Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to COVID‐19 requirement of the CARES ACT.Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to COVID‐19 requirement of the CARES ACT.Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to COVID‐19 requirement of the CARES ACT. The CDCIP board did not recommend the expenses for thermal cameras and operator, $32,700, but did approve the expenses for meals and admin.The expense for the ADA door opener, $7,800, was an ineligible HUD‐CV expense. 2020‐2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID‐19 ELIGIBILITY CDBG‐CV COMMUNITY STABILIZATIONProvide for food costs, PPE, and additional staffing costs so FSH facilities can respond to COVID‐19. This request is focused on providing a hazard pay increase to 12.5 staff and resources for meal preparation and delivery and sanitation services at multiple locations. First Step House also submitted an application for CDBG #8 in the Public Services category. Purchase meals at the two Salt Lake City HRC's, as well as PPE, and thermal cameras to respond to COVID‐19 amongst the homeless population. CDBG‐CV COMMUNITY STABILIZATION TOTALIncrease emergency food support and access to healthy culturallyrelevant food for low income refugee families with limited household resources to absorb the economic impacts due to the COVID‐19 pandemic.Expand Emergency Food DeliveryAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAMEPREVIOUS GRANT AWARDSREQUEST/RECOMMENDED% OF GRANT AWARDPROJECT DESCRIPTIONLast Updated January 28, 2021FY2021 CARES Act HUD Grants Funding LogPage 3
13International Rescue CommitteeNewREQUEST:75,000$ CDCIP:75,000$ MAYOR:150,000$ COUNCIL:‐$ Maximum Score 129Applicant Score: 105.10149th South LLCNewREQUEST:100,000$ Maven DistrictCDCIP:‐$ MAYOR:‐$ COUNCIL:‐$ The CDCIP board did not score this application due to it's HUD‐CV ineligibility.REQUEST:175,000$ CDCIP:75,000$ MAYOR:150,000$ COUNCIL:‐$ 15Salt Lake City CorporationNewREQUEST:150,000$ SLC Healthy Home ProgramCDCIP:‐$ MAYOR:‐$ COUNCIL:‐$ REQUEST:150,000$ CDCIP:‐$ MAYOR:‐$ COUNCIL:‐$ Spice Kitchen Incubator Pandemic Small Business Resiliency ProjectAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAMEPROJECT DESCRIPTIONPREVIOUS GRANT AWARDSREQUEST/RECOMMENDED2020‐2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID‐19 ELIGIBILITY Program will focus on replacing critical air health systems within the home and improving interior air quality for low income persons and vulnerable seniors.CDBG‐CV SMALL BUSINESS% OF GRANT AWARDThis application is HUD‐CV ineligible. Applicant would be paying themselves and HUD requires an arms length transaction for For‐Profit entities.Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to COVID‐19 requirement of the CARES ACT.Offer a Pay What You Can program that provides membershipson a sliding scale pricing structure to serve diverse‐owned businesses and minority entrepreneurs.Requested funding will support staffing/operations for ongoing training and technical assistance (TTA) to COVID impacted businesses supporting LMI immigrant/refugee entrepreneurs in SLC and provide COVID‐grants to impacted SLC new American small food businesses.CDBG‐CV SMALL BUSINESS TOTALApplication not eligible for HUD‐CV Funding. CV funds can be used to rehab private properties to directly quarantine COVID‐19 patients. However, this application would only indirectly prevent COVID‐19 for non‐patients.CDBG‐CV OTHERPROJECT DESCRIPTIONPREVIOUS GRANT AWARDSREQUEST/RECOMMENDED2020‐2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID‐19 ELIGIBILITY % OF GRANT AWARDAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME CDBG‐CV OTHER TOTALLast Updated January 28, 2021FY2021 CARES Act HUD Grants Funding LogPage 4
FUNDS REQUESTEDFUNDS AVAILABLEAdministration612,770$ 3,063,849$ Housing Stability200,000$ 3,063,849$ Public Service Agency1,169,866$ Community Stabilization502,813$ Small Business175,000$ FUNDS RECOMMENDEDOther150,000$ CDCIP:2,319,949$ TOTAL FUNDS REQUESTED:2,810,449$ 2,594,949$ ‐$ CDCIP Board Recommendation:AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATIONCDCIP:‐$ 468,900$ Administration Staff Analysis:3,063,849$ COUNCIL:COUNCIL:GRANT AWARD:TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE:Board Motion For Remaining ESG and CDBG Funding: To go to homeless service agencies that could help with COVID‐19 vaccination, such as agencies that can help identify low income, homeless, marginalized populations, and communities of color, to obtain and receive the COVID‐19 vaccine.MAYOR:MAYOR:TOTALSLast Updated January 28, 2021FY2021 CARES Act HUD Grants Funding LogPage 5
1Utah Community ActionNew REQUEST: 1,212,940$ Homeless PreventionCDCIP: 1,212,940$ MAYOR: 1,212,940$ COUNCIL: ‐$ Maximum Score 129Applicant Score: 108.42REQUEST: 1,212,940$ CDCIP: 1,212,940$ MAYOR: 1,212,940$ COUNCIL: ‐$ 2Utah Community ActionNew REQUEST: 773,355$ Rapid Rehousing CDCIP: 773,355$ MAYOR: 773,355$ COUNCIL: ‐$ Maximum Score 129Applicant Score: 110.813The Road HomeNew REQUEST: 50,000$ Prevention AssistanceCDCIP: 50,000$ MAYOR: 150,000$ COUNCIL: ‐$ Maximum Score 129Applicant Score: 105.89REQUEST: 823,355$ CDCIP: 823,355$ Aligns with Consolidated Plan and MAYOR:923,355$ COUNCIL:‐$ PREVIOUS GRANT AWARDSREQUEST/RECOMMENDED2020‐2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID‐19 ELIGIBILITY % OF GRANT AWARDAligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to COVID‐19 requirement of the CARES ACT.Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to COVID‐19 requirement of the CARES ACT.Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to COVID‐19 requirement of the CARES ACT.2020‐2021 Funding Available:Emergency rental assistance for clients experiencing a COVID related crisis, and funding for case managers to provide case management services to clients. This request is focused on rent assistance and support to prevent individuals and households from losing housing. Utah Community Action also submitted an application for ESG #2 in the Rapid Rehousing category. ESG‐CV HOMELESS PREVENTION TOTALEmergency rental assistance for clients experiencing a Covid related crisis, and funding for case managers to provide case management services to clients to ensure they are able to become self‐reliant. This request is focused on quickly getting individuals experiencing homelessness back into housing. Utah Community Action also submitted an application for ESG #1 in the Homeless Prevention category. ESG‐CV RAPID REHOUSINGAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAMESALT LAKE CITY ESG‐CV PROGRAM: FUNDING LOG 2020‐2021Support for households who have recently exited RapidRe‐Housing Program and are in need of an immediate intervention to retain their housing stability.ESG‐CV RAPID REHOUSING TOTALPROJECT DESCRIPTIONPREVIOUS GRANT AWARDSREQUEST/RECOMMENDED2020‐2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID‐19 ELIGIBILITY % OF GRANT AWARD$3,986,911ESG‐CV HOMELESS PREVENTIONAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTIONLast Updated January 28, 2021FY2021 CARES Act HUD Grants Funding LogPage 6
ES4Volunteers of AmericaNew REQUEST: 128,917$ Homeless Outreach ProgramCDCIP: 128,917$ MAYOR: 128,917$ COUNCIL: ‐$ Maximum Score 129Applicant Score: 106.705Soap to HopeNew REQUEST: 112,180$ Street Outreach ProgramCDCIP: 112,180$ MAYOR: 112,180$ COUNCIL: ‐$ Maximum Score 129Applicant Score: 71REQUEST: 241,097$ CDCIP: 241,097$ MAYOR: 241,097$ COUNCIL: ‐$ 6Friends of SwitchpointNew REQUEST: 750,000$ Salt Lake Winter Overflow ShelterCDCIP: 750,000$ MAYOR: 750,000$ COUNCIL: ‐$ Maximum Score 129Applicant Score: 96.77The Inn BetweenNew REQUEST: 114,400$ Medical Respite CDCIP: ‐$ MAYOR: ‐$ COUNCIL: ‐$ CDCIP did not score this application due to it's HUD‐CV ineligibility. REQUEST:864,400$ CDCIP:750,000$ MAYOR:750,000$ COUNCIL:‐$ Emergency Shelter HousingFunds will be used for staffing two 24/7 facilities that will operate as winter overflows. Shelter rental costs, staffing, food andPPE supplies will be included in the use of funds.On January 5, at the Budget Amendment #6 briefing the Council unanimously supported via a straw poll early approval of this item.The applicant's original application (homebuyer and home repair assistance) APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAMEPROJECT DESCRIPTIONPREVIOUS GRANT AWARDSREQUEST/RECOMMENDED2020‐2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID‐19 ELIGIBILITY % OF GRANT AWARDAligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to COVID‐19 requirement of the CARES ACT.Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to COVID‐19 requirement of the CARES ACT.ESG‐CV EMERGENCY SHELTER TOTALESG‐CV EMERGENCY SHELTERAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAMEPROJECT DESCRIPTIONPREVIOUS GRANT AWARDSStaff costs for a medical housing, to medically frail and terminally ill homeless individuals, who need to be in a COVID‐free environment due to underlying health conditions and other high‐risk factors.Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to COVID‐19 requirement of the CARES ACT.Application is HUD‐CV ineligible. Application does not meet the HUD‐CV definition of Emergency Temporary Shelter.REQUEST/RECOMMENDED2020‐2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID‐19 ELIGIBILITY % OF GRANT AWARDEssential care and supplies for homeless persons living on the street, including substance abuse services. Staffing costs to increase outreach.Examples of supplies and care include hygiene kits, PPE, cooking kits, clothing, naloxone kits, syringe exchange program, fentanyl testing strips, case management, crisis phone line, transportation assistance.ESG‐CV STREET OUTREACH TOTALReach the increased number of unsheltered individuals experiencing homelessness due to COVID‐19. Funding will support new positions, and to provide basic needs items.New positions include a case manager and peer support specialist.Last Updated January 28, 2021FY2021 CARES Act HUD Grants Funding LogPage 7
8Salt Lake City CorporationNew REQUEST: 398,691$ Administration of Grant Programs * CDCIP: 398,691$ MAYOR: 398,691$ COUNCIL: ‐$ Maximum Score 129Applicant Score: 103.9REQUEST: 398,691$ CDCIP: 398,691$ MAYOR: 398,691$ COUNCIL: ‐$ FUNDS REQUESTEDFUNDS AVAILABLEHomeless Prevention 1,212,940$ 3,986,911$ Rapid Rehousing823,355$ 3,986,911$ Street Outreach241,097$ Emergency Shelter864,400$ FUNDS RECOMMENDEDAdministration398,691$ CDCIP:3,426,083$ TOTAL FUNDS REQUESTED:3,540,483$ MAYOR:3,526,083$ COUNCIL:‐$ CDCIP Board Recommendation:AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATIONCDCIP:‐$ MAYOR:460,828$ COUNCIL:3,986,911$ Administration Staff Analysis:Grant administration for ESG‐CV Funding. * $314,748 Has been appropriated by City Council to cover administration costs for 2020‐2021. Balance will be utilized for the remainder of the grant period.ESG‐CV ADMINBoard Motion For Remaining ESG and CDBG Funding: To go to homeless service agencies that could help with COVID‐19 vaccination, such as agencies that can help identify low income, homeless, marginalized populations, and communities of color, to obtain and receive the COVID‐19 vaccine.PREVIOUS GRANT AWARDSREQUEST/RECOMMENDED2020‐2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID‐19 ELIGIBILITY % OF GRANT AWARDGRANT AWARD:(NOTE: 10% is the maximum ESG‐CV amount) ESG‐CV ADMIN TOTALAligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to COVID‐19 requirement of the CARES ACT.TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE:TOTALSAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTIONLast Updated January 28, 2021FY2021 CARES Act HUD Grants Funding LogPage 8
2020‐2021 Funding Available: $87,4431 Utah Community ActionREQUEST:82,196$ Housing StabilityHTFAB:82,196$ MAYOR: 82,196$ COUNCIL: ‐$ Max Score: 129Applicant Score 119.83REQUEST: 82,196$ HTFAB: 82,196$ MAYOR: 82,196$ COUNCIL: ‐$ 2 Salt Lake City CorporationREQUEST: 5,247$ Administration of Grant Program*HTFAB: 5,247$ MAYOR: 5,247$ COUNCIL: ‐$ Max Score: 129Applicant Score: 109.17REQUEST: 5,247$ HTFAB 5,247$ MAYOR: 5,247$ COUNCIL: ‐$ FUNDS REQUESTED FUNDS AVAILABLEHousing Stability $ 82,196 87,443$ Administration 5,247$ 87,443$ TOTAL FUNDS REQUESTED 87,443$ HTF Board Recommendation:HTFAB:87,443$ MAYOR:87,443$ COUNCIL:‐$ AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATIONAdministration Staff Analysis:HTFAB:‐$ MAYOR:‐$ COUNCIL:87,443$ HOPWA‐CV ADMINAPPLICANT/ PROJECT NAMEThis funding will be utilized to provide Permanent Housing Placement (PHP) and Short‐term Rent, Mortgage and Utility (STRMU) assistance for persons with HIV/AIDS, during the COVID‐19 CrisisGrant administration for HOPWA‐CV funding. * $314,748 Has been appropriated by City Council to cover administration costs for 2020‐2021. Balance will be utilized for the remainder of the grant period.PROJECT DESCRIPTIONPREVIOUS GRANT AWARDSREQUEST/RECOMMENDED2020‐2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID‐19 ELIGIBILITY % OF GRANT AWARDAligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to COVID‐19 requirement of the CARES ACT.SALT LAKE CITY HOPWA‐CV PROGRAM: FUNDING LOG 2020‐2021APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAMEPROJECT DESCRIPTION2020‐2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID‐19 ELIGIBILITY HOPWA‐CV HOUSING STABILITY TOTALHOPWA‐CV HOUSING STABILITYPREVIOUS GRANT AWARDSREQUEST/RECOMMENDED% OF GRANT AWARDTOTALSAligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to COVID‐19 requirement of the CARES ACT.GRANT AWARD:TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE:(NOTE: 6% is the HOPWA‐CV admin amount.) HOPWA‐CV ADMIN TOTALNOTE: Text in blue was added by Council StaffFUNDS RECOMMENDEDLast Updated January 28, 2021FY2021 CARES Act HUD Grants Funding LogPage 9
Re: SLC CARES HUD-CV to lease, acquire or renovate a Temporary Emergency Shelter
Summary:
CDBG-CV funds:
Acquisitions or rehabs can justifiably be used to fulfill the CARES Act purposes
depending upon the circumstances.
ESG-CV funds:
Can be used to either lease, acquire or renovate a building to be used as a temporary
emergency shelter, not to exceed a total of $2.5M in ESG-CV funds.
Lead based paint requirements apply, but not habitability standards, and grantees
assume environmental review requirements.
Can be used within Salt Lake County.
Funds can be used from March 10, 2020 (the City’s COVID Declaration) to January 31,
2022.
May deviate from applicable procurement procedures.
Disposition: Retain or sell and then compensate HUD or transfer title to 3rd party.
The State posed a question to HUD re: acquisition for a shelter (10/13/2020):
HUD responded that SNAPS is working on other ways/options, but that currently the
ONLY disposition options are retain or sell and then compensate HUD.
*****************************************************************************
CDBG-CV Notice, 8/7/2020
III.B.5.(f) Eligible Activities
Grantees may use CDBG-CV funds only for those activities carried out to prevent, prepare for, and
respond to coronavirus. By law, use of funds for any other purpose is unallowable. To satisfy these
purposes, grantees may assist activities that respond to direct effects, such as the need to rehabilitate a
building to add isolation rooms for recovering coronavirus patients. A grantee may also undertake
activities to address indirect effects of the virus, such as the economic and housing market disruptions
caused by social distancing measures and stay at home orders implemented to prevent the spread of
coronavirus.
Some activities clearly tie back to the purposes of the CARES Act, such as public services, economic
development and microenterprise assistance, public facilities, and the rehabilitation of private buildings
to provide housing. However, HUD is not prohibiting grantees from carrying out any particular CDBG
eligible activity described in the HCD Act and the part 570 regulations, because other CDBG eligible
activities, such as acquisition, can justifiably be used to fulfill the CARES Act purposes depending upon
the circumstances.
*****************************************************************************
ESG-CV HUD Notice, 8/31/2020
3. Additional Eligible Activities. In addition to the eligible activities listed in 24 CFR 576 – Subpart
B, funds may be used for the following activities:
a. Temporary emergency shelters. As permitted by the CARES Act, ESG-CV funds may be used
to pay for temporary emergency shelters for individuals and families experiencing homelessness in
order to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.
(i) Eligible costs include:
(a) Leasing existing real property or temporary structures to be used as temporary emergency
shelters;
(b) Acquisition of real property (e.g. hotels, ancillary structures, parking lots). The total amount of
ESG-CV funds used for acquisition must not exceed $2.5 million per real property;
(c) Renovation (including major rehabilitation and conversion) of real property (e.g., hotels) into
temporary emergency shelters. Eligible costs include labor, tools, and other costs for renovation;
(d) Shelter operations costs including the costs of maintenance (including minor or routine repairs),
rent, security, fuel, equipment, insurance, utilities, food, furnishings, supplies necessary for the
operation of the temporary emergency shelter;
(e) Services, including essential services under 24 CFR 576.102(a)(1), housing search and
placement services under 24 CFR 576.105(b)(1), and housing search and counseling services as
provided under 24 CFR 578.53(e)(8); except as otherwise stated in this Notice or 24 CFR part
576.408; and,
(f) Other shelter costs HUD pre-approves in writing.
(ii) Requirements:
(a) As permitted by the CARES Act, the use of funds for these shelters will not be subject to the
habitability standards under section 417(c) of the McKinney-Vento Act, shelter standards at 24 CFR
576.403(b), or the environmental review requirements that otherwise apply to the use of ESG funds
if the shelters have been determined by State or local health officials to be necessary to prevent,
prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. Recipients and subrecipients must still comply with
nondiscrimination and applicable accessibility requirements, including requirements under Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Housing Act, and their
implementing regulations. See also 24 CFR 576.407(a);
(b) These temporary emergency shelters shall not be subject to the minimum periods of use required
by section 416(c)(1) of the McKinney-Vento Act and 24 CFR 576.102(c) and shall be considered as
excluded by law from any certifications recipients submit pursuant to 24 CFR 91.225(c)(1) through
(c)(4) or 91.325(c)(4)(i) through (c)(4)(iv); however, if funds were used for acquisition or renovation
(including conversion or major rehabilitation), the property’s use and disposition will be
subject to the real property requirements in 2 CFR 200.311;
(c) In general, funds may be used to support temporary emergency shelters to prevent, prepare for,
and respond to coronavirus until January 31, 2022. This January 31, 2022 limit will ensure that
ESG-CV funds are available to serve more individuals and families with assistance to prevent,
prepare for and respond to coronavirus. However, upon written request by the recipient, HUD may
grant an exception to the January 31, 2022 limit, if the recipient demonstrates:
(i) Why additional funding for a longer period of time is necessary and what planned activities the
recipient will forgo to continue funding the temporary emergency shelter;
(ii) The number of additional months the recipient will fund the temporary emergency shelter; and
(iii) The plan for connecting program participants to permanent housing when the temporary
emergency shelter is no longer funded;
(d) In addition to the records required at 24 CFR 576.500, the recipient must retain documentation
that the property or structure or portion of a structure used as temporary emergency shelter met the
definition of temporary emergency shelter during the time it was so used. For example, a recipient
could document that the property is typically a hotel and is only being used as an emergency shelter
for the period of time that public health officials determine special measures are needed to prevent
the spread of coronavirus;
(e) Whether or not services are provided as part of temporary emergency shelter, the recipient or
subrecipient must assure that for each program participant receiving shelter, the individual or
family’s service needs are evaluated as required by 24 CFR 576.401(a) and appropriate services are
made available as needed in accordance with 24 CFR 576.401(d)), and a program participant in
temporary emergency shelter shall be eligible to receive essential services from the recipient or
subrecipients other than the program participant’s shelter provider;
(f) A temporary emergency shelter may provide space for program participants to receive services
consistent with 24 CFR 576.401(d) even if the services are not ESG-funded or not funded as part of
the shelter project;
(g) Program participants cannot be required to sign leases or occupancy agreements, receive
treatment, or perform any other prerequisite activities as a condition for staying in any shelter or
receiving services; and
(h) In all other respects, the funding and operation of temporary emergency shelters must comply
with the ESG-CV requirements for emergency shelters under this Notice and 24 CFR part 57
6. Shelter and Housing Standards. The lead-based paint remediation requirements of 24 CFR
576.403(a) apply to all shelters for which ESG-CV funds are used and all housing occupied by
program participants. The habitability requirements at 24 CFR 576.403(b) do not apply to
temporary emergency shelters that have been determined by State or local health officials to be
necessary to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. However, recipients and subrecipients
must still comply with nondiscrimination and applicable accessibility requirements, including
requirements under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Americans with
Disabilities Act, and their implementing regulations. See also 24 CFR 576.407(a). All other shelters
and housing for which ESG-CV funds must meet the applicable standards in 24 CFR 576.403(b)
and 576.403(c).
7. Environmental Review Requirements. Except as otherwise provided in this notice for temporary
emergency shelters that have been determined by State or local health officials to be necessary to
prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, “responsible entities” (as defined in 24 CFR 58.2)
must assume all of the responsibilities with respect to environmental review, decision making, and
action required under 24 CFR Part 58. Also, as required by 24 CFR 58.4(a), when a State
distributes funds to a responsible entity, the State must provide for appropriate procedures by which
these responsible entities will evidence their assumption of environmental responsibilities. In
accordance with these requirements and section 100261(3) of the MAP-21 Act, 24 CFR 576.407(d)
does not apply.
Environmental regulations at 24 CFR 58.22 prohibit ESG recipients and any other participant in
the development process from committing HUD or non-HUD funds to a project until the
environmental compliance review process has been successfully completed or until receipt of the
Authority to Use Grant Funds, if applicable. In addition, until the environmental compliance
review process has been successfully completed or until receipt of the Authority to Use Grant
Funds, neither a recipient nor any participant in the development process may commit non-HUD
funds on or undertake an activity or project if the activity or project would have an adverse
environmental impact or limit the choice of reasonable alternatives.
Emergency Environmental Review Procedures: HUD’s environmental review regulations in 24
CFR Part 58 include two provisions that may be relevant to environmental review procedures for
activities to prevent, prepare for, or respond to coronavirus. The first is 24 CFR § 58.34(a)(10),
which provides an exemption for certain activities undertaken in response to a national or locally
declared public health emergency. The second is a streamlined public notice and comment period
in the regulation at 24 CFR 58.33, which may apply in some cases for emergency activities
undertaken to prevent, prepare for, or respond to coronavirus. The application of these two
provisions following a presidentially-declared or locally-declared public health emergency are
discussed in the Notice, Guidance on conducting environmental review pursuant to 24 Part 58 for
activities undertaken in response to the public health emergency as a result of COVID-19 (available
at: https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/OCHCO/documents/2020-07cpdn.pdf).
8. Procurement. As provided by the CARES Act, the recipient may deviate from the applicable
procurement standards (e.g., 24 CFR 576.407(c) and (f) and 2 CFR 200.317-200.326) when
procuring goods and services to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. If the recipient
deviates from its procurement standards then the recipient must establish alternative written
procurement standards, and maintain documentation on the alternative procurement standards used
to safeguard against fraud, waste, and abuse in the procurement of goods and services to prevent,
prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. This alternative requirement is necessary to ensure the
funds are used efficiently and effectively to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.
Notwithstanding this flexibility, the debarment and suspension regulations at 2 CFR part 180 and 2
CFR part 2424 apply as written.
2 CFR § 200.311 - Real property.
CFR § 200.311 Real property.
(a) Title. Subject to the obligations and conditions set forth in this section, title to real property acquired
or improved under a Federal award will vest upon acquisition in the non-Federal entity.
(b) Use. Except as otherwise provided by Federal statutes or by the Federal awarding agency, real
property will be used for the originally authorized purpose as long as needed for that purpose, during
which time the non-Federal entity must not dispose of or encumber its title or other interests.
(c) Disposition. When real property is no longer needed for the originally authorized purpose, the non-
Federal entity must obtain disposition instructions from the Federal awarding agency or pass-through
entity. The instructions must provide for one of the following alternatives:
(1) Retain title after compensating the Federal awarding agency. The amount paid to the Federal
awarding agency will be computed by applying the Federal awarding agency's percentage of
participation in the cost of the original purchase (and costs of any improvements) to the fair market
value of the property. However, in those situations where the non-Federal entity is disposing of real
property acquired or improved with a Federal award and acquiring replacement real property under the
same Federal award, the net proceeds from the disposition may be used as an offset to the cost of the
replacement property.
(2) Sell the property and compensate the Federal awarding agency. The amount due to the Federal
awarding agency will be calculated by applying the Federal awarding agency's percentage of
participation in the cost of the original purchase (and cost of any improvements) to the proceeds of the
sale after deduction of any actual and reasonable selling and fixing-up expenses. If the Federal award
has not been closed out, the net proceeds from sale may be offset against the original cost of the
property. When the non-Federal entity is directed to sell property, sales procedures must be followed
that provide for competition to the extent practicable and result in the highest possible return.
(3) Transfer title to the Federal awarding agency or to a third party designated/approved by the Federal
awarding agency. The non-Federal entity is entitled to be paid an amount calculated by applying the
non-Federal entity's percentage of participation in the purchase of the real property (and cost of any
improvements) to the current fair market value of the property.
************************************************************************************
Tricia Davis at the State’s HCD Office sent the following message re: temporary emergency shelter on
10/13/2020:
The answer from the AAQ... Not as encouraging as I had hoped.
"The SNAPS office is working on ways to give recipients other options, other than repayment, for
disposition of temporary emergency shelters acquired or renovated with ESG-CV funds. However,
recipients should know the current limitations when deciding to pursue this activity type."
~Tricia
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <aaq@hudexchange.info>
Date: Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 7:52 AM
Subject: Question Response for ESG Question ID 165827 - HUD Exchange Ask A Question
To: <smmoore@utah.gov>
Question Status: Answered
Thank you for submitting a question via the HUD Exchange. The response to your question is listed
below.
Requestor Name: Sarah Moore
Requestor Email: smmoore@utah.gov
Question Related To: Emergency Solutions Grants
Question ID: 165827
Question Subject:
CARES Act unique activities - Building Acquisition
Question Text:
We need better guidance around the CV funded unique activity of temporary shelter building
acquisition.
d. ESG-CV means the Emergency Solutions Grants Program as funded by the CARES Act and governed by
requirements HUD establishes in accordance with that Act. ESG-CV funds do not include annual ESG
funds (e.g., FY 2020 ESG grant funds), although annual ESG funds may be used in accordance with the
requirements established for purposes of ESG-CV funds as further described in Section IV of this Notice.
e. Temporary Emergency Shelter means any structure or portion of a structure, which is used for a
limited period of time because of a crisis, such as a natural disaster or public health emergency, to
provide shelter for individuals and families displaced from their normal place of residence or sheltered
or unsheltered locations.
Notice: CPD-20-08 - E. Program Components and Eligible Activities. - 3. Additional Eligible Activities. In
addition to the eligible activities listed in 24 CFR 576:
a. Temporary emergency shelters. As permitted by the CARES Act, ESG-CV funds may be used to pay for
temporary emergency shelters for individuals and families experiencing homelessness in order to
prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. (i) Eligible costs include: (a) Leasing existing real
property or temporary structures to be used as temporary emergency shelters; (b) Acquisition of real
property (e.g. hotels, ancillary structures, parking lots). The total amount of ESG-CV funds used for
acquisition must not exceed $2.5 million per real property; (c) Renovation (including major rehabilitation
and conversion) of real property (e.g., hotels) into temporary emergency shelters. Eligible costs include
labor, tools, and other costs for renovation;
What are the expectations of the temporary shelters that may be purchased with CV funding after the
"limited period of time because of a crisis" has expired?
Response:
The Real Property requirements at 2 CFR 200.311 still apply, even though minimum period of use
requirements are waived for temporary emergency shelter acquired or renovated with ESG-CV funding.
Part 200 requires that, when real property is no longer needed for the originally authorized purpose, the
non-Federal entity must obtain disposition instructions from the Federal awarding agency or pass-
through entity. Currently, there are two possible disposition options for recipients:
1. Retain title after compensating HUD. The amount paid to HUD will be computed by applying
HUD's percentage of participation in the cost of the original purchase (and costs of any improvements)
to the fair market value of the property. However, in those situations where the non-Federal entity is
disposing of real property acquired or improved with a Federal award and acquiring replacement real
property under the same Federal award, the net proceeds from the disposition may be used as an offset
to the cost of the replacement property.
2. Sell the property and compensate HUD. The amount due to HUD will be calculated by applying
HUD's percentage of participation in the cost of the original purchase (and cost of any improvements) to
the proceeds of the sale after deduction of any actual and reasonable selling and fixing-up expenses. If
the Federal award has not been closed out, the net proceeds from sale may be offset against the original
cost of the property. When the non-Federal entity is directed to sell property, sales procedures must be
followed that provide for competition to the extent practicable and result in the highest possible return.
In either case, HUD will provide recipients with disposition instructions to further explain the process.
The SNAPS office is working on ways to give recipients other options, other than repayment, for
disposition of temporary emergency shelters acquired or renovated with ESG-CV funds. However,
recipients should know the current limitations when deciding to pursue this activity type.
Please note: the response provided in this email is specific to the question you submitted and may not
apply to similar questions. Therefore, please use discretion in providing the response to others as the
answer may not apply to their particular situation.
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
BLAKE THOMAS
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145460, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5460 TEL 801.535.6230
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Received: _________________
Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 9/17/2020
Chris Wharton, Chair UPDATED DATE: 12/28/2020
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: UPDATED_DECEMBER_2020 Substantial Amendments to the Salt Lake City
2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan, and 2020-2021 Annual
Action Plan for utilization of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Securities Act (CARES Act) funds for coronavirus
response and recovery.
STAFF CONTACT: Lani Eggertsen-Goff, Director,
Housing and Neighborhood Development
801-535-6240, lani.eggertsen-goff@slcgov.com
Tony Milner, Policy and Program Manager,
Housing and Neighborhood Development
801-535-6168, tony.milner@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Substantial Amendments and appropriate the associated
funding. Per the statutory requirements outlined in the CARES Act to utilize $7,138,203 of HUD
funding Salt Lake City must request Substantial Amendments to:
•The 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan
•The 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan
•The 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan
These amendments are required for utilization of CARES HUD-CV funds for coronavirus
response and recovery.
12/29/2020
12/29/2020
BUDGET IMPACT: CARES HUD-CV funding and programmatic expenses will not impact
the City’s General Fund or future annual HUD allocations.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The requested amendments will allow the award from HUD
for CARES Act funding to Salt Lake City, a total of $7,138,203 for coronavirus response and
recovery. These funds will be used in Salt Lake City for eligible activities and services in
accordance with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG-CV), Emergency Solutions
Grant (ESG-CV) and Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS/HIV (HOPWA-CV) HUD
regulations and CARES Act waivers.
CARES HUD-CV1 funds were allocated to Salt Lake City on April 2, 2020 via notification from
HUD Acting Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development. On June 9, 2020,
Salt Lake City was notified of an additional allocation of ESG-CV2 funds. On September 11,
2020, Salt Lake City was notified of an additional allocation of CDBG-CV3 funds.
• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG-CV), first round $2,064,298, third
round $999,551
• Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG-CV), first round $1,040,462 and second round
$2,946,449
• Housing Opportunities for People With HIV/AIDS (HOPWA-CV), first round
$87,443
Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) staff will administer the CARES HUD-CV
funds. HAND staff will continue to communicate with the Administration and City Council
about the CARES HUD-CV allocation process. The process is anticipated to mirror the regular,
annual HUD allocation process. This includes a competitive application process, review and
recommendation by the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CD-CIP)
and Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board (HTFAB) that serve as resident advisory boards, the
Mayor’s recommendations, and the Council’s recommendations.
The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the attached resolution (Exhibit 11) and approves it as
to form. These Substantial Amendments are in-compliance with HUD Requirements, Substantial
Amendment Section HUD 24 CFR 91.505 (b).
~~~~~UPDATED/NEW INFORMATION (December 2020)~~~~~
A public comment period for the Substantial Amendments to 2020-24 Consolidated Plan and
2020-21 Annual Action Plan regarding the associated HUD-CV funding from the CARES Act
began September 11, 2020 and ended September 24, 2020. No comments from the public were
received by city staff.
Council adopted the Substantial Amendments to the 2020-24 Consolidated Plan and the 2020-21
Annual Action Plan on October 20, 2020.
The City notified the public and opened a competitive process to accept requests for CARES Act
HUD-CV funding from November 2, 2020 to November 22, 2020 in ZoomGrants. An
application training session was held November 6, 2020 for interested applicants and HAND
staff made themselves available to answer specific questions.
The CD-CIP and HTFA boards reviewed applications in November and December 2020 and
provided funding recommendations to the Mayor.
Typically for the City’s annual action plan for federal funding HUD requires a public hearing,
however the CARES Act provided a waiver of this requirement to expedite disbursal of funds as
outlined on page 6 of the HUD guidance, dated June 22, 2020, Flexibilities/Waivers Granted by
the CARES Act + Mega Waiver and Guidance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve the Funding Recommendations provided by the CD-CIP and HTFA boards, and the
Mayor. These recommendations are outlined in Exhibit 12. CARES Act HUD-CV Funding
Recommendations Log.
During the competitive application process, the requests received were lower than the total
funding made available from HUD. For CDBG-CV the requests left a remaining balance of
$468,900 and for ESG-CV a remaining balance of $460,828. Many of the community partners
were contacted by HAND staff after the application window closed to determine if they have
capacity to utilize more funding; the amounts in Exhibit 12 reflect several adjustments from the
initial application requests.
Council now has the option to disburse the remaining amounts of CDBG-CV and ESG-CV to
eligible activities that prepare, prevent, and respond to COVID-19. The Council may consider
the following disbursement options:
•The CD-CIP board adopted a motion to recommend the remaining ESG-CV and CDBG-
CV funding go to homeless service agencies that could help with COVID-19 vaccination,
such as agencies that can help identify low-income, homeless, marginalized populations,
and communities of color, to obtain and receive COVID-19 vaccines.
•Increase any line item in the CARES Act HUD-CV Funding Recommendation Log.
•Provide funding to past federal funding applicants for FY 2020-2021 who did not receive
HUD funding. However, these applications were submitted in the fall of 2019, and no
specific COVID-19 activities were addressed in those funding requests.
•Reopen the CDBG-CV and ESG-CV funding for another competitive application process
immediately.
•Council may choose to reserve funds in a holding account to be disbursed later. If this
option is selected, there are very time sensitive parameters:
o HUD 24 CFR 576.203 states that a 180-day time period to obligate funds starts
after HUD signs the grant agreement. HUD signed Salt Lake City’s grant
agreements for ESG-CV and HOPWA-CV on November 19, 2020, and CDBG-
CV on December 3, 2020. This would require that all funding be under contract
with community partners by May 17, 2021 and by June 1, 2021, respectively.
UPDATED EXHIBITS:
Exhibit 12. CARES HUD-CV Funding Recommendations Log 2020-2021
~~~~~ORIGINAL TRANSMITTAL~~~~~
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND
CARES HUD-CV FUNDING: On March 27, 2020, the United States Congress passed The
Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) (H.R. 748, Public Law 116-
136), which makes available $5 billion in supplemental Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG-CV) funding, $1 billion for Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG-CV) and $53.7 million
for Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA-CV) grants to prevent, prepare for,
and respond to coronavirus (CV).
The CARES Act stipulated that HUD-CV funding must not fund duplicative activities and
requires tracking to ensure no other funding source could be utilized for the expense. Salt Lake
City is an entitlement city and serves as the Grantee receiving the funding. Use of HUD-CV
funds may address activities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. Funds must
serve low- to moderate-income individuals or households, underserved communities or
populations, and align with HUD National Objectives.
PROPOSED SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS:
Due to the City’s allocated CARES HUD-CV funding Substantial Amendments are required for
the recently adopted 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan, and
the 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan.
These Substantial Amendments were prepared following the guidance from HUD, as issued to
date.
HUD REQUIREMENTS
HUD’s Substantial Amendment Section 24 CFR 91.505 (b), outlines the criteria for
Substantial Amendment and states “the jurisdiction shall identify in its Citizen
Participation Plan the criteria it will use for determining what constitutes a Substantial
Amendment. It is these Substantial Amendments that are subject to a citizen participation
process, in accordance with the jurisdiction's citizen participation plan.”
SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Salt Lake City’s Consolidated Plan for 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan defines a
Substantial Amendment as:
1. A proposed use of funds that does not address a goal or underlying strategy
identified in the governing Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan; or
2. Increasing funding levels for a given project by 100% or more of the previously
adopted amount; or
3. Decreasing funding levels for a given project by 100% AND pivoting impacted
funds to another approved use during an action plan period; or
4. A change to a regulatory requirement or additional allocated funding from the US
Department of Housing & Urban Development that defines that a Substantial
Amendment must be completed.
Substantial Amendment to 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan:
#1 Accept Additional Allocations of Funding
Section SP-35, The Strategic Plan, Anticipated Resources. HUD 24 CFR 91.215
(a)(4), 91.220 (c)(1,2). Located on page 146 of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan.
The CARES HUD-CV allocations represent an additional allocation of funding
from HUD to Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, thus requiring a
Substantial Amendment.
With Council’s adoption of the resolution the City’s current 2020-2024
Consolidated Plan will be amended to reflect the additional funding and eligible
uses of the grant funds.
(See Exhibit 4, Substantial Amendment to SP-35 Anticipated Resources and AP-
15 Expected Resources)
Substantial Amendments to 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan (Appendix C of the 2020-
2024 Consolidated Plan):
#1 Shortened Public Comment Period
Citizen Participation, HUD 24 CFR 91.105. Located on page 281 of the 2020-
2024 Citizen Participation Plan (Appendix C of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan)
Substantial Amendments are required to follow the City’s Citizen Participation
Plan, as outlined in the Consolidated Plan for 2020-2024, which under normal
circumstances, requires a public comment period for the Substantial Amendment
of thirty (30) days. However, to quickly implement the funds and activities of the
CARES HUD-CV, HUD has waived that requirement with amendment to the
City’s Citizen Participation Plan, reducing the public comment period to five (5)
days. Further, HUD is allowing the Citizen Participation Plan and the Substantial
Amendment to the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2020 Annual Action Plan to
run concurrently.
Although the CARES Act has shortened the potential public comment period to
five (5) days, Salt Lake City Ordinance requires a fourteen (14) day public
comment period. Thus, HAND staff will implement a fourteen (14) day public
comment period for this Substantial Amendment.
The City’s current 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan will be amended to
reflect this change and accept a fourteen-day public comment period.
This Shortened Public Comment Period amendment only applies to the CARES-
HUD-CV allocation, and not to any other funding allocated by HUD.
Substantial Amendment to 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan:
#1 Accept Additional Allocations of Funding
Section AP-15, Expected Resources. HUD 24 CFR 91.215 (a)(4), 91.220 (c)(1,2).
Located on page 33 of the 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan.
A Substantial Amendment is required to accept the CARES HUD-CV. These
funds represent an additional allocation of funding from HUD to Salt Lake City’s
2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan.
The City’s current 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan will be amended to reflect the
additional funding and eligible uses of grant funds.
(See Exhibit 4, Substantial Amendment to SP-35 Anticipated Resources and AP-
15 Expected Resources)
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: A public comment period began September 11, 2020 and is
set to end September 24, 2020 specifically for the above-mentioned Substantial Amendment
components. The public comment period was posted in English and Spanish through the State’s
Public Notice website, sent to community partners to post, and provided to the Mayor’s Office
and the Council Office for dissemination on social media platforms and other applicable forms of
electronic communication and noticing.
COORDINATION WITH COMMUNITY PARTNERS: Salt Lake City has worked closely
with Salt Lake County, the State of Utah and other community partners to ensure funds will be
strategically targeted to reach our most vulnerable residents who are impacted by coronavirus
and that programs will not be duplicative.
Community Partners include:
• Other regional CARES HUD-CV grantees
• Salt Lake City CARES HUD-CV Internal Working Group
• Salt Lake City’s Resident Advisory Group: the Community Development and Capital
Improvement Program Board
• HUD Regional Office
• HUD Technical Assistance Representatives
• National homeless and affordable housing consultants and advocacy groups
HUD requires HUD-CV grantees to prevent the duplication of services. This translates to grant
funds may not be used to pay costs if another source of financial assistance is available to pay
that cost. HAND staff will work with community partners and track other funding and
community benefits in order to prevent duplication of services.
EXPECTED RESOURCES:
See Exhibit 5. SLC CARES HUD-CV Funding Recommendations
See Exhibit 10. HAND Grant Management
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit 1. 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2020-2024 Citizens Participation Plan (Appendix C
of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan)
Exhibit 2. 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan
Exhibit 3. Substantial Amendments Regarding SLC CARES HUD-CV Allocation
Exhibit 4. Substantial Amendments to SP-35 Anticipated Resources and AP-15 Expected
Resources
Exhibit 5. SLC CARES HUD-CV Funding Recommendations
Exhibit 6. HUD Memo, March 31, 2020, Availability of Community Planning and Development
(CPD) Grant Program and Consolidated Plan Requirements to Prevent the Spread of COVID-19
and Mitigate Economic Impacts Caused by COVID-19
Exhibit 7. Substantial Amendments, Public Notice fliers, English and Spanish
Exhibit 8. Summary of Public Comments
Exhibit 9. HAND HUD Public Process
Exhibit 10. HAND Grant Management
Exhibit 11. Resolution
Exhibit 12. CARES HUD-CV Funding Recommendations Log 2020-2021
Exhibit 1
Consolidated Plan with Appendices 2020-2024
2020 - 2024
Salt Lake City
Consolidated Plan
HUD PROGRAM YEARS 2020 - 2024
FISCAL YEARS 2021 - 2025
SALT LAKE CITY
2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
MAYOR
ERIN MENDENHALL
CITY COUNCIL
JAMES ROGERS
ANDREW JOHNSTON
CHRIS WHARTON
ANA VALDEMOROS
DARIN MANO
DAN DUGAN
AMY FOWLER
Prepared by
S A L T L A K E C I T Y
HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBHORHOODS
2
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Executive Summary (ES) ...................................................................................................................................... 4
a. ES-05 Executive Summary – 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b) ................................................................... 5
II. The Process (PR) .................................................................................................................................................. 10
a. PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies – 24 CFR 91.200(b) ............................................................ 11
b. PR-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.200(b ), 91.215(l) ............................................................................. 11
c. PR-15 Citizen Participation ................................................................................................................ 26
III. Needs Assessment (NA) ................................................................................................................................ 48
a. NA-05 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 49
b. NA-10 Needs Assessment – Housing Needs Assessment – 91.205 (a,b,c) ..................................... 54
c. NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) ..................... 69
d. NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2)....... 72
e. NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.205 (b)(2) ............. 74
f. NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205 (b)(2) .................................... 75
g. NA-35 Public Housing – 91.205 (b) .................................................................................................... 78
h. NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.205 (c) ........................................................................ 81
i. NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment – 91.205 (b,d) .......................................... 85
j. NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs – 91.215 (f) .................................... 93
IV. Housing Market Analysis (MA) .................................................................................................................. 96
a. MA-Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 97
b. MA-10 Number of Housing Units 91.120(a) & (b)(2) ..................................................................... 99
c. MA-15 Housing Market Analysis: Cost of Housing – 91.210 (a) ...........................................103
d. MA-20 Housing Market Analysis: Condition of Housing – 91.210 (a ) ................................106
e. MA-25 Public and Assisted Housing – 91.210 (b) ......................................................................110
f. MA-30 Homeless Facilities and Services – 91.210 (c) ...............................................................112
g. MA-35 Special Needs Facilities and Services – 91.210 (d) ......................................................115
h. MA-40 Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.210 (e) ..................................................................117
i. MA-45 Non-Housing Community Development Assets – 91.210 (f) ..................................118
j. MA-50 Needs and Market Analysis: Discussion .....................................................................126
k. MA-60 Broadband Needs of Housing Occupied by Low - and Moderate-Income
Households – 91.210(a)(4), 91.310(a)(2 ) ..............................................................................................130
l. MA-65 Hazard Mitigation – 91.210(a)(5), 91.310(a)(2) ...................................................................131
V. Strategic Plan (SP) ............................................................................................................................................132
a. SP -05 Overview ...................................................................................................................................133
b. SP -10 Geographic Priorities – 91.215 (a)(1) ...................................................................................134
c. SP -25 Priority Needs – 91.215 (a)(2) .................................................................................................139
d. SP -30 Influence of Market Conditions – 91.215 (a)(2) ...............................................................144
e. SP -35 Anticipated Resources – 91.215 (a)(4), 91.220 (c)(1,2) ........................................................145
3
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
f. SP -40 Institutional Delivery Structure – 91.215 (k) .....................................................................150
g. SP -45 Goals ..........................................................................................................................................156
h. SP -50 Public Housing Accessibility and Involvement – 91.215 (c) .......................................158
i. SP-55 Strategic Plan Barriers to Affordable Housing – 91.215 (h) ......................................158
j. SP -60 Homelessness Strategy – 91.215 (h) ...................................................................................162
k. SP -65 Lead-based Paint Hazards – 91.215 (i) ..............................................................................165
l. SP -70 Anti-Poverty Strategy – 91.215 (j) .......................................................................................166
m. SP -80 Monitoring – 91.230 ................................................................................................................167
VI. Appendix A: 2020-2024 Fair Housing Action Plan .........................................................................169
VII. Appendix B: Summary of Publ ic Comment and Citizen Participation ...............................181
VIII. Appendix C: 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan......................................................................281
IX. Appendix D: 2020-2021 Action Plan......................................................................................................291
4
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Executive Summary serves as an introduction and summar izes the process of developing the plan, the key
findings utilized to develop priorities, and how the proposed goals and objectives will address those priorities.
5
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
ES-05 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b)
1. INTRODUCTION
Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan is the product of a collaborative process to identify housing and
community development needs and to establish goals, priorities, and strategies to address those needs. This
five-year plan provides a framework for maximizing and leve raging the city’s block grant allocations to build
healthy and sustainable communities that better focus funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) formula block grant programs. The entitlement grant programs guided by the
Consolidated Plan are as follows:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
The CDBG program’s primary objective is to promote the development of viable urban communities by
providing decent housing, suitable living environments, and expanded economic activiti es to persons
of low- and moderate-income.
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
The ESG program’s primary objective is to assist individuals and families regain housing stability after
experiencing a housing or homelessness crisis.
HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
The HOME program’s primary objective is to create affordable housing opportunities for low -income
households.
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
The HOPWA program’s primary objective is to provide housing assistance and re lated supportive
services to persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families.
Similar to cities across the country, Salt Lake City is faced with housing prices that are rising more rapidly than
wages, resulting in a lack of affordable housing. This Consol idated Plan outlines a comprehensive set of policies
that respond to the City’s current challenges by utilizing new and collaborative strategies.
Affordable and safe housing serves as the foundation for individuals to move out of poverty and to avoid
hom elessness. However, it is increasingly recognized that housing must be connected to opportunities for
education, transit, recreation, economic development, healthcare, and services. Instead of addressing these
needs separately, Salt Lake City takes a comprehensive and geographic approach to community development
by integrating these various aspects into its Consolidated Plan.
The 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan encourages investment in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and
supports at-risk populations by promoting goals that increase access to housing, transportation, economic
development, and critical services. By building upon the growth and successes realized in the previous
Consolidated Plan, Salt Lake City is continuing to work toward closing the gap in a number of socioeconomic
indicators, such as improving housing affordability, job training, access to transportation for low -income
households, homeless prevention services, and medical/dental/behavioral health services for at -risk
populations.
In addition to expanding opportunity for low -income households living in concentrated areas of poverty, Salt
Lake City will continue to support essential housing and supportive services for the City’s most vulnerable
populations, with focus on the chronically h omeless, homeless families, disabled persons, victims of domestic
violence, persons living with HIV/AIDS, and low -income elderly persons.
Process & Overview
6
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
The 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan is organized into four primary sections, as follows:
I. The Proce ss
The Process section of the Plan outlines the development of the Plan, including citizen participation
efforts and stakeholder involvement.
II. Needs Assessment (NA)
The Needs Assessment section provides an analysis of housing, homeless and community
development needs, with focus on the needs of low -income households, racial and ethnic minorities,
homeless persons, and non-homeless special needs populations.
III. Housing Market Analysis (MA)
The Housing Market Analysis section provides information and data on Salt Lake City’s housing market,
including an evaluation of local resources. The housing market analysis supplements information
supplied by the needs assessment and establishes a framework for five -year goals and priorities to be
developed.
IV. Five -Year Strategic Plan (SP)
Once community needs, market conditions, and resources are identified, program goals, specific
strategies, and benchmarks for measuring progress are set forth in the Strategic Plan section of the
Consolidated Plan. Efforts are prioritized to direct the allocation of federal funding to maximize impact
within the community.
Throughout this Plan period, Salt Lake City will look to address strategies and funding resources that help
address community responses to emergency need. This may include preparing for, responding to, and recovery
from community wide emergencies. These emergencies would likely be identified through a national, state or
local declaration of a state of emergency. Where appropriate, Salt Lake City will maximize all resources to
address such instances.
The 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan planning process will conclude with the development of the City’s First -Year
Action Plan. The First-Year Action Plan will outline the activities and funding prio rities for the first year of the
Consolidated Plan, covering July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021.
THE PROCESS
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS
5-YEAR
STRATEGIC
PLAN
7
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
2. OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOMES IDENTIFIED IN THE PLAN
Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan is a strategic plan focused on building Neighborhoods of
Opportunity to promote capacity in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and to support the City’s most
vulnerable populations. Identified below are 5 goals with associated strategies to achieve the goals.
Housing
To provide expanded housing options for all ec onomic and demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s
population while diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods.
Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing stock through targeting
rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods
Support affordable housing development that increases the number and types of units available for
income eligible residents
Support programs that provide access to home ownership via down payment assistance, and/or
housing subsidy, and/or financing
Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to prevent and
end homelessness
Expand housing support for aging resident that ensure access to continued stable housing
Transportation
To prom ote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation options.
Improve bus stop amenities as a way to encourage the accessibility of public transit and enhance the
experience of public transit in target areas
Support access to transportation prioritizing very low -income and vulnerable populations
Expand and support the installation of bike racks, stations, and amenities as a way to encourage use of
alternative modes of transportation in target areas
Build Community Resiliency
Build resiliency by providing tools to increase economic and/or housing stability.
Provide job training/vocational training programs targeting low -income and vulnerable populations
including, but not limited to; chronically homeless; those exiting treatment centers/program s and/or
institutions; and persons with disabilities
Economic Development efforts via supporting the improvement and visibility of small businesses
through façade improvement programs
Provide economic development support for microenterprise businesses
Direct financial assistance to for-profit businesses
Expand access to early childhood education to set the stage for academic achievement, social
development, and change the cycle of poverty
Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication te chnologies and the internet
Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population
Homeless Services
To expand access supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and non -recurring.
Expand support for medical and dental care options for those experiencing homelessness
Provide support for homeless services including Homeless Resource Center Operations and Emergency
overflow operations
Provide support for programs providing outreach services to address t he needs of those living an
unsheltered life
8
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Expand case management support as a way to connect those experiencing homelessness with
permanent housing and supportive services
Behavioral Health
To provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing behavioral health concerns such as
substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges.
Expand treatment options, counseling support, and case management for those experiencing
behavioral health crisis
Support programs that provide connecti on to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health
programs. Support may include, but is not limited to supporting obtaining housing via deposit and
rent assistance and barrier elimination to the extent allowable to regulation
3. EVALUATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE
In preparation for development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, Salt Lake City’s Housing and
Neighborhood Development Division reviewed Consolidated Annual Performance Reports (CAPERs) submitted
to HUD under the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. Th e CAPERs provide an evaluation of past performance and
accomplishments in relation to established goals and priorities. The City’s program year 2016 -2017 & 2017-
2018 CAPER can be viewed at https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/consolidated -plan/con-plans-aaps-
capers/.
During the course of the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan, the City has been able to meet the vast majority of
established goals and priorities. In addition, the City was able to comply with statutes and regulations set by
HUD.
TABLE ES -05.1
SALT LAKE CITY 2015-2019 CONSOLIDATED PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Goal Description Estimated Projected
1 Improve and Expand the Affordable Housing Stock 1,325 1,430
2 Expand Homeownership Opportunities 110 70
3 Provide Housing & Related Services to Persons with HIV/AIDS 725 925
4 Provide Housing for Homeless & At -Risk of Homeless Individuals and
Families
965 3,217
5 Provide Day-to-Day Services for Homeless Individu als & Families 15,000 7,380
6 Provide Public Services to Expand Opportunity & Self -Sufficiency for At-Risk
Populations
35,000 24,385
7 Revitalize Business Nodes in Target Areas 75 50
8 Improve the Quality of Public Facilities 1,093 1,344
9 Improve Infrastructure in Distressed Neighborhoods & Target Areas 100,000 139,112
4. SUMMARY OF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROCESS AND CONSULTATION PROCESS:
Citizen participation is an integral part of the Consolidated Plan planning process, as it ensures goals and
priorities are defined in the context of community needs and preferences. In addition, the citizen participation
process provides a format to educate the community about the City’s federal grant programs. To this end, Salt
Lake City solicited involvement from a diverse group of stakeholders and community members during the
development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. A comprehensive public engagement process included a
citywide survey (2,000+ respondents), public hearings, public meetings, one -on-one meetings, stakeholder
9
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
committee meetings, task force meetings, internal technical committee meetings, and a public comment
period. In total, over 4,000 residents participated in providing input into this plan.
The City received input and buy -in from residents, homeless service providers. Low -income service providers,
anti-poverty advocates, healthcare providers, housing advocates, housing developers, housing authorities,
community development organizations, educational institutions, transit authority planners, Cit y divisions and
departments, among others. For more information on citizen participation efforts, refer to the PR-15 Citizen
Participation section of this Plan.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
A summary of public comments will be available in the appendix of the fina lized Consolidated Plan.
6. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS OR VIEWS NOT ACCE PTED AND THE REASONS FOR NOT
ACCEPTING THEM:
Comments received to date have been considered and utilized to inform the needs assessment, goal setting,
and prioritization of funding.
7. SUMMARY:
The Salt Lake City Council is scheduled to adopt the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan on April 21, 2020.
10
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
THE PROCESS
The Process section of the Consolidated Plan identifies the lead agencies responsible for the development of
the plan and the administration of the grants. In addition, this section outlines the process of consulting with
service providers and other stakeholders, as well as citizens participation efforts.
11
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
PR-05 LEAD & RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES - 24 CFR 91.200(b)
DESCRIBE AGENCY/ENTITY RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARING THE CONSOLIDATE D PLAN AND
THOSE RESPONSIBLE FO R ADMINISTRATION OF EACH GRANT PROGRAM AND FUNDING
SOURCE.
The following agencies/entities are responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and administrating gr ant
programs:
TABLE PR -05.1
LEAD AND RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES
Agency Role Name Department/Agency
CDBG Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Housing and Neighborhood Development Division
HOPWA Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Housing and Neighborhood Development Divisio n
HOME Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Housing and Neighborhood Development Division
ESG Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Housing and Neighborhood Development Division
Salt Lake City is the Lead Agency for grant funds received from the United States Departmen t of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) entitlement programs as listed above. The City’s Housing and Neighborhood
Development (HAND) Division in the Department of Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) is responsible for
the administration of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement grants which includes the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), the
Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), and the Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) program.
H AND is also responsible for the preparation of the Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plans, and Consolidated
Annual Performance Evaluation Reports (CAPER).
Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information:
Salt Lake City welcomes questions or comments regarding the Consolidated Plan. Please contact the following:
Deputy Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, Jennifer Schumann at
Jennifer.Schumann@slcgov.com or (801) 535-7276.
PR- 10 CONSULTATION- 91.100, 91.200(B), 91.215(I)
INTRODUCTION:
The City conducted robust outreach with representatives of low -income neighborhoods, housing and social
services providers, homeless shelter and homeless services providers, faith -based organizations, community
stakeholders, City departments, and many others. In total, these comprehensive outreach efforts engaged over
4,000 stakeholders during a one-year period. The citizen participation process is described in greater detail in
‘PR-15 Citizen Participation.’
Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public
and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service
agencies. (91.215(I)).
12
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
The City led a proactive, community-based process to solicit public and stakeholder input for the development
of the Consolidated Plan goals, strategies, and priorities. The City created a Stakeholder Advisory Committee
that met three times during the planning process. In addition, the City wor ked directly with service providers
and other government agencies to gather data used in the technical analysis for the Consolidated Plan.
Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless
persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans,
and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness:
Salt Lake City representatives actively participated in the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness
(SLVC EH), the entity responsible for oversight of the Continuum of Care (CoC). SLVCEH’s primary goal is to end
homelessness in Salt Lake Valley through a system -wide commitment of resources, services, data collection,
analysis and coordination among all stakeho lders. The Coalition gathers community consensus to create and
fulfill established outcomes. Using these goals, the Coalition partners with key stakeholders to fill the needs of
the Salt Lake County Valley community. City representatives served on the SLVC EH Steering Committee and
actively participated in meetings and efforts.
Describe consultation with the Continuum of Care that serves the jurisdiction’s area in determining
how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes, a nd develop
funding, policies and procedures for the administration of HMIS:
Working closely with the other two CoCs in the state- Mountainlands and Balance of State, as well as other city,
state, and county representatives, City representatives provided di rection and support for how funding
SLVCEH’s priorities are considered in Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) allocations. Utilizing data sources like
the annual ‘Point-in-Time Count’ and Utah Homeless Management Information System (UHMIS) outputs, City
representatives worked with other SLVCEH members to assess progress on shared metrics such as an
individual’s average length of homelessness, likelihood to return to homelessness, and the percentage of exits
from emergency shelter, transitional housing, and rapi d rehousing projects to permanent housing. The City has
agreed to use common measures with other SLVCEH members to grade service providers.
City representatives also actively participated in meetings regarding the funding, policies and procedures for
the administration of the UHMIS. UHMIS helps homeless providers coordinate care, manage operations, and
better serve clients by tracking client service needs over time. All ESG-funded entities participate in UHMIS.
City representatives helped to develop con sistent data standards and create a HMIS training manual. The
manual provides guidance on HMIS data elements for CoCs, HMIS Lead Agencies, HMIS System Administrators,
and users. City representatives helped to disseminate information regarding the accompany ing HMIS Data
Dictionary to define data elements and requirements for HMIS compliance for HMIS Vendors and System
Administrators.
13
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
DESCRIBE AGENCIES, GROUPS, ORGANIZATIONS AND OTHERS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE
PROCESS AND DESCRIBE THE JURISDICTION’S CONSULTATIONS WITH HOUSING, SOCIAL
SERVICE AGENCIES AND OTHER ENTITIES:
TABLE PR -10.1
CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PARTICIPANTS
STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE
1 Agency/Group/Organization Refugee and Immigration Center - Asian Association of
Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Refugees What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying
service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that
are the closest to those we are assisting. From th ese efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus
areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged
community wide.
2 Agency/Group/Organization ASSIST Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Persons with Disabilities, Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Housing Needs Assessment, Non-Homeless Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying
service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that
are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus
areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged
community wide.
3 Agency/Group/Organization Columbus Community Center Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Employment, Persons with Disabilities What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying
service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that
are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus
areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged
community wide.
4 Agency/Group/Organization Community Development Corporation, Utah
14
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Housing Needs Assessment
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying
service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that
are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus
areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged
community wide.
5 Agency/Group/Organization Community Health Center of Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying
service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that
are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus
areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged
community wide.
6 Agency/Group/Organization Disability Law Center Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Law, Persons with Disabilities What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying
service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback f rom the agencies that
are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus
areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged
community wide.
7 Agency/Group/Organization Donated Dental Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Homeless Needs - Families with Children, Non-Homeless
Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying
service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that
are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
15
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus
areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged
community wide.
8 Agency/Group/Organization First Step House Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Persons with Disabilities, Homeless,
Health What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Housing Need Assessment, Homeless Needs - Chronically
Homeless, Homeless Needs - Veterans, Homeless Strategy,
Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved c oordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying
service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that
are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus
areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged
community wide.
9 Agency/Group/Organization Habitat for Humanity Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying
service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that
are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus
areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged
community wide.
10 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake County Housing Authority DBA Housing Connect Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Housing Need Assessment, Homeless Strategy
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying
service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that
are the closest to those w e are assisting. From these efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus
areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged
community wide.
11 Agency/Group/Organization Intermountain Healthcare Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health, Impact Investment
16
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipat ed
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying
service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that
are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus
areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged
community wide.
12 Agency/Group/Organization Maliheh Free Clinic Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health, Refugess What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipat ed
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying
service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that
are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus
areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged
community wide.
13 Agency/Group/Organization NeighborWorks Salt Lake Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Housing Needs Assessment
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outc omes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying
service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that
are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus
areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged
community wide.
14 Agency/Group/Organization Optum Health Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consu ltation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying
service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that
are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus
17
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged
community wide.
15 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Housing Authority Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Strategy
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying
service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that
are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus
areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged
community wide.
16 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake County Aging and Adult Services Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Seniors, Aging Services What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying
service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that
are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus
areas where funding will be targeted and leverag ed
community wide.
17 Agency/Group/Organization Shelter the Homeless Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Strategy, Homeless
Needs - Chronically Homeless How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying
service gaps within the community. The collabo rative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that
are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus
areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged
community wide.
18 Agency/Group/Organization South Valley Services Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Domestic Violence What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
18
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying
service gaps within the community. The coll aborative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that
are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
and goals of the Plan, including specific public service fo cus
areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged
community wide.
19 Agency/Group/Organization Utah Community Action Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Food Bank, Early Education What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Strategy, Anti -
Poverty Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assist ed in identifying
service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that
are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus
areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged
community wide.
20 Agency/Group/Organization Utah Department of Workforce Services Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Medicaid, Food, Employment What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Homeless Strategy, Economic Development, Anti -Poverty
Strategy, Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying
service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that
are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus
areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged
community wide.
21 Agency/Group/Organization Utah Health and Human Rights Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Mental Health What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcom es of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying
service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that
are the closest to th ose we are assisting. From these efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus
areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged
community wide.
22 Agency/Group/Organization Utah Transit Authority
19
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Transit, Transportation What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying
service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that
are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus
areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged
community wide.
23 Agency/Group/Organization Volunteers of America - Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Persons with Disabilities, Homeless,
Health What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Needs - Chronically
Homeless, Homeless Needs - Families with Children,
Homeless Needs - Veterans, Homeless Needs -
Unaccompanied Youth, Homeless Strategy, Anti -Poverty
Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consul tation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying
service gaps within the community. The collaborative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that
are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
and goals of the Plan, including specific public service focus
areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged
community wide.
24 Agency/Group/Organization Young Women's Christian Association Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Children, Victims of Domestic Violence,
Homeless, Victims What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Homeless Needs - Families with Children, Homeless
Strategy, Non-Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying
service gaps within the commun ity. The collaborative effort
allowed for discussion and feedback from the agencies that
are the closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts,
the City was able to determine the overarching priorities
and goals of the Plan, including specific publ ic service focus
areas where funding will be targeted and leveraged
community wide.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
25 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Department Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization
20
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety,
Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs
Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs,
Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical
Comm ittee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal
and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee
assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus
city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may
be available. The group committed to working
collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will
continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic
development, and transportation efforts that are in a
geographically focused area.
26 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Counc il Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
City Infrastructure, City Policy, Community Needs,
Community Safety, Economic Development, Homeless
Services, Housing Needs Assessment, Market Analysis,
Non-Homeless Special Needs, Planning/Zoning/Land Use,
Public Services
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical
Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal
and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee
assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus
city-wide efforts and discuss other fu nding tools that may
be available. The group committed to working
collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will
continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic
development, and transportation efforts that are in a
geographically focused area.
27 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Division of Economic Development Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety,
Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs
Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs,
Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical
Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal
and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee
assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus
city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may
be available. The group committed to working
21
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will
continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic
development, and transportation efforts that are in a
geographically focused area.
28 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Engineering Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety,
Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs
Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs,
Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical
Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal
and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee
assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus
city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may
be available. The group committed to working
collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will
continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic
development, and transportation efforts that are in a
geographically focused area.
29 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Parks & Public Lands Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - L ocal, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety,
Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs
Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs,
Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical
Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal
and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee
assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus
city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may
be available. The group committed to working
collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will
continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic
development, and transportation efforts that are in a
geographically focused area.
30 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety,
Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs
Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs,
Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services
22
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical
Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal
and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee
assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus
city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may
be available. The group committed to working
collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will
continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic
development, and transportation efforts that are in a
geographically focused area.
31 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Transportation Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety,
Ec onomic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs
Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs,
Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical
Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal
and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee
assisted in creating target areas to geographically foc us
city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may
be available. The group committed to working
collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will
continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic
development, and transportation efforts that are in a
geographically focused area.
32 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Civic Engagement Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental – Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety,
Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs
Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs,
Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical
Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal
and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee
assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus
city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may
be available. The group committed to working
collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will
continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic
development, and transportation efforts that are in a
geographically focused area.
23
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
33 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Police Department Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Community Safety, Homeless Services, Non -Homeless
Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical
Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal
and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee
assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus
city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may
be available. The group committed to working
collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will
continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic
development, and transportation efforts that are in a
geographically focused area.
34 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Sustainability Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety,
Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs
Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs,
Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical
Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal
and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee
assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus
city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may
be available. The group committed to working
collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will
continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic
development, and transportation efforts that are in a
geographically focused area.
35 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Planning Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental – Local Planning Organization What sections of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety,
Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs
Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs,
Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical
Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal
and non-federal funding opportunities. The Committee
assisted in creating target areas to geographically focus
city-wide efforts and discuss other funding tools that may
be available. The group committed to working
collaboratively to maximize resources. Collaborations will
24
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
continue to occur on City infrastructure, economic
development, and transportation efforts that are in a
geographically focused area.
TABLE PR -10.2
PLAN CONSULTATION
Community Plan Consultations
1 Name of Plan 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness
Lead Organization State of Utah
How do the goals of
your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals
of each plan?
Created in 2004, updated in 2013, this plan highlights initiatives centered on
using the Housing First Model to end chronic homelessness. This plan places
minimal restriction on persons to pl ace them into safe housing. Housing goals
include promoting the construction of safe, decent, and affordable homes for all
income levels and to put specific emphasis on housing homeless persons.
2 Name of Plan Annual Point-in-Time Count
Lead Organization State of Utah
How do the goals of
your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals
of each plan?
This plan highlights an initiative to find homeless persons living on the streets
and gather information in order to connect them with available services. By doi ng
so, this will help policymakers and program administrators set benchmarks to
measure progress toward the goal of ending homelessness, help plan services
and programs to appropriately address local needs, identify strengths and gaps
in a community’s current homelessness assistance system, inform public opinion,
increase public awareness, attract resources, and create the most reliable
estimate of people experiencing homelessness throughout Utah.
3 Name of Plan Growing SLC
Lead Organization Salt Lake City
How do the goals of
your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals
of each plan?
Policy solutions over the five year period of this plan will focus on: 1) updates to
zoning code, 2) preservation of long-term affordable housing, 3) establishment of
a significant funding source, 4)stabilizing low -income tenants, 5) innovation in
design, 6) partnerships and collaboration in housing, and 7) equitability and fair
housing.
4 Name of Plan Salt Lake City Master Plans
Lead Organization Salt Lake City
How do the goals of
your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals
of each plan?
Salt Lake City's master plans provide vision and goals for future development in
the City. The plans guide the development and use of land, as well as provide
recommendations for particular places within the City. HAND utilized the City's
master plans to align policies, goals, and priorities.
5 Name of Plan Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness
25
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Lead Organization Salt Lake County
How do the goals of
your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals
of each plan?
This plan emphasizes the promotion of a community ‐wide commitment to the
goal of ending homelessness, provide funding for efforts to quickly re ‐house
individuals and families who are homeless, which minimizes the trauma and
dislocation caused by homelessness, promote access to and effective use of
mainstream programs, optimize self ‐sufficiency among individuals and families
experiencing homelessness
6 Name of Plan State of Utah Strategic Plan on Homelessness
Lead Organization State of Utah
How do the goals of
your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals
of each plan?
The strategic plan establishes statewide goals and benchmarks on which to
measure progress toward these goals. The plan recognizes that every community
in Utah is different in their challenges, resources available, and needs of those
who ex perience homelessness.
7 Name of Plan Strategic Economic Development Plan
Lead Organization Salt Lake City Economic Development
How do the goals of
your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals
of each plan?
The Strategic Plan establishes an assessment of existing economic conditions of
Salt Lake City through analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. This
information guided a strategic framework that builds on existing strengths and
seeks to overcome identified challenges to ensure the City’s fiscal health,
enhance its business climate, and promote economic growth.
8 Name of Plan Housing Gap Coalition Report
Lead Organization Salt Lake Chamber
How do the goals of
your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals
of each plan?
Initiative that seeks to safeguard Utah's economic prosperity by ensuring home
ownership is attainable and housing affordability is a priority, protecting Utahns
quality of life and expanding opportunities for all.
9 Name of Plan Housing Affordability Crisis
Lead Organization Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
How do the goals of
your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals
of each plan?
Policy brief regarding the current and projected state of rising housing prices in
Utah and recommendations regarding what to do about it.
10 Nam e of Plan Continuum of Care
Lead Organization Salt Lake County
How do the goals of
your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals
of each plan?
Salt Lake County is responsible for coordinating the HUD Continuum of Care
(CoC) grant application process and c ommunity-wide goals on ending
homelessness for the Salt Lake County CoC (UT-500). The CoC provides annual
funding for local homeless housing and service programs. Although Salt Lake
County Government manages the local process, ultimate funding decisions ar e
made at the national level by HUD. The Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End
Homelessness is responsible for oversight of the CoC.
26
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
DESCRIBE COORDINATION AND COOPERATION WITH OTHER PUBLIC ENTITIES, INCLUDING
THE STATE AND ANY AD JACENT UNITS OF GENE RAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT, IN THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN: (91.215(I))
The City coordinated and cooperated with other public entities, including the State of Utah, Salt Lake County,
and neighboring cities on the implementation of the Consolidated Plan. T hese coordination efforts included
City representatives serving on the Commission on Housing Affordability, the Utah Lt. Governor’s Affordable
Housing Taskforce, the SLVCEH Steering Committee, and other State agencies. In addition, the City worked
closely with Salt Lake County’s Housing and Community Development Division to foster regional collaboration
for implementation.
PR- 15 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
SUMMARIZE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PROCESS AND HOW IT IMPACTED GOAL SETTING.
The City seeks to develop and enhance livable, healthy, and sustainable neighborhoods through robust
planning and actions that reflect the needs and values of the local community. The City has stayed true to its
values of inclusiveness and innovation by embracing opportunities to pr ovide equitable services, offer funding,
and create housing opportunities that improve lives for individuals and families in underserved and under -
resourced communities.
The City recognizes that citizen participation is critical for the development of a C onsolidated Plan that reflects
the needs of affected persons and residents. In accordance with 24 CFR 91.105, the City solicited robust citizen
participation over the course of an entire year. Between May 2019 and May 2020, over 4,000 residents,
stakeholders, agency partners, and City officials participated through proactive, community -based outreach,
facilitated stakeholder engagement, and online surveys. The City involved affected persons and residents
through stakeholder consultation, a community survey, community events, public meetings, public hearings,
public comment periods, and one-on-one consultations. The following provides a synopsis of these efforts.
CONSOLIDATED PLAN SURVEY
The City created a survey to solicit feedback from residents regarding their priorities for the provision of
housing, economic development, and public services in the most underserved and under -resourced areas of
the community. The survey and all accompanying collateral material was translated into Spanish, with additional
language translation services available upon request.
The survey was posted on the City website and social media platforms, third -party digital applications like
Nextdoor and was distributed to thousands of residents through the City’s email listserv. In addition, digital
flyers with Quick Response (QR) codes were created and distributed to stakeholder advisory and
interdepartmental working group members. Members of these groups were asked to distribute the flyer to their
respective constituencies.
27
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
FIGURE PR -15.1
FLYER - ENGLISH
FIGURE PR -15.2
FLYER - SPANISH
28
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
The survey fielding occurred from August 15 through September 30, 2019, with a total of 2,068 respondents
completing it. Respondents ranked homeless and transportation servi ces as their top priorities for City services.
Street improvements, job creation, and rental assistance were the top priorities for community, economic
development, and housing investments respectively.
FIGURE PR -15.3
QUESTION #1 SURVEY RESULTS
29
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Respondents identified Poplar Grove, Fairpark, and Ballpark as the areas of the City with the most unmet needs
for underserved individuals and families. The overwhelming majority of residents did not feel that the current
housing stock was sufficient to meet th e needs of a growing City, particularly for low -income populations,
seniors, and individuals with disabilities.
FIGURE PR -15.4
MAP OF UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES
30
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
FIGURE PR -15.5
MAP OF WHERE RESPONDENTS LIVE
31
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Since the Consolidated Plan survey was open to anyone who wanted to take it, results may have included self -
selection bias. To supplement these results with a more representative understanding of resident sentiment, the
City also compared them with the recently completed annual resident sur vey results. Both surveys showed that
residents wanted more housing and transportation investments for underserved areas of the community.
FIGURE PR -15.6
KEY TAKE-AWAYS FROM SLC ANNUAL SURVEY
32
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
REGIONAL COLLABORATION
The City collaborated closely with Salt Lake County as the two entities worked in tandem on their respective
Consolidated Plans. City staff consistently attended County meetings, and vice versa. In addition, the two
entities worked together on the question wording and format for th eir respective surveys to ensure an “apples-
to-apples” comparison of survey results. This approach allowed the City to consider both qualitative
stakeholder feedback and quantitative survey results within a broader, regional context. In total, 222 Salt Lak e
City residents took the Salt Lake County survey.
STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The City assembled a Stakeholder Advisory Committee comprised of nonprofit providers and agency partners.
The Committee met three times in 2019 on July 30, September 24, an d December 11. These meetings were
strategically scheduled at critical milestones to maximize the impact stakeholder feedback would have in the
identification of Consolidated Plan goals, objectives, and priorities. On average, approximately 40 stakeholders
attended the meetings.
FIGURE PR -15.7
STAKEHOLDER MEETING
33
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Initial Meeting- July 30, 2019
To maintain consistency with the resident survey, the City asked the same survey questions to the stakeholder
advisory committee members via real -time, interactive polling software. Stakeholders ranked housing,
homelessness, and mental health services as their top three unmet, unfunded/underfunded needs. They
indicated street improvements, job training, and the construction of more affordable housing units shou ld be
top priorities for City inv estment. Stakeholders identified Glendale, Fairpark, Ballpark, and Poplar Grove as the
areas within the city with the most unmet needs for under -served individuals and families.
FIGURE PR -15.8
POLL RESULTS
34
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Sec ond Meeting- September 24, 2019
To ensure stakeholder feedback would be meaningfully considered in the development of Consolidated Plan
goals, the City held a second meeting and asked stakeholders to prioritize the unmet, unfunded needs that they
had identified at the initial stakeholder meeting in July. Stakeholders indicated that their first and second
priorities were housing and transportation respectively. They outlined a number of suggested funding
strategies that the City, in partnership with nonprof it service providers, could consider employing. These
strategies include, but are not limited to:
Provide ‘aging in place’ programs
Offer affordable housing voucher programs
Provide client centered community -based case management
Eliminate housing barriers
Integrate transportation and land use considerations to facilitate affordable housing along transit
corridors
Improve regional collaboration with public and private-sector partners to improve efficiencies in the
allocation of resources and to reduce redu ndancies
Leverage innovative technologies to improve access to information regarding affordable housing
demand and supply
Offer free fare or reduced transit options
Expand transit service in underserved communities
Subsidize rideshare options
FIGURE PR -15.9
35
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
FIGURE PR -15.10
Third Meeting- December 11, 2019
36
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
To further refine goals based on previous stakeholder feedback, the City held a third and final stakeholder
advisory committee meeting in December. The meeting was held in conjunction with the City’s
Interdepartmental Technical Advisory Group (ITAG) members to ensure collaborat ion between City
departments and nonprofit service providers. The meeting centered around the following five objectives:
Homeless Services
Housing Services
Transportation
Economic Development
Behavioral Health: Mental Health & Substance Abuse
Stakeholders and City staff indicated that client centered community -based case management, treatment
services for mental health and substance abuse, as well as the provision of housing, transit passes, and job
training to income-eligible residents were their top pri orities to meet these five objectives.
FIGURE PR -15.11
HOMELESS OBJECTIVE
FIGURE PR -15.12
37
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
HOUSING OBJECTIVE
FIGURE PR -15.13
TRANSPORTATION OBJECTIVE
FIGURE PR -15.14
38
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE
FIGURE PR -15.15
SUBSTANCE ABUSE & MENTAL HEALTH OBJECTIVE
INTERDEPARTMENTAL TE CHNICAL ADVISORY GRO UP
To facilitate coordination across the various City departments and ensure input from the City’s subject -matter
experts was incorporated into the Consolidated Plan, the City created an Interdepartmental Technical Advisory
Group (ITAG). Similar to the approach taken with the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, the City met with this
39
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
internal group three times during the course of the Consolidated Plan development process. Meetings occurred
on July 29, September 23, and December 11, 2019.
Initial Meeting- July 29, 2019
Similar to the approach taken with the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, the City surveyed ITAG m embers via
real-time, interactive polling using the same questions as the resident survey to ensure consistency and
compare feedback “apples-to-apples.” ITAG members ranked housing and transportation as top priorities and
expressed concern that there was i nsufficient housing to meet the needs of a growing population, particularly
for low-income individuals and families, seniors, and persons with disabilities. While feedback differed
somewhat from the resident survey results, ITAG members generally expressed similar concerns as residents.
ITAG members were also asked a series of questions regarding their most unfunded/underfunded, unmet
needs. Through an interactive “sticky -note” exercise, they wrote their answers on notes and posted them on a
wall in the room. A discussion regarding the results of the feedback then ensued and the notes were
categorized based on key themes.
Q1- What are your biggest unmet needs related to underserved and/or under resourced communities within the
city?
FIGURE PR -15.16
Q1 RESPONSES
40
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Q2- What are you currently doing to try to meet these needs?
FIGURE PR -15.17
Q2 RESPONSES
Q3- What are your suggested strategies to help address these unmet needs through the Consolidated Plan?
FIGURE PR -15.18
Q3 RESPONSES
41
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Q4- From your perspective, what is or could be your role as it relates to the Consolidated Plan?
FIGURE PR -15.19
Q4 RESPONSES
Second Meeting- September 23, 2019
To ensure feedback from City staff would be meaningfully considered in the development of Consolidated Plan
goals, the City held a second meeting and asked ITAG members to prioritize the unmet, unfunded/underfunded
needs that they had identified at the initial ITAG meeting in July. Housing, transportation and the provision of
needed services ranked as the highest priorities.
FIGURE PR -15.20
42
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
FIGURE PR -15.21
FIGURE PR -15.22
43
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Final Meeting, December 11, 2019
As mentioned previously, the City held a third and final ITAG meeting in December in conjunction with the
Stakeholder Advisory Committee to further refine goals based on feedback from previous meetings. The
objective of a combined meeting was to ensure collaboration between City departments and nonprofit service
providers. The meeting centered around the following five goals:
Homeless Services
Housing Services
Transportation
Economic Development
Behavioral Health: Mental Health & Substance Abuse
Stakeholders and City staff indicated that client centered community-based case management, treatment
services for mental health and substance abuse, as well as the provision of housing, transit passes, and job
training to income-eligible residents were their top priorities to meet these five goals.
COMMUNITY EV ENTS
The City led a robust, grassroots citizen participation effort between May 2019 and November 2019. Staff
attended community events such as the Rose Park Festival, the Sorenson CommUNITY Fair, Partners in the Park,
Groove in the Grove, the Monster Bloc k Party, and many others. In keeping with recommendations outlined in
the SLC Citizen Engagement Guide, the City engaged directly with the public through exi sting forums where
opportunities existed to reach hundreds of people at a time.
City staff managed information booths at dozens of events and solicited input from residents and stakeholders
through interactive materials such as “sticker dots” that could be placed on poster boards to indicate priorities
for City services and to identify neighborhoods with the most unmet, unfunded/underfunded needs. The efforts
were hugely successful, with over 1,322 people participating.
44
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
FIGURE PR -15.23
COMMUNITY PRIORITIES FOR FEDERAL FUNDING
PUBLIC MEETINGS
City staff gave presentations regarding the Consolidated Plan to the Planning Commission and City Council on
September 25, 2019 and October 8, 2019, respectively. In these public meetings, staff presented information
regarding the following: challenges of rising housing and transportation costs; housing and stability needs of an
aging population; the homelessness challenges our community faces; and discussed the need to address
behavioral health concerns which include both mental health and substance abuse. Staff provided a high -level
explanation regarding the Consolidated Plan funding programs, the process and tim eline for developing the
Plan, and eligible activities. Staff provided an interim report regarding citizen participation efforts and through
45
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
conversation responded to questions regarding the outcomes of the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan and the
evolution of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
On October 24, 2019, the City conducted a General Needs Hearing to gather public comments on housing and
community development needs as they relate to low - and moderate-income residents. One resident attended
the hearing and two residents submitted comments via email. Comments were accepted from October 21 -
November 1, 2019 and identified needs associated with streets, police, community gardens, and tennis courts.
To ensure that as many residents as possible are able to participate in public hearings, subsequent public
hearings were held to seek feedback on the Consolidated Plan and the Annual Action Plan (AAP). These City
Council Public Hearings were held on March 24, April 7, and April 21, 2020. Approxima tely 20 residents
attended the public hearings and submitted electronic and/or provide direct feedback to the Council Members
via WebEx Teleconference. All comments were accepted and considered in the final adoption of the plan.
Notices of all public hearings were communicated within 14 calendar days of the hearing and posted on Utah’s
Public Notice website.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODS
In addition to the 30-day public comment period required by the United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD), the City requires a 45-day public comment period on all master plan documents,
including the Consolidated Plan. Both the HUD-required public comment period and the City -required public
comment periods occurred simultaneously from February 7, 2020 throu gh March 22, 2020. The City initiated the
public comment period by contacting all impacted Registered Community Organizations. The proposed
Consolidated Plan was published on the C ity’s website and the Utah Public Notice website, and printed copies
were made available in the City Main Library and City Hall.
PUBLIC COMMENT SUMMARY
FIGURE PR -15.24
SUMMARY CHART
Mode of Outreach Effort Target of
Outreach
Summary of
Response/Atten
dance
Summary of
Comments
Received
Summary of
Comments not
Accepted &
Reasons
Internet Outreach Survey Minorities; Non-
English
Speaking;
Spanish; Persons
with Disabilities;
Non-
Targeted/Broad
community;
residents of
Public and
Assisted
Housing
2,068
Respondents
Respondents
ranked homeless
and
transportation
services as their
top priorities for
City services.
Street
improvements,
job creation, and
rental assistance
were the top
priorities for
community,
economic
development,
All comments
were accepted
and taken into
consideration as
the Consolidated
Plan developed.
46
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Mode of Outreach Effort Target of
Outreach
Summary of
Response/Atten
dance
Summary of
Comments
Received
Summary of
Comments not
Accepted &
Reasons
and housing
investments
respectively.
Other: City
Collaboration
Interdepartmental
Technical Advisory
Committee
Other: City
Departments/Div
isions
On average,
approximately
30-40 City staff
attended
multiple
meetings to
discuss targeted
approach to
utilizing federal
funding sources.
Discussions
focused on
identifying
where the City
could
collaborate to
better leverage
federal funding,
city priorities,
and local efforts.
Topics included
all areas of City
infrastructure,
services, and
investment.
All comments
were accepted
and taken into
consideration as
the Consolidated
Plan developed.
Focus Group Stakeholder Advisory
Committee
Minorities; Non-
English
Speaking;
Spanish; Persons
with Disabilities;
Non-
Targeted/Broad
community;
residents of
Public and
Assisted
Housing
On average,
approximately
40-50
representatives
from non -profit
service providers
and government
entities attended
multiple
meetings to
discuss targeted
approach to
utilizing federal
funding sources.
Discussions
focused on
identifying
where the City
could
collaborate to
better leverage
federal funding,
city priorities,
and local efforts.
Topics included
all areas of City
infrastructure,
services, and
investment.
All comments
were accepted
and taken into
consideration as
the Consolidated
Plan developed.
Public Meeting Presentation to City
Council
Minorities; Non-
English
Speaking;
Spanish; Persons
with Disabilities;
Non-
Targeted/Broad
community;
residents of
Public and
Assisted
Housing
Approximately
30 members of
the public
attended this
meeting.
Discussions
focused on how
the City could
better leverage
federal funding,
city priorities,
and local efforts.
Topics included
all areas of City
infrastructure,
services, and
investment.
All comments
were accepted
and taken into
consideration as
the Consolidated
Plan developed.
Public Meeting Presentation to
Planning Commission
Minorities; Non-
English
Speaking;
Spanish; Persons
with Disabilities;
Non-
Targeted/Broad
community;
residents of
Public and
Approximately
30 members of
the public
attended this
meeting.
Discussions
focused on how
the City could
better leverage
federal funding,
city priorities,
and local efforts.
Topics included
all areas of City
infrastructure,
All comments
were accepted
and taken into
consideration as
the Consolidated
Plan developed.
47
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Mode of Outreach Effort Target of
Outreach
Summary of
Response/Atten
dance
Summary of
Comments
Received
Summary of
Comments not
Accepted &
Reasons
Assisted
Housing
services, and
investment.
Public Hearing General Needs Hearing Minorities; Non-
English
Speaking;
Spanish; Persons
with Disabilities;
Non-
Targeted/Broad
community;
residents of
Public and
Assisted
Housing
1 resident
attended the
hearing and 2
residents
emailed public
comments
Discussions
focused on how
the City could
better leverage
federal funding,
city priorities,
and local efforts.
Topics included
all areas of City
infrastructure,
services, and
investment.
All comments
were accepted
and taken into
consideration as
the Consolidated
Plan developed.
Public Hearing Consolidated Plan &
Annual Action Plan
(AAP) Hearing
Planning
Commissioners,
City staff,
Minorities; Non-
English
Speaking;
Spanish; Persons
with Disabilities;
Non-
Targeted/Broad
community;
residents of
Public and
Assisted
Housing
2 hearings were
held, 8 members
of the public
attended, and
117 members of
the public
emailed public
comments.
Discussion
focused on the
support of
individual
applications and
projects
covering a range
of immediate
and long-term
needs for the
city.
All comments
were accepted
and taken into
consideration as
the Consolidated
Plan developed.
Public Hearing Consolidated Plan
Hearing
City
Councilmembers
, City staff,
Minorities; Non-
English
Speaking;
Spanish; Persons
with Disabilities;
Non-
Targeted/Broad
community;
residents of
Public and
Assisted
Housing
3 hearings were
held, 6 members
of the public
emailed public
comments.
Discussion
focused on the
detail of the
long-term
planning
document, the
supporting data,
and the priorities
of the plan.
All comments
were accepted
and taken into
consideration as
the Consolidated
Plan developed.
Other: Community
Events
Community Events Minorities; Non-
English
Speaking;
Spanish; Persons
with Disabilities;
Non-
Targeted/Broad
community;
residents of
Public and
Over 1,322
respondents
Staff attended
dozens of
community
events over the
course of the
Consolidated
Plan
development
process.
Respondents
ranked
All comments
were accepted
and taken into
consideration as
the Consolidated
Plan developed.
48
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Mode of Outreach Effort Target of
Outreach
Summary of
Response/Atten
dance
Summary of
Comments
Received
Summary of
Comments not
Accepted &
Reasons
Assisted
Housing
homelessness,
substance abuse
& mental health,
and
transportation
services as their
top priorities for
the City.
49
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The Needs Assessment of the Consolidated Plan, in conjunction with information gathered through
consultations and the citizen participation process, provides a clear picture of Salt Lake City’s needs related to
affordable housing, special needs housing, community development, and homelessness. From the Needs
Assessment, the City identifies those needs with the highest priority to form the basis for th e Strategic Plan and
the programs and projects to be administered.
50
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
NA-05 OVERVIEW
Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan is intended to identify the most critical, unfunded gaps in
community needs within the City, while coordinating with the larger regional needs of the entire Salt Lake
Valley. The purpose of this Needs Assessment (NA) is to identify and evaluate needs, along with funding
resources, and align those needs with the input received through the pub lic participation process. Goals and
strategies are then developed to target priority geographic locations and needed services in those areas, as well
as citywide.
Numerous news articles over the past year have spotlighted what is termed an “affordable h ousing crisis” in
Utah. Due to public concern over housing issues, the Governor commissioned the Utah Department of
Workforce Services to compile a statewide Affordable Housing Report in 2018 to identify causes and address
issues. That report concludes:
Significant population growth from natural increase and economic development continue to drive Utah’s
demand for housing. Production factors such as the high value of land, higher material costs, and a
shortage of construction labor significantly contribute to delays in developing an adequate supply of
affordable housing. Unless Utah invests in a more pre -emptive approach to housing policy and plans
more effectively for its future needs, its housing shortage will only increase, and the gap in housing
afforda bility will continue to widen.
An effort has been made throughout to connect people with resources to expand opportunities for decent
housing, economic development, and vibrant communities. The Needs Assessment clearly establishes that
housing and community development needs have increased while funding to address those needs has
diminished.
As demonstrated in Figure NA-05.1, Salt Lake City’s annual CDBG award has decreased by $1.5 million over the
past 16 years. This represents a 30% decrease in funding to address the critical housing and community
development needs within the City.
FIGURE NA-05.1
SALT LAKE CITY’S ANNUAL CDBG AWARD, 2003 - 2019
Source: HUD Awards and Allocations, HUD Exchange
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
$5,000,000
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
51
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
A summary of the key data identified in this study, leadin g to the strategies developed, is summarized below. In
short, homeless services ranked high in the data researched, as well as in the surveys conducted as part of the
public participation process. Affordable housing needs also scored high with both the pub lic and in the
evaluation of the data. Within these two overarching concerns, critical needs were also identified for assistance
with transportation accessibility and costs (thereby reducing cost burdens on low -income families and special
populations), economic development opportunities (such as job training) to increase self -sufficiency, and
substantial improvements in the services offered to those with behavioral health concerns.
Residents need affordable housing in locations that are near public transp ortation, quality education,
healthcare, and other service providers. Those with the ability to work need services to increase overall self -
sufficiency.
Significant findings are as follows:
Homeless
The State of Utah Annual Report on Homelessness 2019 reported that there were 9,367 total homeless
persons between October 1, 2017 and September 30, 2018. On average, these individuals spent 70
nights homeless in that same time period.
According to the 2019 Salt Lake County Point-in-Time Count, which is an annual count of all homeless
peoples in the county on a single night, there were 1,844 people experiencing homelessness in the
County on the night of the count in January 2019.1 Of those experiencing homelessness, 73.2% were
White, non-Hispanic, 11% were Bl ack or African American, 5.3% were American Indian or Alaska
Natives, 3.5% were Pacific Islander, and 2% were Asian. There were also 21.3% who were Hispanic.
There are 193 homeless individuals who are unsheltered.
According to the State of Utah’s 2019 Strategic Plan on Homelessness, which quotes from the 2018
Point-in-Time Count (PIT), one in three individuals experiencing homelessness in Utah is severely
mentally ill, and one in four have a substance use disorder.
Specific service gaps for the homeless were identified through stakeholder meetings as follows:
o Affordable housing, permanent supportive housing, and emergency beds
o Mental health services and substance use disorder treatment
o Case management
o Prevention, diversion and outreach services
o Data systems that capture more of the full story
o Available transportation
Affordable Housing
Median incomes in Salt Lake City have increased by 52.6% between 2000 and 2018, representing one
of the fastest income growth rates in the nation. However, median home valu es have increased by
89.8% over the same time period and contract rents have increased by 81.8%, thereby increasing the
gap between wages and housing costs.
39.5% of Salt Lake City renter households and 19.7% of homeowner households are cost -burdened,
spending over 30% of their monthly income on housing costs. Over 18.9% of renter households spend
over 50% of their monthly income on housing.2 Families who are cost-burdened have limited resources
for food, childcare, healthcare, transportation, education, and other basic needs. Despite the
1 2019 Salt Lake County Point-in -Time report
2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2012-2016 CHAS
52
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
community wide efforts to increase housing availability and reduce housing costs, 29.9% households
are cost-burdened.
The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City currently administers Housing Choice vouchers for 3,000
households and has 7,053 total households on all of its waiting lists. Countywide there are 15,981
households on the Housing Connect waiting list. A family on the waiting list can expect to wait 6 years
before receiving a Housing Choice voucher.3 A large percentage of those on the waiting list are elderly
or have a disability.
Rental vacancy rates are at historic lows, further limiting the available stock of housing and pushing
prices upwards.
Concerns were identified regarding the “gentrification” of neighbor hoods and the need to put anti-
displacement strategies in place, preserving existing affordable housing stock.
Demographics
The demographic makeup of Salt Lake City has changed substantially since 2000. While the White,
non-Hispanic population has remained relatively flat since 2000, minority groups have increased by
over 14,000. White, non-Hispanic has declined from 71% of the population in 2000 to 65% in 2018.
Over the past 5 years, an average of 450 refugees have settled in Salt Lake City annually. 16.4 % of Salt
City residents are foreign-born creating a need for services for individuals who do not speak English.
12% of the City’s population is over 65 years old. Residents this age are often living on limited income
and can often have more difficulty finding maintaining their homes. This can often lead to the elderly
population moving into care facilities or assisted living communities. If care facilities are cheaper
outside of the City then elderly residents may end up leaving to other cities in searc h of lower living
costs.
There are 20,504 people in Salt Lake City with a disability. 37% of those reporting one or more
disabilities are over 65 years old and 21% are over 75 years old. The most common disability for those
over the age of 75 is ambulatory difficulty, which is defined as having serious difficulty walking or
climbing stairs, followed by hearing and independent difficulty.
About 21% of the City’s population is under the age of 18. The largest age group is under 5 years old
with over 31% of the City’s children reportedly falling in that range. Salt Lake City has a child
dependency ratio4 of 30.0.
14.7% of Salt Lake City’s children (under 18 years) 5 live below the poverty level as defined by the
poverty thresholds determined by the U.S. Government using the Consumer Price Index. The 2019 Utah
Intergenerational Welfare Reform Commission Annual Report reaffirms that children growing up in
poverty experience challenges to healthy development both in the short and long term, demonstrating
impairm ents in cognitive, behavioral, and social development. The younger the child is when his or her
family is impoverished the greater the likelihood for poor outcomes.6
3 Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Housing Connect
4 A measure derived by dividing the population under 18 years by the 18 to 64 years population and multiplying by 100
5 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates
6 Utah State Department of Workforce Services, Utah Intergenerational Wel fare Reform Commission Annual Report, 2019
53
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
55.8% of Salt Lake City School District students qualify to receive free school lunch.7 Families qualify for
free lunch if they earn 130% or below the federal poverty level, about $33,500 or less per year for a
family of four. Many of these households are considered food insecure. The 2019 Utah
Intergenerational Welfare Reform Commission Annual Report indicates that there are 135,940 children
experiencing food insecurity in Utah and in past reports has stated that these children are ill more
frequently, struggle academically, are less likely to graduate from high school and enroll in college; a nd
less likely to earn enough income to feed their families when they are adults.
In 2017 there were 152,479 children in Utah under age 6 who needed care, but there were only 41,144
slots available in childcare programs.8 The main reasons families are not able to get adequate childcare
is cost (31%) and “lack of open slots” (27%).9
Behavioral Health Needs
In 2018, Salt Lake City’s Downtown area reported in the highest age -adjusted drug deaths in the state
at 72.2 deaths per 100,000 population, which is mu ch higher than the state average ratio of 22.4. The
Rose Park and Glendale areas also report higher ratios of 33.3 and 30.4 respectively. Of the 15
neighborhoods in Utah experiencing the highest age-adjusted drug deaths, Salt Lake City has three of
them.10
A recent study concluded that 1 in 5 Utah adults experience poor mental health and that over half of
the adults with mental illness did not receive mental health treatment or counseling.
Another study concluded that Utah ranked 48th in a state-by-state ranking indicating that Utah is
amongst the worst states in the nation when handling mental illnesses based on 15 measures used to
create the rankings. The ranking indicates higher prevalence of mental illness and lower rates of access
to care.11 This is an improvement from 2018, when Utah ranked 51st .
Economic and Social Service Needs
15.8% of Salt Lake City’s adults (18 years and over) live below the poverty level.12 A recent report
indicated that 39,487 adults experiencing intergenerational poverty are em ployed but unable to meet
the needs of their families.13 Families experiencing intergenerational poverty need to be connected to
resources that assist them with employment and job training.14
Job training needs were identified as part of the stakeholder meetings and are a critical component of
increasing self-sufficiency for individuals.
7 Salt Lake City School District, Fall Low Income Report, 2017
8 ChildCare Aware of America. 2017 State Child Care Facts in the State of: Utah. Retrieved from http://usa.childcareaware.org/ wp -
content/uploads /2017207/UT_Facts.pdf
9 Schochet, Leila. “The Child Care Crisis Is Keeping Women Out of the Workforce” Center for American Progress, https://www.
americanprogress.org/issues/early -childhood/reports/2019/03/28/467488/child-care-crisis-keeping-women -workforce/. Authors
analysis of National Center for Education Statistics, “2016 National Household Education Survey: Early Childhood Program
Participation Survey”
10 Utah Department of Health, Public Health Indicator Based Information System: Poisoning: Drug Deaths by Utah Small Area, 2014-
2018, https://ibis.health.utah.gov/ibisph -view/indicator/complete_profile/PoiDth.html
11 Mental Health America, Ranking States, https://www.mhanational.org/issues/ranking-states
12 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2014-2018, 5-Year Estimates
13 International Welfare Reform Commission, Utah’s Eighth Annual Report on Intergenerational Poverty, Welfare Dependency and the
Use of Public Assistance, 2019
14 Utah State Department of Workforce Services, Utah Intergenerational Reform Commission Annual Report, 2019
54
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
The United States Department of Agriculture defines food insecure families as those households that,
at times during the year, are uncertain of having, or unable to acquire , enough food to meet the needs
of all their members because they have insufficient money or other resources for food. Based on
information provided by Utahns Against Hunger, August 2018, 12.5% of households struggle to buy
enough food for themselves and their households. According to Feeding America, Map the Meal Gap
2018, 12.2% of households in Salt Lake County are food insecure, with 15.4% of children food insecure
in the County.
The 2018 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year Estimate performed by the United States Census
Bureau reported that there were 9,249 households in Salt Lake City that reported no internet access.
This represents almost 12% of the City’s households. Internet access has been shown to increase
student performance for students and to improve the placement rates for unemployed persons
seeking employment.
The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency has established 12 project areas, 9 of which are currently
collecting tax increment. These project areas have been established for a variety of reasons, including
the elimination of blight, development of affordable housing, economic development opportunities,
and public works improvements. Geographically, these project areas cover a large portion of the
lowest-income areas of the City. A signi ficant amount of tax increment is generated by these project
areas, reaching nearly $34 million in 2018, affording the opportunity to leverage HUD funding with tax
increment in the future.
Public Improvements
Salt Lake City will utilize an $87 million Gen eral Obligation (GO) Bond to limit the cost to City residents
while still addressing street reconstruction. Using a GO Bond will allow the City to utilize its AAA bond
rating (highest available) to provide road reconstruction in a more affordable and respo nsible way.
These funds will only be used for street reconstruction and not street maintenance, which will be
funded by sales tax dollars.
Salt Lake City increased its sales tax by.5% in 2018. This sales tax increase, also known as Funding Our
Future, will support several critical need areas within the City, including Street maintenance. In addition,
Salt Lake City Transportation received a .25% County Sales Tax funding stream which will enable
Transportation Division to address some of the critical infrastructure and connectivity needs within the
city.
It’s estimated that the annual household transportation cost within the City is $12,524 or about 20% of
household income.15 The City may consider increasing the quality of commuting by enhancing bus
stops and light rail stations and trains to encourage use of public transportation. This would result in
household savings in transportation costs and cleaner air within the City.
15 Center for Neighborhood Technology , Housing + Transportation Index , https://htaindex.cnt.org/
55
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
NA-10 HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT – 91.205(a, b, c)
SUMMARY OF HOUSING NEEDS
Affordable housing needs in Salt Lake City are significant and have been increasing over the past several years.
A primary reason is that construction costs have been increasing at a far greater rate than wages and thereby
placing a greater cost-burden on households. An extremely low vacancy rate of 3.8% in rentals is further
exacerbating this problem. The problem is especially severe for those households making less than 50% of the
Area Median Income (AMI).
A summary of housing needs and conditions is as fo llows:
Between 2000 and 2018, the cost of housing significantly increased for both renters and homeowners .
Incomes for both renters and homeowners have increased, but at substantially lower rates as shown in
Figure NA-10.1.
o The median contract rent increased by 81.8%, but renter incomes only increased by 48.7%; in
2018 the median household income for renter -occupied units was $36,997.
o Home values increased by 89.8%, but homeowner incomes only increased by 59.4%. In 2018,
the median household income for own er-occupied units was $83,750.16
FIGURE NA-10.1
HOUSING COST INCREASES VS. INCOME INCREASES SINCE 2000
The Affordability Index, which is a calculation of the median home value divided by the median
household income, has increased from 4.2 in 2000 to 5.1 in 2018. This is yet another indication that
income increases have not kept pace with the increasing home values.
The homeownership rate decreased from 56.9% in 2000 to 48.4% in 2018. In 2000, rental units
comprised 48.8% of occupied housing units. In 2018, that percentage increased to 51.6%.17 Therefore,
the increasing number of rental units could partially account for the decreasing rate of
16 U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
17 U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census & 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2000 2018
Median Contract Rent Renter Incomes
Home Values Homeowner Incomes
56
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
homeownership. With increasing housing costs, residents may be hesitant to buy homes and are
opting to rent despite increasing rental costs.
Many households in Salt Lake City struggle to make their monthly payments and to find affordable
rental housing. Of the 39,000 renter households within Salt Lake City, 39.5% are cost-burdened
meaning there are about 15,500 ren ter households who experience difficulty paying their monthly rent.
There are also approximately 7,100 homeowners who are cost -burdened and have difficulty meeting
their mortgage obligations.
Due to the shortage of units affordable to extremely low -incom e households (<30% AMI), residents
who fall into this category are usually forced to rent housing they cannot afford. Very low -income
(<50% AMI) households with high housing costs lack resources for basic essentials – most critically
food and healthcare. Some residents who fall into this category are forced to live in substandard,
unhealthy, unsafe, or overcrowded housing. In some cases, the lack of affordable housing can lead to
homelessness for some residents.
Since 2000, Salt Lake City has continued to see population growth with roughly 13,958 new residents
and approximately 9,253 new households. That coupled with high housing costs has reduced the
supply of units and increased costs.
DEMOGRAPHICS
Table NA-10.1 shows the total population, number of ho useholds, and median income as reported by the
2000 and 2010 Censuses. It also shows those same demographics from the most recent American Community
Survey 5-Year Estimates 2014-2018. The percentage of change between 2000 and 2018 has been calculated
and included in the table.
TABLE NA-10.1
DEMOGRAPHICS: 2000, 2010, AND 2018
2000 Census 2010 Census 2018 ACS % Change 2000 to
2018
Population 181,743 186,440 195,701 7.68%
Households 71,461 74,513 80,714 12.95%
Median Income $36,944 $44,223 $56,370 52.58%
Source: 2000 & 2010 Census, 2014-2018 ACS, ZPFI
Since 2000, Salt Lake City has seen slight increases in population. Median income has grown significantly. More
growth has occurred between 2010 and 2018 (9,261 persons total or an average of 1,158 persons per year).
However, when considering recent population estimates, it is not unreasonable to assume that the population
within the City has surpassed 200,000 since the 2018 ACS.18 Interestingly, the White, non -Hispanic category has
seen a net decrease of 373 people since 2000, while minority groups have increased by 14,331 persons.
Figure NA-10.2 shows how this growth has changed the population composition within Salt Lake City since
2000. In 2000, minorities made up just over 29% of the population. That nu mber increased to 34.6% in 2018.
18 U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division , Annual Estimates of the Residential Population July 1, 2018
57
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
FIGURE NA-10.2
RACE AND ETHNICITY SHARE OF TOTAL POPULATION
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
As shown in Figure NA-10.3, approximately 38.9% of the City’s population fa lls in the 20-39 age range. This
concentration of young-adults/adults differs from the common demographic makeup of the rest of Salt Lake
County where this age range is not as highly represented. The 20-29 age range is particularly concentrated in
Salt Lake City where the 20-24 and 25-29 age ranges make up over 20% of the residents. As shown in Figure
NA-10.4, the County reports that young adults fitting those same age ranges account for 15.4% of the
population. This difference is likely due to the universi ty student population concentrated in Salt Lake City.
FIGURE NA-10.3
SALT LAKE CITY AGE STRUCTURE
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
128,377 122,325 128,004
53,366 62,163 67,697
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
2000 Census 2010 Census 2018 ACS
White, non-Hispanic All Minority
15%10%5%5%10%15%
Under 5 Years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 69 years
70 to 74 years
75 to 79 years
80 to 84 years
85 years and over
% Male
% Female
58
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
FIGURE NA-10.4
SALT LAKE COUNTY AGE STRUCTURE
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Table NA-10.2 shows the number and types of households by HUD-Adjusted Median Family Income (HAMFI).
TABLE NA-10.2
NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS BY HAMFI
0-30%
HAMFI
30%-50%
HAMFI
50%-80%
HAMFI
80%-100%
HAMFI
> 100%
HAMFI
Total Households 13,805 11,475 12,995 7,115 30,045
Small Family Households 3,465 3,375 4,315 2,415 13,880
Large Family Households 1,020 1,270 1,055 745 1,735
Household contains at least one
person 62-74 years of age 2,385 1,490 1,905 1,020 5,390
Household contains at least one-
person age 75 or older 1,455 1,375 1,240 545 1,570
Households with one or more
children 6 years old or younger 2,335 2,170 2,045 925 3,945
Source: 2012-2016 Comprehensive Housing Affordab ility Strategy (CHAS)
HOUSING NEEDS SUMMARY
Table NA-10.3 shows the number of households with housing problems by tenure and HAMFI.
15%10%5%5%10%15%
Under 5 years
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 34 years
35 to 39 years
40 to 44 years
45 to 49 years
50 to 54 years
55 to 59 years
60 to 64 years
65 to 69 years
70 to 74 years
75 to 79 years
80 to 84 years
85 years and over
% Female
% Male
59
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
TABLE NA-10.3
HOUSING PROBLEMS 1: HOUSEHOLDS WITH ONE OF THE LISTED NEEDS
Housing Problems
(Households with one of
th e listed needs)
Renter Owner
0-30%
HAMFI
30%-
50%
HAMFI
50%-
80%
HAMFI
80%-
100%
HAMFI
Total 0-30%
HAMFI
30%-
50%
HAMFI
50%-
80%
HAMFI
80%-
100%
HAMFI
Total
Substandard Housing -
lacking complete
plumbing/kitchen facilities
155 105 35 4 299 60 15 15 4 94
Severely Overcrowded -
with >1.51 people per
room (and complete
kitchen and plumbing)
240 185 70 15 510 15 30 10 - 55
Overcrowded - with 1.01-
1.5 people per room (and
none of the above
problems)
575 485 530 250 1,840 110 195 115 60 480
Housing cost-burden
greater than 50% of
income (and none of the
above problems)
5,970 1,230 205 - 7,405 1,150 875 375 120 2,520
Housing cost-burden
greater than 30% - 50% of
income (and none of the
above problems)
1,470 4,125 2,160 210 7,965 505 900 1,440 740 3,585
Zero/negative income (and
none of the above
problems)
1,505 - - - 1,505 195 - - - 195
Source: 2012-2016 CHAS
*The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities ; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than one person
per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 30%.
Table NA-10.4 displays the number of households which have no housing problems, one or more housing
problems, and negative income by tenure and HAMFI.
TABLE NA-10.4
HOUSING PROBLEMS 2: HOUSEHOLDS WITH ONE SEVERE HOUSING PROBLEM
Renter Owner
0-30%
HAMFI
30%-
50%
HAMFI
50%-
80%
HAMFI
80%-
100%
HAMFI
Total 0-30%
HAMFI
30%-
50%
HAMFI
50%-
80%
HAMFI
80%-
100%
HAMFI
Total
Having 1 or more of 4
housing problems 6,925 2,005 510 480 9,920 1,335 1,115 840 925 4,215
Having none of four
housing problems 2,935 5,860 6,995 2,960 18,750 910 2,500 4,645 3,695 11,750
Household has
negative income, but
none of the other
housing problems
1,505 - - - 1,505 195 - - - 195
Source: 2012-2016 CHAS
*The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than 1.5
persons per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 50%
Table NA-10.5 shows cost-burdened households by household type, tenure, and HAMFI. Figure NA-10.5
shows how the current number of households compare to what was reported in the 2015-2019 Consolidated
Plan.
60
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
0-30% HAMFI 30%-50% HAMFI 50%-80% HAMFI
Owner
TABLE NA-10.5
COST-BURDEN > 30%
Renter Owner
0-30%
HAMFI
30%-50%
HAMFI
50%-80%
HAMFI Total 0-30%
HAMFI
30%-50%
HAMFI
50%-80%
HAMFI Total
Small Related 2,385 2,125 655 5,165 560 530 765 1,855
Large Related 825 505 185 1,515 140 405 155 700
Elderly 1,460 615 235 2,310 725 620 430 1,775
Other 3,590 2,760 1,390 7,740 400 385 480 1,265
Total 8,260 6,005 2,465 16,730 1,825 1,940 1,830 5,595
Source: 2012-2016 CHAS
Table NA-10.5 shows that 22,325 households that are under 80% of HAMFI are cost -burdened to the extent
that they are paying 30% or more of their income for housing costs. Of these 22,325 households, 16,730 are
renter households while 5,595 are homeowner; therefore, nearly 75% of households with greater than a 30%
cost-burden are renting.
Figure NA-10.5 shows a comparison of how the number of households which are cost -burdened has changed
since the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. It shows an increase in renter househo lds under 50% of HAMFI and a
decrease in renter households in the 50 to 80% threshold. While the recent construction market appears to be
serving the needs of 50 to 80% fairly well, it has not met the needs of those under 50% of HAMFI. The unmet
needs of those under 50% are increasing.
FIGURE NA-10.5
COST-BURDEN > 30% IN 2011 AND 2016
Source: 2007-2011 CHAS, 2012-2016 CHAS
Table NA-10.6 shows that 10,700 households that are under 80% of HAMFI are severely cost -burdened
because they are paying 50% or more of their income on housing costs. Renters account for 8,130 of these
households while 2,570 are homeowners. Severely cost -burdened households are at the greatest risk for
homelessness.
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
0-30% HAMFI 30%-50% HAMFI 50%-80% HAMFINumber of HouseholdsRenter
61
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
0-30% HAMFI 30%-50% HAMFI 50%-80% HAMFI
Owner
TABLE NA-10.6
COST-BURDEN > 50%
Renter Owner
0-30%
HAMFI
30%-50%
HAMFI
50%-80%
HAMFI Total 0-30%
HAMFI
30%-50%
HAMFI
50%-80%
HAMFI Total
Small Related 1,915 475 30 2,420 510 225 95 830
Large Related 620 30 - 650 105 125 20 250
Elderly 1,045 175 45 1,265 410 335 145 890
Other 3,020 650 125 3,795 280 205 115 600
Total 6,600 1,330 200 8,130 1,305 890 375 2,570
Source: 2012-2016 CHAS
Figure NA-10.6 shows a comparison of how the number of households which are severely cost -burdened has
changed since the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. It shows an increase in househ olds under 30% of HAMFI and a
decrease in cost-burdened households in the 30 to 80% threshold.
FIGURE NA-10.6
COST-BURDEN > 50% IN 2011 AND 2016
Source: 2007-2011 CHAS, 2012-2016 CHAS
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
0-30% HAMFI 30%-50% HAMFI 50%-80% HAMFINumber of HouseholdsRenter
62
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Figure NA-10.7 shows a map of the cost-burdened renters within the City by census tract. It shows that most
of the cost-burdened renters are located just west of I-15 with more than 50% of renters in the tracts in that
area reporting that rental costs constitute more than 30% of their household income. There are also two tracts
to the west of Liberty Park and in the 300 West area from 900 South to 2100 South which report more than
50% of renters as cost-burdened.
FIGURE NA-10.7
PERCENT OF RENTERS IN CENSUS TRACTS THAT ARE COST-BURDENED
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates
63
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Figure NA-10.8 shows a map of the cost-burdened owners with a mortgage within the City by census tract.
The percentage of cost-burdened owners is much lower – less than 20%. However, like renters, most of the
cost-burdened homeowners are located just west of I-15. These tracts show that 20-30% of owner’s costs are
more than 30% of household income.
FIGURE NA-10.8
PERCENT OF OWNERS WITH A MORTGAGE IN CENSUS TRACTS THAT ARE COST-BURDENED
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates
64
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Figure NA-10.9 shows the market value of single-family residential units in Salt Lake City. Interestingly, areas
with the lowest home values have the highest cost -burden.
FIGURE NA-10.9
MARKET VALUE OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN SALT LAKE CITY
Source: Salt Lake County Assessor’s Database 2019
Table NA-10.7 shows the number of households considered to be crowded by having more than one person
per room. Crowded households are displayed by HAMFI an d household type. There are 2,873 households with
crowding in Salt Lake City according to 2012-2016 CHAS (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy) data.
TABLE NA-10.7
CROWDING
Renter Owner
0-30%
HAMFI
30%-
50%
HAMFI
50%-
80%
HAMFI
80%-
100%
HAMFI
Total 0-30%
HAMFI
30%-
50%
HAMFI
50%-
80%
HAMFI
80%-
100%
HAMFI
Total
Single Family
Households 685 535 575 205 2,000 110 170 100 30 410
Multiple,
Unrelated Family
Households
95 60 4 40 199 15 44 25 30 114
65
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Renter Owner
0-30%
HAMFI
30%-
50%
HAMFI
50%-
80%
HAMFI
80%-
100%
HAMFI
Total 0-30%
HAMFI
30%-
50%
HAMFI
50%-
80%
HAMFI
80%-
100%
HAMFI
Total
Other, Non -
Family
Households
40 70 25 15 150 - - - - -
Total 820 665 604 260 2,349 125 214 125 60 524
Source: 2012-2016 CHAS
Table NA-10.8 shows the number of households with children present by having more than one child under
the age of 6. There are 7,475 households in Salt Lake City according to 2012-2016 CHAS data.
TABLE NA-10.8
HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN
Renter Owner
0-30%
HAMFI
30%-
50%
HAMFI
50%-
80%
HAMFI
80%-
100%
HAMFI
Total 0-30%
HAMFI
30%-
50%
HAMFI
50%-
80%
HAMFI
80%-
100%
HAMFI
Total
Households with
Children Present 1,955 1,505 1,280 415 5,155 380 665 765 510 2,320
Source: 2012-2016 CHAS
DESCRIBE THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF SINGLE PERSON HOUSEHOLDS IN NEED OF HOUSING
ASSISTANCE:
The needs of single-person households located within Salt Lake City can be difficult to calculate due to the
large student population attending the University of Utah. In many cases, these students may have little income,
and be living in poverty, while they are enrolled in classes. This can inflate the number of single households
living in poverty and facing housing challeng es. However, this is a temporary situation for most students as they
generally have the ability to grow their incomes after graduation.
Of the 78,229 total households (family and nonfamily) in the City, 27,838 were reported as being nonfamily and
living alone. According to these numbers, 35.6% of households in Salt Lake City live alone. This is higher than
the national average of 34.2%.19
A portion of the 27,838 single-persons households represent young professionals, students, and other
individuals that are not in need of housing assistance. The at -risk single person households in need of housing
assistance include working residents earning low wages, residents who are unemployed, and residents who are
disabled and cannot work.
19 U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
66
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
ESTIMATE THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF FAMILIES IN NEED OF HOUSING ASSISTANCE FOR
VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DATING VIO LENCE, SEXUAL ASSAUL T AND STALKING
AND/OR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES:
The Utah Domestic Violence Coalition reported that 36 Utahans lost their lives to domestic -violence in 2018
and has also reported 32 deaths as of the end of June 2019. Of these reported fatalities, 19 of these victims in
2018 and 16 of the reported 2019 fatalities have been Salt Lake County residents. 20
In addition, a total of 1,449 men, women, and children were sheltered in the two Utah domestic violence
shelters located in Salt Lake City. Individuals who entered the domestic violence shelter system stayed for an
average of 45 days in 2019. There are many barriers for survivors of domestic viole nce to overcome including
securing permanent and stable housing, coping with trauma, accessing support for health and mental
healthcare, and addressing the needs of children. Domestic violence resources currently available in Salt Lake
County include shelter services, a children’s justice center, survivor’s assistance programs, and sexual assault
programs.
The Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) is Salt Lake City’s primary resource for survivors of domestic
violence seeking out emergency shelter services. Emergency and extended shelter facilities are available twenty -
four hours a day in a 181-bed facility for women and children fleeing unsafe situations. In addition, the YWCA
provides transitional housing for women and dependent children for up to 2 years through a partnership with
the Salt Lake City Housing Authority. Eligibility prioritizes women who have experienced intimate partner
violence within the last year, qualify under the federal definition of homeless, and are eligible for the services
through the Housing Authority. During the 2018-2019 program year, the YWCA provided services for 770
women and children for a total of 37,114 days of service.
The Rape Recovery Center provides 24-hour crisis intervention, advocacy, emotional support, and referrals to
sexual assault victims, their families, and their friends in 150 languages. The center empowers those victimized
by sexual violence through advocacy, crisis intervention, and therapy to educate the community about the
cause, impact, and prevention of sexual violence. During the 2018-2019 program year, the Rape Recovery
Center served about 268 unduplicated clients in the Salt Lake area living below the poverty level. There was a
total of 374 total unduplicated clients served in that same year.
The Journey of Hope is a Salt Lake County based organization which provides services to at -risk women in Salt
Lake City. It provides support to Utah women whose status puts them at -risk for criminal charges and provides
support through mentoring and case man agement. It also provides job training to allow at -risk women to enter
the workforce as educated and productive employees. These services are available to women who are survivors
of abuse, experiencing homelessness, survivors of trafficking, struggling wit h substance abuse or mental illness,
and women who are on parole or probation. The Journey of Hope assisted just over 400 women in the 2018 -
2019 program year.
Persons with Disabilities
Estimates from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey indicate that 21,828 residents, or 10.9% of the
City’s population, is living with a disability. The City’s elderly population is most affected by disability with 37.6%
of residents over the age of 65 experiencing at least one disability. The data also shows that 51.2% th e citizens
of the City who are 75 years old and older are experiencing at least one disability. The most common disability
among the elderly is ambulatory difficulty which is defined by the Census Bureau as “having serious difficulty
walking or climbing stairs.”21
20 Utah Domestic Violence Coalition , UTAH Dom estic Violence Related Deaths in 2018 & 2019.
21 “How Disability Data are Collected from the American Community Survey,” United States Census Bureau, Revised October 17,
2017, Retrieved August 7, 2019, https://www.census.gov/topics/health/disability/guidanc e/data-collection -acs.html
67
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Salt Lake City looks to work collaboratively with partners that provide services for persons with disabilities,
which include but are not limited to, Alliance House, Disability Law Center, Aging Services, ASSIST, and others.
22
WHAT ARE THE MOST CO MMON HOUSING PROBLEMS?
HUD has defined housing problems and severe housing problems as follows:
Housing Problems
o Household lacks complete kitchen facilities
o Household lacks complete plumbing facilities
o Household is overcrowded, with more than one person per room
o Household is cost-burdened by paying 30% or more of monthly income on housing costs
Severe Housing Problems
o Household lacks complete kitchen facilities and/or complete plumbing facilities, in addition to
one of the following:
Household is severely overcrowded, with more than 1.5 persons per room
Household is severely cost-burdened by paying 50% or more of monthly income on
housing costs
All rental properties in Salt Lake City require a business license. Landlords are required to maintain minimum
standard condition of housing, as per Salt Lake City’s Existing Residential Code. The purpose of the Residential
Housing Code is to provide for the health, safety, comfort, con venience, and aesthetics of the City.
The most common housing problem in Salt Lak e City is cost-burden of monthly housing costs. Cost burden is a
problem among all income groups but is most prevalent among low -income renters.
According to the 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 45% of renters are cost-burdened,
spending at least 30% of their monthly income on housing costs. Among homeowners, 25.5% of owners with a
mortgage and 10% of owners without a mortgage were cost -burdened.
FIGURE NA-10.10
PERCENT OF INCOME SPENT ON HOUSING BY TENURE
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates
13%
41%
23%
22%
26%
48%
18%
8%
72%
18%
5%
5%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
Less than 15%
15 to 29.9%
30 to 49.9%
50% or more
Renters Owners with a Mortgage Owners without a Mortgage
68
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
ARE ANY POPULATIONS/HOUSEHOLD TYPES MORE AFFECTED THAN OTHERS BY THESE
PROBLEMS?
Housing problems, including cost-burden, are more likely to affect households earning 0 to 50% of the area
median income (AMI). Households within this income range struggle to find safe, decent, and affordable
housing and often spend a high proportion of their income on housing. These households have limited
resources for other basic essentials, including food, healthcare, childcare, and transpo rtation. Housing problems
also significantly impact households in the 50 to 80% AMI income groups, elderly households, and single -
parent households. The high rate of housing cost -burden and other housing problems points to the need to
expand affordable housing opportunities throughout Salt Lake City.
Healthcare costs have been rising and are projected to do so in the near term.23 This can add significantly to the
burden of rising housing costs and reduce a household’s ability to save for retirement, obtain additional
education, access good childcare, and even impact such basic needs as good nutrition.
DESCRIBE THE CHARACT ERISTICS AND NEEDS O F LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES
WITH CHILDREN (ESPECIALLY EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME) WHO ARE CURRENTLY HOUSED
BUT THREATENED WITH HOMELESSNESS. ALSO DISCUSS THE NEEDS OF FORMERL Y
HOMELESS FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE RECEIVING RAPID RE-HOUSING
ASSISTANCE AND ARE NEARING THE TERMINATION OF THAT ASSISTANCE.
In Salt Lake County, the largest group experiencing homelessness is adult-only households. The number of
households with both adults and children experiencing homelessness in 2018 decreased by about 36% between
2014 and 2019. The number of unaccompanied youths experiencing homelessness decreased by about 85%
over the same time period.24
Those transitioning out of assistance need continued counseling and often financial support to not revert back
into homelessness. When they can, area service providers try to offer this support.
However, the stakeholder meetings cond ucted as part of this Consolidated Plan revealed that caseloads are too
high and that services are spread too thin due to a lack of funds and a shortage of a highly -skilled workforce.
This results in lack of sufficient support for counseling, job training and guidance, and assistance with
behavioral health issues. It is a critical time period for those transitioning out of assistance and homelessness,
when support services are most essential in order to embark upon, and maintain, self -sufficiency. This Plan
recognizes a critical need in this area and proposes strategies to strengthen support for vulnerable populations
at critical junctures in their lifetimes.
IF A JURISDICTION PROVIDES ESTIMATES OF THE AT-RISK POPULATION(S), IT SHOULD ALSO
INCLUDE A DESCRIPTION OF THE OPERATIONAL DEFINITION OF TH E AT-RISK GROUP AND
THE METHODOLOGY USED TO GENERATE THE ESTIMATES.
According to HUD, at risk of homelessness25 is defined as an individual or family who:
i. Has an annual income below 30% of median family income for the area; AND
23 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
24 2014 and 2019 Salt Lake County Point-in -Time
25 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, At Risk of Homelessness, https://files.
hudexchange.info/resources/documents/AtRiskofHomelessnessDefinition_Criteria.pdf
69
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
ii. Does not have sufficient resources or support networks immediately available to prevent them from
moving to an emergency shelter or another place defined in Category 1 of the “homeless” definition; 26
AND
iii. Meets ONE of the following conditions:
A. Has moved because of economic reasons two or more times during the 60 days immediately
preceding the application for assistance; OR
B. Is living in the home of another because of economic hardship; OR
C. Has been notified that their right to occupy their curr ent housing or living situation will be
terminated within 21 days after the date of application for assistance; OR
D. Lives in a hotel or motel and the cost is not paid for by charitable organizations or by Federal,
State, or local government programs for lo w-income individuals; OR
E. Lives in an SRO or efficiency apartment unit in which there reside more than two persons or
lives in a larger housing unit in which there reside more than one and a half persons per room;
OR
F. Is exiting a publicly funded instituti on or system of care; OR
G. Otherwise lives in housing that has characteristics associated with instability and an increased
risk of homelessness, as identified in the recipient’s approved consolidated plan
SPECIFY PARTICULAR H OUSING CHARACTERISTICS THAT HAVE BEEN LINKED WITH
INSTABILITY AND AN INCREASED RISK OF HOMELESSNESS
The greatest predictor of homelessness risk is severe cost-burden on households. Households paying more
than 50% of their income towards housing costs or having incomes at or below 50% o f AMI are at the greatest
risk to experience homelessness.
DISCUSSION
The most prevalent housing problem is cost -burden – especially for those who make less than 50% of AMI.
While Salt Lake City has seen a significant shift to smaller apartment units (i.e ., less bedrooms), there is still
significant need for all housing types for the severely cost -burdened. Residents who fall into this category are
usually forced to secure housing they cannot afford. Very low -income families burdened with high housing
costs lack resources for basic essentials – most critically food and healthcare. Some residents who fall into this
category are forced to share housing, causing overcrowded housing conditions. The lack of affordable housing
can lead to homelessness for our most vulnerable residents.
The City, through efforts of the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division, the City’s Redevelopment
Agency, and community partners, aim to address housing problems by preserving existing affordable housing,
increasing the supply of affordable housing, and improving substandard housing with a focus in neighborhoods
with concentrated poverty. These efforts will effectively reduce the incidence of overcrowding and cost -burden.
26 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Homeless Definition, http://ctagroup.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/10/Homeless-Definition-and-documentation.pdf
70
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
NA-15 DISPROPORTIONATELY GREATER NEED: HOUSING
PROBLEMS – 91.205 (b)(2)
INTRODUCTION
This section provides an assessment of housing problems (not including severe housing problems which are
discussed in the following section) by race and ethnicity as compared to level of need as a whole. HUD defines
housing problems as the following:
Household lacks complete kitchen facilities
Household lacks complete plumbing facilities
Household is overcrowded, with more than one person per room
Household is cost-burdened by paying 30% or more of monthly income on housin g costs
According to HUD, disproportionately greater need exists when the percentage of persons in a category of
need who are members of a particular racial or ethnic group is at least 10 percentage points higher than the
percentage of persons in the category as a whole.
Tables NA-15.1- NA-15.8 show the number of households with housing problems by income, race, and
ethnicity. Each table provides data for a different income level.
TABLE NA-15.1
HOUSING PROBLEMS: 0%-30% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME
Has one or more of
four housing
problems*
Has none of the four
housing problems
Household has
no/negative income,
but none of the
other housing
problems
Share of household
with one or more of
the four housing
problems
White 5,860 1,580 885 70%
Black/African Americ an 470 10 70 85%
Asian 610 49 295 64%
American Indian, Alaska Native 240 50 - 83%
Pacific Islander 270 - - 100%
Hispanic 2,630 180 310 84%
Total 10,235 1,870 1,700 74%
Source: 2012-2016 CHAS
*The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen f acilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than one person
per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 30%.
While a significant number of households in this income category have one -or more housing problems, this
percentage is fairly consistent with the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan.
TABLE NA-15.2
HOUSING PROBLEMS: 0%-30% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME, 2012 AND 2016
2011 2016
Number of
Households Percentage Number of
Households Percentage
Share of households with one or
more of the four housing problems 9,560 76% 10,235 74%
Source: 2007-2011 CHAS, 2012-2016 CHAS
TABLE NA-15.3
71
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
HOUSING PROBLEMS: 30%-50% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME
Has one or more of
four housing
problems*
Has none of the four
housing problems
Household has
no/negative income,
but none of the
other housing
problems
Share of household
with one or more of
the four housing
problems
White 4,980 2,475 - 67%
Black/African American 335 19 - 95%
Asian 340 190 - 64%
American Indian, Alaska Native 20 30 - 40%
Pacific Islander 135 50 - 73%
Hispanic 2,230 525 - 81%
Total 8,140 3,335 - 71%
Source: 2012-2016 CHAS
*The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities ; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than one person
per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 30%.
TABLE NA-15.4
HOUSING PROBLEMS: 30%-50% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME, 2012 AND 2016
2011 2016
Number of
Households Percentage Number of
Households Percentage
Share of households with one or
more of the four housing problems 6,720 70% 8,140 71%
Source: 2007-2011 CHAS, 2012-2016 CHAS
TABLE NA-15.5
HOUSING PROBLEMS: 50%-80% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME
Has one or more of
four housing
problems*
Has none of the four
housing problems
Household has
no/negative income,
but none of the
other housing
problems
Share of household
with one or more of
the four housing
problems
White 3,245 5,970 - 35%
Black/African American 100 114 - 47%
Asian 160 360 - 31%
American Indian, Alaska Native 130 80 - 62%
Pacific Islander 95 80 - 54%
Hispanic 1,140 1,225 - 48%
Total 4,950 8,045 - 38%
Source: 2012-2016 CHAS
*The four housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than one person
per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 30%.
72
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
TABLE NA-15.6
HOUSING PROBLEMS: 50%-80% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME, 2012 AND 2016
2011 2016
Number of
Households Percentage Number of
Households Percentage
Share of households with one or
more of the four housing problems 5,345 37% 4,950 38%
Source: 2007-2011 CHAS, 2012-2016 CHAS
TABLE NA-15.7
HOUSING PROBLEMS: 80%-100% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME
Has one or more of
four housing
problems*
Has none of the four
housing problems
Household has
no/negative income,
but none of the
other housing
problems
Share of household
with one or more of
the four housing
problems
White 865 4,515 - 16%
Black/African American 10 110 - 8%
Asian 34 145 - 19%
American Indian, Alaska Native - 20 - 0%
Pacific Islander 60 60 - 50%
Hispanic 415 785 - 35%
Total 1,405 5,710 - 20%
Source: 2012-2016 CHAS
*The four housing pro blems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than one person
per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 30%.
TABLE NA-15.8
HOUSING PROBLEMS: 80%-100% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME, 2011 AND 2016
2011 2016
Number of
Households Percentage Number of
Households Percentage
Share of households with one or
more of the four housing problems 2,095 24% 1,405 20%
Source: 2007-2011 CHAS, 2012-2016 CHAS
DISCUSSION
The 2012-2016 CHAS data shown in Tables NA 15.1 to NA 15.8 were conducted with a sample size of 45,390
households to analyze housing problems. Out of the total sample 24,730 households or 54.5% had one or more
of the four housing problems. An additional 1,700 households or 3.7% showed no/negative income but none of
the other housing problems were exhibited. Below is a summary of the analysis of housing problems by income
level for each of the income level groups. Note that the sample size for certain ethnic groups is extremely small,
thereby producing unreliable results.
0-30% AMI: The 0-30% AMI group included 13,805 households with extremely low -income. This group
made up 30.4% of the total households sampled. Of all households in this income group that had one
or more of the housing problems, Pacific Islanders s howed the highest disproportionate need with
100% reporting at least one housing problem.
73
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
30-50% AMI: The 30-50% AMI group included 11,475 households with low -income. This group made
up 25.3% of the total households sampled. Of all households in this inc ome group that had one or
more of the housing problems, Black/African American households showed the highest
disproportionate need with 95% reporting at least one housing problem and the Hispanic households
also showed a high disproportionate need with 81% reporting at least one housing problem.
50-80% AMI: The 50-80% AMI group included 12,995 households with moderate income. This group
made up 28.6% of the total households sampled. Of all households in this income group that had one
or more of the housing problems, American Indian/Alaska Native households showed the highest
disproportionate need with 62% reporting at least one housing problem.
80-100% AMI: The 80-100% AMI group included 7,115 households with middle income. This group
made up 15.7% of the total households sampled. Of all households in this income group that had one
or more of the housing problems, Pacific Islander households showed the highest disproportionate
need with 50% reporting at least one housing problem.
NA-20 DISPROPORTIONATELY GREATER NEED: SEVERE
HOUSING PROBLEMS – 91.205 (b)(2)
INTRODUCTION
This section provides an assessment of severe housing problems by race and ethnicity as compared to level of
need as a whole. HUD defines severe housing problems as a household that lacks co mplete kitchen facilities,
lacks complete plumbing facilities, in addition to one of the following:
Household is severely overcrowded, with more than 1.5 persons per room
Household is severely cost-burdened by paying 50% or more of monthly income on housing costs
Tables NA-20.1 – 20.4 display the number of households with severe housing problems by income, race and
ethnicity. Each table provides data for a different income level.
TABLE NA-20.1
SEVERE HOUSING PROBLEMS: 0%-30% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME
Has one or more of
four housing
problems*
Has none of the four
housing problems
Household has
no/negative income,
but none of the
other housing
problems
Share of household
with one or more of
the four housing
problems
White 4,565 2,870 885 55%
Black/African American 405 75 70 74%
Asian 545 115 295 57%
American Indian, Alaska Native 160 130 - 55%
Pacific Islander 265 4 - 99%
Hispanic 2,160 650 310 69%
Total 8,260 3,845 1,700 60%
Source: 2012-2016 CHAS
*The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than 1.5
persons per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 50%
74
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
TABLE NA-20.2
SEVERE HOUSING PROBLEMS: 30%-50% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME
Has one or more of
four housing
problems*
Has none of the four
housing problems
Household has
no/negative income,
but none of the
other housing
problems
Share of household
with one or more of
the four housing
problems
White 1,755 5,705 - 24%
Black/African American 195 160 - 55%
Asian 165 365 - 31%
American Indian, Alaska Native - 50 - 0%
Pacific Islander 35 150 - 19%
Hispanic 940 1,815 - 34%
Total 3,120 8,360 - 27%
Source: 2012-2016 CHAS
*The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than 1.5
persons per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 50%
TABLE NA-20.3
SEVERE HOUSING PROBLEMS: 50%-80% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME
Has one or more of
four housing
problems*
Has none of the four
housing problems
Household has
no/negative income,
but none of the
other housing
problems
Share of household
with one or more of
the four housing
problems
White 715 8,500 - 8%
Black/African American 14 200 - 7%
Asian 50 470 - 10%
American Indian, Alaska Native 60 155 - 28%
Pacific Islander 55 120 - 31%
Hispanic 455 1,915 - 19%
Total 1,350 11,640 - 10%
Source: 2012-2016 CHAS
*The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than 1.5
persons per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 50%
TABLE NA-20.4
SEVERE HOUSING PROBLEMS: 80%-100% OF AREA MEDIAN INCOME
Has one or more of
four housing
problems*
Has none of the four
housing problems
Household has
no/negative income,
but none of the
other housing
problems
Share of h ousehold
with one or more of
the four housing
problems
White 200 5,185 - 4%
Black/African American 10 110 - 8%
Asian 15 165 - 8%
American Indian, Alaska Native - 20 - 0%
Pacific Islander 60 60 - 50%
Hispanic 180 1,020 - 15%
Total 465 6,655 - 7%
Sou rce: 2012-2016 CHAS
*The four severe housing problems are: 1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3. More than 1.5
persons per room ; and 4. Cost burden greater than 50%
75
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
DISCUSSION
The 2012-2016 CHAS data shown in Table s NA 20.1 to NA 20.4 were conducted with a sample size of 45,395
households to analyze severe housing needs. Out of the total sample 13,195 households or 29.1% had one or
more of the four severe housing problems. An additional 1,700 households or 3.7% showed no/negative
income but none of the other housing problems were exhibited. Below is a summary of the analysis of housing
problems by income level for each of the income level groups. Note that the sample size for certain ethnic
groups is extremely small, thereby producing unreliable results.
0-30% AMI: The 0-30% AMI group included 13,805 households with extremely low -income. This group
made up 30.4% of the total households sampled. Of all households in this income group that had one
or more of the housing problems, Pacific Islanders showed the highest disproportionate need with 99%
reporting at least one severe housing problem.
30-50% AMI: The 30-50% AMI group included 11,480 households with low -income. This group made
up 25.3% of the total households sampled. Of all households in this income group that had one or
more of the housing problems, Hispanic households showed the highest disproportionate need with
55% reporting at least one severe housing problem.
50-80% AMI: The 50-80% AMI group included 12,990 households with moderate income. This group
made up 28.6% of the total households sampled. Of all households in this income group that had one
or more of the housing problems, Pacific Islander households showed the highest disproportionate
need with 31% reporting at least one severe housing problem.
80-100% AMI: The 80-100% AMI group included 7,120 households with middle income. This group
made up 15.7% of the total households sampled. Of all households in this income group that had one
or more of the housing problems, Pacific Islander households showed the highest disproportionate
need with 50% reporting at least one housing problem.
NA-25 DISPROPORTIONATELY GREATER NEED: HOUSING
COST BURDENS – 91.205(b)(2)
INTRODUCTION
This section provides an assessment of housing cost burdens by race and ethnicity as compared to level of
need as a whole.
According to HUD, disproportionately greater need exists when the percentage of persons in a category of
need who are members of a particular racial or ethnic grou p is at least 10 percentage points higher than the
percentage of persons in category as a whole.
Table 25.1 shows the number of cost-burdened households by race and ethnicity. Data is broken down by no
cost-burden (less than 30%), cost-burden (30-50%), severe cost-burden (50% or more) and no/negative income.
76
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
TABLE NA-25.1
HOUSING COST-BURDEN BY RACE AND ETHNICITY
0 - 30% 30% - 50% >50% No/Negative
Income (Not
Computed) Number Share of Total Number Share of Total Number Share of Total
White 39,765 71% 8,745 16% 6,665 12% 930
Black/African
American 545 36% 300 20% 590 39% 70
Asian 2,120 59% 480 13% 680 19% 300
American Indian,
Alaska Native 355 52% 170 25% 160 23% -
Pacific Islander 430 49% 200 23% 245 28% -
Hispanic 5,490 48% 3,160 27% 2,545 22% 310
Total 49,360 65% 13,290 18% 11,045 15% 1,750
Source: 2012-2016 CHAS
DISCUSSION
Similar to the 2015-2019 Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan, cost-burden continues to be the most prevalent
housing problem in Salt Lake City. Of the 75,445 household s included in the sample, 32.26% of all households
are shown as being cost-burdened. Black/African American, Pacific Islander, and Hispanic households all have a
higher prevalence of cost-burden with over 50% of all households that report spending 30% or m ore on
housing costs. Renter-occupied households also show a significant cost -burden with 39.5% of all renter
occupied units reportedly are cost-burdened.
NA-30 DISPROPORTIONATELY GREATER NEED: DISCUSSION –
91.205 (b)(2)
ARE THERE ANY INCOME CATEGORIES IN WHICH A RACIAL OR ET HNIC GROUP HAS
DISPROPORTIONATELY GREATER NEED THAN THE NEEDS OF THAT INCOME CATEGORY AS A
WHOLE?
Based on 2012-2016 CHAS data, the following racial and ethnic groups experience disproportionately greater
housing needs:
Black/African American
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Hispanic/Latino
Salt Lake City has evaluated disproportionate needs across racial and ethnic populations and household
compositions. In general, low -income households, which are disp roportionately comprised of racial and ethnic
minorities, are more likely to experience housing needs. Figure NA-30.1 demonstrates the variation in per
capita income across racial and ethnic groups in Salt Lake City.
77
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
FIGURE NA-30.1
PER CAPITA INCOME BY RACE AND ETHNICITY
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates
Census data indicates that 13.9% of the City’s White, non-Hispanic population is living below the poverty level,
while 28.1% of Hispanics and 32.7% of Black/African American populations are living below the poverty level.
Racial and ethnic children are more likely to live in poverty than their White , non-Hispanic counterparts, as
many of the City’s racial and ethnic minorities are children. The median age of the City’s White, non-Hispanic
population is 35.2 while the median age of the Hispanic population is 26.3.27
IF THEY HAVE NEEDS NOT IDENTIFIED ABOVE, WHAT ARE THOSE NEEDS?
Considerable efforts are needed to improve housing opportunity to address the needs of minorities, wi th focus
on minorities living in concentrated areas of poverty. Minorities face housing impediments on several fronts,
including few rental opportunities for large families, a high risk of predatory lending practices, and a high risk
for housing discrimination. Gaps in access to housing opportunity and economic opportunity are likely to widen
as the City’s demographics continue to shift. Therefore, Salt Lake City is taking a comprehensive approach to
improve housing opportunity and is in the process of developing and implementing a multifaceted strategy to
address needs.
The City is collaborating with Salt Lake County, local municipalities and community partners to define and
address regional issues and priorities. Through outreach, partnership building, wo rkforce training, early
childhood education, and other efforts, the City will expand capacity within neighborhoods to take a
comprehensive and proactive role in redevelopment efforts. Efforts will focus on two areas: 1) expanding
opportunity in concentrated areas of poverty and RDA project investment areas; and 2) diversifying the housing
stock throughout the City to expand affordable housing opportunities.
ARE ANY OF THOSE RACIAL OR ETHNIC GROUPS LOCATED IN SPECIFIC AREAS OR
NEIGHBORHOODS IN YOUR COMMUNIT Y?
Figure 30.2 demonstrates that the vast majority of the City’s minority population lives west of Interstate 15
with many of the block groups located in west -side neighborhoods having a minority share above 50%. The
City’s overall population growth between 1990 and 2010 can be attributed to minority populations, with
27 U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
$40,992
$17,195
$13,709
$29,621
$15,777
$13,585
$18,339
$16,729
$34,711
$- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000
White Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino
Black or African American Alone
American Indian and Alaska Native Alone
Asian Alone
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander Alone
Other Race Alone
Two or More Races
Hispanic or Latino
Jurisdiction as a Whole
Per Capita Income
78
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
minorities increasing in share from 17.4% in 1990 to 29.4% in 2000 and then to 33.3% in 2010. The rate of
increase in population share has slowed recently, as the minority population only incr eased by 0.8% between
2010 and 2017 to 34.1%. Hispanics/Latinos represent the largest minority group in the City, increasing in share
from 9.7% in 1990 to 22.3% in 2010 and decreasing slightly to 21.3% in 2017.
In comparing the east and west sides of the City, there are significant differences in socioeconomic status with a
gap in opportunity for those generally living on the west side. Both minority renter and minority owner -
occupied households are more concentrated west of I-15. Minority populations are more likely than White,
non-Hispanic to be low-income renter households, as Citywide minority homeownership rates are 11
percentage points lower than rates for White, non -Hispanic residents. However, the minority share of owner-
occupied units is significantly higher west of I-15. A majority of the housing stock affordable to low and
moderate-income residents is located on the west side.
FIGURE NA- 30.2
PERCENT OF B LOCK GROUP POPULATION THAT IS MINORITY, SALT LAKE CITY 2017
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates
79
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
NA-35 PUBLIC HOUSING – 91.205(b)
INTRODUCTION
The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (HASLC) is responsible for managing the public housing inventory,
developing new affordable housing units and administering the Housing Choice voucher programs for the City.
The Authority strives to provide affordable housing opportunities throughout the community by developing
new or rehabilitating existing housing that is safe, decent, and affordable – a place where a person’s income
level or background cannot be identified by the neighborhood in which they live.
In addition to the development and rehabilitation of units, the HASLC also manages several properties
emphasizing safe, decent, and affordable housing that provides an enjoyable living environment that is free
from discrimination, efficient to operate, and remains an asset to the community. The HASLC maintains a strong
financial portfolio to ensure flexibility, sustainability, and continued access to affordable tax credits,
foundations, and grant resources.
As an administrator of the City’s Housing Choice voucher programs, the Housing Choice Voucher Program
provides rental assistance to low -income families (50% of area median income and below). This program
provides rental subsidies to 3,000 low-income families, disabled, elderly, and chronically homeless clients. Other
programs under the Housing Choice umbrella include: Housing Choice Moderate Rehabilitation; Housing
Choice New Construction; Project Based Vouchers; Multifamily Pr oject Based Vouchers; Veterans Affairs
Supportive Housing Vouchers; Housing Opportunities for Persons with HIV/AIDS; and Shelter plus Care
Vouchers. Under these other Housing Choice programs, the HASLC provided rental subsidies to additional
qualified program participants.
TABLE NA-35.1
PUBLIC HOUSING TOTALS IN USE*
Program Type
Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total Project-
based
Tenant-
based
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled
# of units/vouchers in use 99 369 2,536 279 1,704 133 59 361
Source: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City as of December 2019
80
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
TABLE NA-35.2
CHARACTERISTICS OF RESIDENTS
Program Type
Mod-Rehab Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total Project-
based
Tenant-
based
Special Purpose Vouchers
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
# Homeless at admission 18 23 381 190 82 108 1
# of Elderly Program Participants
(>62) 16 285 628 118 454 54 2
# of Disabled Families 71 162 1,286 221 937 123 5
# of Families requesting
accessibility features NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
# of HIV/AIDS program
participants NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
# of DV victims NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Source: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City as of December 2019
TABLE NA-35.3
RACE OF RESIDENTS
Race
Program Type
Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total Project-
based
Tenant-
based
Special Purpose Vouchers
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled
White 78 296 1,571 233 920 119 45 254
Black/African American 16 24 295 17 227 15 5 31
Asian 1 25 57 6 45 0 0 6
American Indian,
Alaska Native 4 4 53 20 22 5 2 4
Pacific Islander 0 4 33 3 29 1 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City as of December 2019
TABLE NA-35.4
ETHNICITY OF RESIDENTS
Ethnicity
Program Type
Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total Project-
based
Tenant-
based
Special Purpose Vouchers
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled
Hispanic 11 59 385 32 218 7 27 101
Not Hispanic 88 310 1,684 247 1,019 126 32 260
Source: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City as of December 2019
81
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
SECTION 504 NEEDS ASSESSMENT: DESCRIBE T HE NEEDS OF PUBLIC HOUSING TENANTS AND
APPLICANTS ON THE WAITING LIST FOR ACCESSIBLE UNITS:
Administratively the Housing Authority makes every effort to comply with Section 504 requirements on a
continual basis. Their self -evaluation resulted in the following summary of measures, administrative actions,
motivations, procedures, or adoption of policies in order to comply.
Placing notices of compliance in the legal section of local newspapers.
Maintaining a general mailing list of organizations concerned with and offering assistance to people
with disabilities.
Providing assistance to people with disabilities in filling ou t forms and applications, obtaining
translators when needed, and having staff available to read or sign if required.
Providing the Equal Housing Opportunity (EHO) statement on housing materials and Equal
Employment Opportunities (EEO) statement on employment applications and job announcements.
Conducting 504 compliance orientations for new employees and ongoing training for all staff.
Maintaining a list of all Reasonable Accommodation requests.
Assigning the Compliance Manager as the official person to coor dinate and deal with 504 issues.
Adopting of grievance procedures by their Board of Commissioners.
WHAT ARE THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF FAMILIES ON THE WAITING LIST FOR PUBLIC
HOUSING AND HOUSING CHOICE (SECTION 8) T ENANT -BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCE?
The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City reports that there are currently 1,865 households on the Housing
Choice waiting list and 5,188 on the Public Housing waiting list. There is a total of 7,053 households on both
lists. Of the households on both lists, 27% are elderly, and 53% have a disability. There are 14% Hispanic, 78%
are White, non-Hispanic, 13% are African American, 3% are American Indian or Alaska Native, 3% are Asian, 3%
are Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 4% are Multi -Racial, and 1% are unknown. The waiting list is
currently not open. An applicant for voucher funding can expect to be on the wait list for approximately 1 to 6
years.
Housing Connect (Salt Lake County Housing Authority) also provided information on the waiting lists for public
housing and Housing Choice TBRA. Within Salt Lake County, there are 15,981 households on the waiting list for
public housing. Of those households, 2% have a disability, 11% are elderly, 22% have children, and 51% are
single. The average annual income is $15,399 and 77% are extremely low -income. The average wait is about 2
years, but it varies depending on bedroom size.
In Salt Lake County, there are 447 households on the waiting list for Housing Choice. Of these households, 93
have a disability, 21 are elderly, 233 are single, and 110 have children. The average annual income is $12,954
and 90% are extremely low -income. The average wait time is 6 years.
It should be noted that within the County’s data, households on the waiting list are required to self -report a
disability and this may have resulted in a lower percentage of disabled households in the data.
82
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
BASED ON THE INFORMATION ABOVE AND ANY O THER INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE
JURISDICTION, WHAT ARE THE MOST IMMEDIAT E NEEDS OF RESIDENTS OF PUBLIC HOUSING
AND HOUSING CHOICE V OUCHER HOLDERS?
Residents need affordable housing in locations that are near public transportation, quality education,
healthcare, and other service providers. Those with the ability to work need services to increase overall self -
sufficiency.
HOW DO THESE NEEDS COMPARE TO THE HOUSING NEEDS OF THE POPUL ATION AT LARGE?
Salt Lake City is experiencing a high demand for multi -family rental units as evidenced by the overall low
vacancy rates in the City. This demand has resulted in an increa se in the number of new market rate units being
constructed throughout the City. The need for quality affordable housing scattered throughout the City has
become greater as the overall demand for rental housing has grown. Because land and development are m ore
expensive on the east side of Salt Lake City, there are fewer naturally occurring affordable housing units on the
east side. This leads to additional subsidy and creating affordable housing financing needing to be deployed for
developments occurring on the east side of the city. Even with significant public investment to subsidize and
stimulate the production of affordable housing, the supply is not meeting demand.
DISCUSSION:
Salt Lake City will continue to work with the Housing Connect and the Housin g Authority of Salt Lake City to
leverage and strategically target resources to address increasing housing needs. The number of households on
waiting lists is significant, especially for the elderly and those with disabilities. Further, the short supply of rental
units and low vacancy rates has exacerbated the need for additional affordable rental housing.
NA-40 HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT – 91.205(c)
INTRODUCTION
Salt Lake City representatives participate in the local Continuum of Cares (COC) executive boar d and its
prioritization committee to ensure the Continuum of Cares priorities are considered during Emergency
Solutions Grant (ESG) allocations. Also, the three local ESG funders meet regularly to coordinate ESG and COC
activities to make sure services are not being over or under funded and services being funded meet the
community’s needs and goals.
The Salt Lake Continuum of Care contracts with the State of Utah to administer HMIS. All service agencies in the
region and the rest of the State are under a uniform data standard for HUD reporting and local ESG funders. All
ESG funded organizations participate in HMIS. Currently, HMIS is supported by Client Track.
Salt Lake Continuum of Care conducts an annual Point -in-Time count at the end of January to coun t sheltered
(emergency shelter and transitional housing) and unsheltered homeless individuals. Unsheltered homeless
individuals are counted by canvassing volunteers. The volunteers use the VI -SPDAT to interview and try to
connect unsheltered homeless indiv iduals into services.
A number of critical reports define not only the issues facing the homeless but likely solutions to these issues.
The most recent report is The State of Utah Strategic Plan on Homelessness September 2019. Priorities of this
Plan include:
Fewer days spent in emergency beds or shelters
Fewer persons returning to homelessness
83
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Fewer first-time individuals who experience homelessness
More persons successfully retaining housing
This study also found that there are service gaps in the foll owing areas:
Affordable housing, permanent supportive housing, and emergency beds
Mental health services and substance abuse disorder treatment
Case management
Prevention, diversion and outreach services
Data systems that capture more of the full story
Available transportation
Essential facts about homelessness in Utah include:
As of January 2018, Utah had an estimated 2,876 experiencing homelessness on any given day, as
reported by Continuums of Care to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developmen t (HUD). Of
that total, 287 were family households, 239 were Veterans, 191 were unaccompanied young adults
(aged 18-24), and 306 were individuals experiencing chronic homelessness.
Per State of Utah Annual Report on homelessness, there were 14,289 persons that experienced
homelessness state wide in 2019. 9,387 were located in Salt Lake County.
Public school data reported to the U.S. Department of Education during the 2016 -2017 school year
shows that an estimated 15,094 public school students experienced hom elessness over the course of
the year. Of that total, 636 students were unsheltered, 994 were in shelters, 459 were in hotels/motels,
and 13,005 were doubled up.
According to the 2019 Point-in-Time Count, Salt Lake County has 1,844 homeless individuals, representing
nearly 66% of homelessness in the State. 193 of these individuals are unsheltered.
.09% of Utah’s population is homeless
29% of our homeless live in family groups of parents and children
Youth between the ages of 18 and 24 comprise 7% of our ho meless population
Domestic violence impacts 22.1% of our homeless population
11% of the homeless population in Utah is experiencing “chronic” homelessness
55% of our homeless population is White
84
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
TABLE NA-40.1
HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Population
Estimate the # of persons
experiencing homelessness on a
given night
Estimate the #
experiencing
homelessness
each year
Estimate the #
of incoming
homeless each
year
Estimate the #
exiting
homelessness
each year
Estimate the #
of days persons
experience
homelessness Unsheltered Sheltered
Persons in Households
with Adult(s) and
Child(ren)
- 526 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Persons in Households
with Only Children - 3 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Persons in Households
with Only Adults 193 1,122 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Chronically Homeless
Individuals 86 281 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Chronically Homeless
Families - 16 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Veterans 12 145 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Unaccompanied Youth 19 95 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Persons with HIV 1 19 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Source: 2019 Salt Lake County Point-in -Time
TABLE NA-40.2
HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMPARISON WITH 2014 AND 2019 - UNSHELTERED
Population 2014 2019
Persons in Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) 5 -
Persons in Households with Only Children - -
Persons in Households with Only Adults 105 193
Chronically Homeless Individuals 25 86
Veterans 15 12
Unaccompanied Youth - 19
Persons with HIV - 1
Source: 2019 Salt Lake County Point-in -Time
TABLE NA-40.3
HOMELESS NEEDS ASSESSMENT COMPARISON WITH 2014 AND 2019 - SHELTERED
Population 2014 2019
Persons in Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) 813 526
Persons in Households with Only Children 2 3
Persons in Households with Only Adults 1,178 1,122
Chronically Homeless Individuals 265 281
Veterans 260 145
Unaccompanied Youth 616 95
Persons with HIV 49 13
Source: 2019 Salt Lake County Point-in -Time
Homelessness has declined significantly since 2014 for unaccompanied youth. The Salt Lake City & Salt Lake
County have made efforts to target this population and these efforts are sh owing positive results.
85
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
TABLE NA-40.4
NATURE AND EXTENT OF HOMELESSNESS
Population Unsheltered Sheltered
Race
White 151 1,198
Black or African American 12 191
Asian 2 35
American Indian or Alaska Native 13 84
Pacific Islander 2 63
Multiple Races 13 80
Ethnicity
Hispanic 34 392
Not Hispanic 159 1,259
Source: 2019 Salt Lake County Point-in -Time
ESTIMATE THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF FAMILIES IN NEED OF HOUSING ASSISTANCE FOR
FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN AND THE FAMILIES OF VETERANS.
Salt Lake County has 150 families (526 individuals) and 157 veterans experiencing homelessness, with no known
veteran families. The primary tool to help these families is rapid re -housing to reduce the time families
experience homelessness to as short as possible. Families traditionally experience homelessness for short
periods of time following cataclysmic events. Continuing the rapid re -housing program, coupled with homeless
prevention efforts, will help families while they experience these catastrophic times.
DESCRIBE THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF HOMELESSNESS BY RACIAL AND ETHNIC GROUP.
The majority of individuals experiencing homelessness are White, non -Hispanic (1,349). The second largest
group is Hispanic (426), followed by Black/African American (203) a nd American Indian/Alaska Native (97). This
is similar to the makeup of Salt Lake City where White, non -Hispanic accounts for 73.7% of the population,
Hispanic (21.3%), Black/African American (2.0%), and American Indian/Alaska Native (1.3%).
DESCRIBE THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF UNSHELTERED AND SHEL TERED HOMELESSNESS
Salt Lake City has 1,651individuals who are sheltered and 193 unsheltered homeless individuals. The Salt Lake
homeless services community does a good job sheltering homeless individuals. However, it must continue to
work to move people out of emergency shelters and transitional housing and into permanent stable housing.
86
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
NA-45 NON-HOMELESS SPECIAL NEE DS ASSESSMENT – 91.205(b,
d)
INTRODUCTION
This section analyzes the needs of non -homeless special populations to include the elderly, persons with
disabilities (including physical, mental, developmental, as well as persons with chronic substance abuse
disorders), persons living with HIV/AIDS, survivors of dating/domestic violence, single -parent households, large
family households, and immigrants.
TABLE NA-45.1
HIV AND HOPWA REPORT: 2013 - 2017
Current HOPWA formula use: 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Cumulative cases of AIDS reported 1,995 2,009 2,037 2,080 2,094
Area incidence of AIDS 34 24 33 32 22
Rate per population 3.2% 2.2% 2.8% 2.7% 1.8%
Current HIV Surveillance data:
Area Prevalence (PLWH per 100,000
population) 168.5 168.6 160.6 162.2 162.6
Number of new HIV cases reported last
year 67 95 74 101 83
Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control HIV Surveillance
TABLE NA-45.2
HIV HOUSING NEEDS
Type of HOPWA Assistance Estimates of Unmet Need
Tenant Based Rental Assistance 57
Short-Term Rent, Mortgage, and Utility 36
Facility Based Housing (Permanent, Short -Term, or Transitional 0
So urce: HOPWA CAPER and HOPWA Beneficiary Verification Worksheet
DESCRIBE THE CHARACT ERISTICS OF SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATION IN YOUR COMMUNITY:
A description of special needs populations in Salt Lake City is as follows:
Elderly
Salt Lake City has continued to be home to a younger populace as compared to the population of the rest of
the United States. The Census Bureau tracks a metric called the “Old -Age Dependency Ratio” which measures
the number of people aged 65 and older to every 100 working age people. In this case, working age is defined
as anyone between the ages of 20 and 64. Table NA-45.3 compares the City’s ratio to those in the county,
state, and national levels and shows that Salt Lake City has a higher share of working age residents compared
to those who are 65 years and older.
87
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
TABLE NA-45.3
2018 OLD-AGE (65+) DEPENDENCY RATIO
Senior Dependency Ratio
Salt Lake City 15.8
Salt Lake County 16.6
Utah 17.7
United States 24.6
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates
Another factor that will need to be considered is the expected growth in the elderly population. The elderly
population has increased by just over 20,000 people between the 2010 Census and the 2014-2018 ACS 5-year
estimates. As shown in Table NA-45.4, the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute currently projects the elderly
population to increase at a substantially greater rate moving forward. They project that the elderly population
will account for 14.5% of Salt Lake County’s population by 2030 with the trend continui ng until almost one in
every five residents will be considered elderly. This expected increase will have large impacts on housing
demand, transportation, healthcare services and other supportive services.
TABLE NA-45.4
2018-2050 POPULATION PROJECTION, SALT LAKE COUNTY SENIOR (65+)
Year Total Population Population 65+ 65+ Share
2018 ACS (most recent) 1,120,805 114,930 10.25%
2030 1,306,414 190,082 14.55%
2050 1,531,282 294,113 19.21%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Demographics and Housing Estimates, Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
88
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
FIGURE NA- 45.1
PERCENT OF B LOCK GROUP RESIDENTS THAT ARE SENIORS, SALT LAKE CITY - 2017
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates
Persons with Disabilities
Estimates from the 2014-2018 American Community Survey indicate that 10.9% of the City’s population is living
with a disability. It is also estimated that 21,828 citizens have a disability. The City’s elderly population is most
affected by disability with 37.6% experiencing at least one disability. The data also shows that 51.2% the citizens
of the City who are 75 years old and older are experiencing at least one disability. The most common disability
among the elderly is ambulatory difficulty which is d efined by the Census Bureau as “having serious difficulty
walking or climbing stairs.”28 A complete breakdown of the percentage of citizens aged 65 years old and older
who are experiencing these disabilities is shown in Figure NA-45.2.
28 “How Disability Data are Collected from the American Community Survey,” United States Census Bureau, Revised October 17,
2017, Retrieved August 7, 2019, https://www.census.gov/topics/health/disability/guidance/data-collection -acs.html
89
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
FIGURE NA-45.2
SALT LAKE CITY DISABILITY PREVALENCE, 65+
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Disability Characteristics
The younger population experiences a much smaller percentage of disability. For residents ranging in age from
18 to 64 years old, only 8.8% of the population has a disability. The most common disability is cognitive
difficulty, which effects 4.4% of this age group. Second is ambulatory difficulty effecting 3.4% and independent
living difficulty effecting 2.7%. Figure NA-45.3 shows the complete list of disabilities and percentages.
FIGURE NA-45.3
SALT LAKE CITY DISABILITY PREVALENCE, 18-64 YEAR-OLDS
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Disability Characteristics
Female-Headed Households with Children
In Salt Lake City, there are 6,743 households headed by single females, with no husband present. Of that group,
3,822 of these households have children under the age of 18 years old present in the home.29 These households
frequently face many unique and sign ificant challenges that other populations do not currently face. According
to the 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Salt Lake City’s family poverty rate is 10.6%,
while the single-mother household poverty rate is 40.7%.
Single female-headed households with children often lack the resources necessary to find adequate childcare
or job training services. This in turn impacts the woman’s ability to provide stable housing and care for her
children. If a mother is able to find work and childc are, the rising cost of childcare further diminishes single
mothers’ paychecks.
29 U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 America Community Survey 5-Year Estimates
7.2%
6.7%
9.0%
14.7%
17.6%
21.9%
0.0%5.0%10.0%15.0%20.0%25.0%
Self-Care Difficulty
Vision Difficulty
Cognitive Difficulty
Independent Living Difficulty
Hearing Difficulty
Ambulatory Difficulty
1.2%
1.4%
1.8%
2.7%
3.4%
4.4%
0.0%0.5%1.0%1.5%2.0%2.5%3.0%3.5%4.0%4.5%5.0%
Self-Care Difficulty
Hearing Difficulty
Vision Difficulty
Independent Living Difficulty
Ambulatory Difficulty
Cognitive Difficulty
90
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
There were 151,580 children in Utah under the age of 6 who needed care in 2019, but there were only 41,092
available slots reported in childcare programs. 30 This means there are at least two additional children in need of
childcare for every child who is currently in a childcare program. In 2016, the National Household Survey
reported that the main reason families had difficulty finding childcare was cost (31%) with the second most
common reason being “lack of open slots” (27%).
Immigrants and Refugees
Salt Lake City’s thriving economy, including strong wage growth, educational opportunities, and availability of
services attracts immigrants from around the world. Since opening in 1994, the International Rescue
Committee’s Salt Lake City branch has resettled over 11,000 individuals from roughly 26 countries, with an
average of about 450 individuals settled each year in the Salt Lake City over the past 5 years. Besides refugee
resettlement, Salt Lake City attracts immigrants for job opportunities, university studies, and family connections.
According to the 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 32,709 (16.7%) of Salt Lake City’s 195,701 residents are
foreign born.
Victims of Dating and Domestic Violence
The Utah Domestic Violence Coalition reported that 36 Utahans lost their lives to domestic violence in 2018 and
has also reported 19 deaths as of the end of June 2019. Of these reported fatalities, 19 of these victims in 2018
and 10 of the reported 2019 fatalities have been Salt Lake County residents. 31
In addition, a total of 1,449 men, women, and children were sheltered in the two Utah domestic violence
shelters located in Salt Lake City. Individuals who entered the domestic violence sh elter system stayed for an
average of 45 days in 2019. There are many barriers for survivors of domestic violence to overcome including
securing permanent and stable housing, coping with trauma, accessing support for health and mental
healthcare, and addressing the needs of children.
Large-Family Households
A large family is defined as having five or more members. According to the Salt Lake City Fair Housing Equity
Assessment, the number of large-family households receiving public assistance in Salt Lake C ity in 2019 totaled
9,991. The vast majority of large-family households receiving public assistance reside on the City’s west side in
zip codes 84104 and 84116, with over 55% of the large-family households receiving public assistance residing
in these zip codes.32
Persons with HIV/AIDS
A report published by the Utah Department of Health indicates that 3,169 persons were living with HIV/AIDS in
the State of Utah in December 2016. For nearly a decade, the number of people newly diagnosed with HIV in
Utah declined steadily until 2011. After Utah experienced a large decrease in the number of cases during 2010,
HIV infections have increased each year. During 2017, 83 people in the metropolitan statistical area were
diagnosed with HIV. The cumulative number of AIDS cases reached 2,094, and the diagnosis rate was 1.8% per
100,000 population.33
Medical and supportive resources for persons with HIV/AIDS are concentrated in Salt Lake City and Salt Lake
County. Therefore, the majority of Utah’s population with HIV/AIDS c omes to Salt Lake City for medical
treatment and services. This places a burden on local resource delivery systems aimed at providing stable
housing, supportive services, and case management for these individuals.
30 ChildCare Aware of America. 2019 State Child Care Facts in the State of: Utah.
31 Utah Domestic Violence Coalition , UTAH Domestic Violence Related Deaths in 2018 & 2019.
32 Utah Department of Workforce Services: Research & Analysis
33 Source: U.S. Centers for Disease Control HIV Surveillance
91
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
WHAT ARE THE HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERV ICE NEEDS OF THESE POPULATIONS AND
HOW ARE THESE NEEDS DETERMINED?
The housing and supportive service needs of special populations was determined through focus groups with
public service stakeholders, an evaluation of data derived from organizations who wo rk with these populations,
and other local and national data sources. Needs are as follows:
Elderly
The housing and supportive service needs of Salt Lake City’s elderly population will increase as the baby
boomer generation continues to age. Elderly resid ents have a greater need for housing maintenance and
rehabilitation assistance than the population as a whole. The areas of the City where elderly populations are
concentrated, the East Bench and upper Avenues neighborhoods, contain an older and mostly sin gle-family
housing stock. There is a need to retrofit, update, and provide accessibility modifications for housing units
occupied by elderly residents to allow them the opportunity to age in place. In addition to housing assistance,
elderly populations are in need of in-home medical care, food services, and transportation services.
Persons with Disabilities
Affordable, stable, long-term housing is the most critical need for persons with mental, physical, and/or
development disabilities, as well as persons suffering from addiction. Persons with mental, physical,
developmental, and substance abuse disabilities are more likely to experience housing instability and
homelessness than the population as a whole. According to the State of Utah’s 2019 Strategic Plan on
Homelessness, which quotes from the 2018 Point -in-Time Count (PIT), one in three individuals experiencing
homelessness in Utah is severely mentally ill, and one in four have a substance abuse disorder. Additionally,
individuals who experience homelessn ess are less likely to access healthcare systems and to suffer from
preventable diseases.
A large portion of the City’s disabled population deals with ambulatory difficulties. Approximately 44.8% of
residents reporting a disability indicate that at least one of their disabilities is ambulatory. Just under one in
every 20 residents in Salt Lake City has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.34 Accommodations for those
experiencing these difficulties will necessitate more accessible units with easier access to buildings.
Female-Headed Households with Children
More long-term stable housing is needed to address the needs of low -income female-headed households with
children, as well as job training, employment placement services, and childcare opportuni ties
There were 151,580 children in Utah under the age of 6 who needed care in 2019, but there were only 41,092
available slots reported in childcare programs.35 This means there are at least two additional children in need of
childcare for every child who is currently in a childcare program. In 2016, the National Household Survey
reported that the main reason families across the nation had difficulty finding childcare was cost (31%) with the
second most common reason being “lack of open slots” (27%). This, combined with the State’s childcare
discrepancy, indicates that there is an increased need for more affordable and available childcare services to
allow female-headed households to provide for their children.
Immigrants and Refugees
Immigrants and refugees come with many needs, including affordable housing, cultural orientation services,
healthcare, legal assistance, and transportation. There are many barriers to affordable housing for this group,
including language, lack of credit history, and lack of in come/employment history. As such, immigrants and
refugees are at high risk for homelessness and housing discrimination.
34 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates
35 ChildCare Aware of America. 2019 State Child Care Facts in the State of: Utah.
92
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Services needed for immigrants and refugees include a path to self -sufficiency. Such services may include
language training, employment assistance, and assistance with locating housing and transportation.
Resettlement programs, currently provided through the Refugee and Immigration Center - Asian Association of
Utah, Catholic Community Services and International Rescue Committee take a co mprehensive approach to the
long-term outcomes of resettlement.
Survivors of Dating/Domestic Violence
Because survivors of domestic violence often reside with their abuser, they are at high risk for homelessness.
Many survivors resist leaving abusive situ ations because they do not have the income, training, or resources to
acquire their own housing. Emergency and transitional housing is especially important to this group in order to
provide them with a place to escape the cycle of abuse while they work to attain self-sufficiency. In addition,
many survivors are in need of supportive services to address physical and mental trauma.
Large-Family Households
The City has seen a decrease in housing stock for large families. In 2013, 8.4% of all rentals had 4 or more
bedrooms; this number declined to 6.7% by 2018. The percentage of 2-3 bedroom rental units increased
indicating that smaller housing units are being built.
Persons with HIV/AIDS
Achieving housing stability is often difficult for persons with HIV/AIDS because of problems with substance
abuse and physical or mental health issues. These challenges can also make it difficult for these persons to
obtain and maintain employment that provides a stable source of income for housing.
Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division is committed to ensuring HOPWA project
sponsors work together in a coordinated, collaborative, and flexible manner to effectively serve HOPWA
program participants. This includes supporting efforts for HOPWA -assisted households to access and maintain
housing, medical treatment, and sources of income. Project sponsors network with each other to alleviate
identified barriers and promote an environment that ensures HOPWA clients are in treatment and have access
to safe, decent, and affordable housing. Clients with mental and substance abuse disorders can receive case
management services through Utah AIDS Foundation to obtain further access to services.
DISCUSS THE SIZE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF T HE POPULATION WITH HIV/AIDS AND THEIR
FAMILIES WITHIN THE ELIGIBLE METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREA:
Utah has seen a declining rate of individuals diagnosed with HIV who have ever been classified as stage 3
(AIDS). In 2012, there were 3.9 new cases of HIV/AIDS per 100,000 population accor ding to the U.S. Centers for
Disease Control HIV Surveillance. According to this same source, in 2017 the rate was 1.8 per 100,000
population. In 2012, 110 individuals were diagnosed with HIV, according to the Utah Department of Health.36 In
2017, 83 new HIV cases were reported.37
Although Utah has seen slightly declining rates in new cases of HIV, there is significant racial disparity in the
prevalence of new HIV cases. In 2015, 26.7% of new HIV cases were for Hispanic or Latino individuals who only
account for 13.7% of the population in Utah.
FIGURE NA-45.4
36 Utah Department of Health, Utah HIV Fact Sheet, 2013.
37 United States Centers for Diseases Control, HIV Surveillance Report 2017
93
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
ESTIMATED ADULTS AND ADOLESCENTS DIAGNOSED WITH HIV BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, UTAH 2015
Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Utah – 2015 State Health Profiles
https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/stateprofiles/pdf/Utah_profile.pdf
FIGURE NA-45.5
PERCENT OF NEW CASES WITH AIDS AT HIV DIAGNOSIS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, UTAH 2017
Source: Utah Department of Health, Utah HI V Factsheethttp://health.utah.gov/epi/diseases/hivaids/surveillance/HIV_2017_report.pdf
The number of individuals newly diagnosed with HIV already progressed to AIDS at the time of diagnosis was
significantly skewed to Hispanic and Asian individuals, as d emonstrated in Table NA 45.5. It should be noted
that there were only 6 total new HIV diagnoses of Asian individuals in 2017, so 50% indicates 3 individuals were
also diagnosed at Stage 3 (AIDS) at their initial diagnosis. Meanwhile, there were 38 individu als of Hispanic
ethnicity who were diagnosed with HIV in 2017 and 9 of those individuals were also diagnosed with Stage 3
(AIDS).
24%
0%
50%
8%
0%
11%
0%
0%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
Hispanic
American Indian/ Alaska Native
Asian
Black
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
White
Multi-Race
Unknown
White, 58.6%
Hispanic/Latino, 26.7%
Black/African American, 6.9%
Asian, 6%
American Indian/Alaska Native, 1.7%
94
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
NA-50 NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY DE VELOPMENT NEEDS –
91.215(f)
DESCRIBE THE JURISDICTION’S NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES:
Police and Fire
Because of significant contributions to police and fire infrastructure during the past decade, public safety is not
currently considered a top priority community development need. During that time period, Salt Lake City
constructed a $125 million Public Safety Building which is shared with the City’s Fire Department and which is
meeting the need for future growth -related police officers. Public safety also receives impact fees which will
help to offset any future capital facility needs associ ated with new growth in the City.
HOW WERE THESE NEEDS DETERMINED?
As part of the Consolidated Plan process, an Interdepartmental Technical Advisory Group (ITAG) met three
times to discuss needs from the perspective of various department within the City.
DESCRIBE THE JURISDICTION’S NEED FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS:
Parks and Public Lands
In order to maintain the current level of service, Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division plans to invest
approximately $38.7 million between 2017 and 2027. These co sts should be offset by impact fees related to
new growth.
The Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division participated in developing an Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP)
that identifies the capital facilities the City will need to build within the nex t ten years (2012-2021) to continue
the current level of service and accommodate the service needs of projected growth.
Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division currently owns 2,378 park acres with an estimated land value of
$210,134,805 and improvements value of $96,351,475. These assets are used to provide the current level of
service which equates to an investment of $1,594 per capita.
Transportation
In order to maintain the current level of service Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divi sions plan to invest
approximately $303,200,600 in capital facilities over the next ten years, $41,805,960 of which is growth related,
and therefore eligible to be paid for with impact fees. The remaining amount is the result of correcting an
existing deficiency in available space and investing in improved service levels, and therefore is not impact fee
eligible. The remaining amount must be funded with revenue sources other than impact fees. The City has
issued an $87 million bond to pay for street improvements.
HOW WERE THESE NEEDS DETERMINED?
As part of the Consolidated Plan process, an Interdepartmental Technical Advisory Group (ITAG) met three
times to discuss needs from the perspective of various department within the City.
The Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions participated in the development of an Impact Fee
Facilities Plan (IFFP) in 2016, reflecting growth from 2017 to 2027, and that identified the capital facilities the
City will need to build within the 10-year timeframe to continue the current level of service and accommodate
the service needs of projected growth.
95
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
The bulk of the transportation improvements will be paid for with an $87 million bond issued by Salt Lake City,
supplemented by impact fees. Therefore, street improvements are not considered to be a top priority of this
Plan.
DESCRIBE THE JURISDICTION’S NEED FOR PUBLIC SERVICES:
The major need for public services is for affordable housing and for homeless services. Related to these two
overarching needs are transportation needs for low -income households, economic opportunities such as job
training to increase self -sufficiency and supportive services for individuals with disabilities and behavioral health
challenges. A summary of needs for the homeless and non -homeless populations is as follows:
Homeless Public Service Needs
More mental health treatment services, including case management where current caseloads are
considerably too high
Supportive housing for the mentally ill
Job training
Permanent supportive service s, co -located with other supportive services
Tenant-based rental assistance
Homelessness prevention services
Access to transportation services (for job seeking, medical visits, etc.)
Life skills training
Substance abuse and opioids counseling
Non-Homeless Public Service Needs
Housing
Expand housing opportunities in high opportunity areas
Encourage a diversity of housing product in neighborhoods to allow for lifecycle housing
Preserve affordable housing stock
Development of affordable housing units near tr ansit stations
Supportive housing for people with HIV and AIDS
Transportation
Access to childcare near transportation hubs and employment centers
Transit passes at low or no cost
Bus stop improvements, especially suited for inclement weather, and focused on transit hubs
Sidewalk improvements and ADA improvements to increase mobility
Partner with UTA and other entities to improve transit access and enhancements in target areas
Economic Development
Support employment centers in target areas where connectio ns to transit, transportation corridors,
and access to services can minimize transportation costs, influence affordability, improve air quality,
and create vibrant, sustainable neighborhoods
Micro loans
Job training
Façade improvements for small business
Health, Elderly and Disabilities
Need for supportive services for seniors and persons with disabilities
Improve accessibility of existing housing stock for persons with disabilities
Improved transit opportunities for people in wheelchairs including ADA -accessible wheelchairs
Review signal timing at intersections to ensure adequate time for seniors or those with disabilities
96
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
More mental health treatment services, including case management where current caseloads are
considerably too high
Opioids, substance abuse assistance
Mental health assistance
Dental and medical assistance
Supportive services for persons with HIV and AIDS
Senior assistance with supportive services, including transportation
Parks and Public Lands
Improve pub lic safety in existing parks
Park and green space enhancements
Management
Coordination with State programs to not overlap or fund the same thing
Asset mapping of all existing programs, agencies, funding sources, etc.
Review Good Landlord and other obstacles to obtaining housing (i.e., credit history, felonies, etc.)
Use innovative technologies such as Apps to better align supply and demand for housing
HOW WERE THESE NEEDS DETERMINED?
Salt Lake City’s homeless needs are determined through evaluation of the annual Point -in-Time Study as well as
the recently released State Strategic Plan on Homelessness. In addition, the public participation portion of this
process featured a series of three meetings with stakeholder agencies, including Shelter the Homeless,
Volunteers of America-Utah, Salt Lake Valley Habitat for Humanity, and Housing Connect formerly known as
the Salt Lake County Housing Authority. This process was a critical factor in determining homeless needs.
Finally, a survey was prepared which received over 4,000 responses. The s urvey results indicated that homeless
and affordable housing issues should be the top priority for the City.
The non-homeless public service needs of Salt Lake City’s low to moderate -income residents and special
populations were determined through a Stakeholder Advisory Committee that included representatives from a
broad view of public service providers (discussed in more detail in the Citizen Participation section of this Plan),
as well as a review of local and national data.
97
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
HOUSING MARKET ANALYSIS
The Market Analysis provides a clear picture of the environment in which Salt Lake City will administer its
federal grant programs over the course of the Consolidated Plan. In conjunction with the Needs Assessment,
the Market Analysis provides the basis for the Strategic Plan and the programs and projects to be administered.
98
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
MA-05 OVERVIEW
Salt Lake City has transitioned over the years to become one of the most diverse, sustainable, and innovative
econom ies in the nation. With unsurpassed outdoor recreation opportunities, internationally acclaimed
technology and research facilities, well -respected and competitive higher education institutions, industry -
leading healthcare facilities, a modern light rail an d streetcar transit system, an expanding international airport,
a growing population, an educated workforce, a multilingual population and diverse cultural opportunities, the
City is attracting nationally -recognized businesses. This provides an opportunity to build strong neighborhoods
with vibrant businesses, along with diverse housing opportunities.
However, with this strong economy, housing prices have increased faster than household incomes, making it
more and more difficult for low -income families to find affordable housing. Between 2000 and 2018, rental
rates have increased by 81.8%; rental rates have continued to rise to historically high rates, with a 32% increase
between 2010 and 2018. Decreases in rental affordability, combined with extremely low vacancy rates, have
created a very tight rental market, leading to increased difficulty for low -income households to obtain
affordable housing.
Individuals displaced from housing will have a more difficult time, given market conditions, of finding suitab le
substitute housing. There is a need for preservation of existing housing stock and strategies to combat
displacement in housing for vulnerable populations. Such strategies will benefit low -income populations and
stabilize neighborhoods.
Some key points of the market analysis include:
Housing Market Conditions
Between 2000 and 2018 the cost of housing significantly increased for both renters and homeowners.
The median rental rates increased by 81.8% and home values increased by 89.8%. During the same
time period, the median household income only increased by 52.6%. Since incomes did not keep up
with increases in housing costs, it has become more difficult for residents to buy a home as evidenced
by a declining homeownership rate (from 56.9% in 2000 to 48.4% in 2018).38
An analysis of Salt Lake City’s homebuyer market demonstrates a reasonable range of low -income
households will continue to qualify for mortgage financing assistance:
US Census data, Salt Lake City, 2000-2018:
o The median home values increased 89.8%, from $152,400 to $289,200
o The median household income increased by 52.6%, from $36,944 in 2000 to $56,370
HUD, HOME Income Guidelines for 2020, Salt Lake County, 80% AMI for a family of 4: $70,300
US Census data, Salt Lake City, 2014-2018:
o The number of households earning $50,000 - $74,999: 13,991 households, 17.9% of
total population
o The average monthly owner costs with a mortgage, $1,534
UtahRealEstate.com, May 2020, number of Salt Lake City listings between $100,000 -$299,999:
554
Salt Lake County rental rates are at an all-time high, showing a 51% increase between 2010 and 2018.
38 U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates
99
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
In 2018, the apartment vacancy rate in Salt Lake City was the lowest rate in Salt Lake County at 2.7%
and the Downtown area had an even lower rate at 1.6%.39 A tight rental market and rising rents create
a barrier for households in need of affordable housing.
An analysis of housing gaps has determined that Salt Lake City has a shortage of 6,177 rental units
affordable to renters earning less than $20,000 per year. Th is is down from a shortage of 8,240 rental
units in 2013.
Specifically, shortages occur for affordable rental housing for extremely and very low -income
households making less than 50% AMI; affordable and accessible housing for persons with disabilities;
affordable rental housing for large families; and permanent supportive housing for vulnerable
populations such as individuals who are chronically homeless, mentally disabled, or physically disabled.
Barriers to Affordable Housing
Poor housing conditions c an also be a barrier to suitable, affordable housing. HUD defines poor
housing conditions as overcrowding, cost -burdened, a lack of complete plumbing, or kitchen facilities.
Based on this definition, about 44.8 % of renters and 20.8% of owners live in a un it with at least one
condition. 2012-2016 CHAS data also indicates that there are 570 housing units, vacant and occupied,
that lack a complete kitchen or plumbing facilities.
Barriers to affordable housing development include both market and regulatory f actors. These include
land costs, construction costs, financing resources, foreclosures, neighborhood market conditions,
economic conditions, land use regulations, development assessments, permit processing procedures, a
lack of zoning incentives and landl ord-tenant policies.
A contrast of mortgage denials and approvals exists between racial and ethnic populations in Salt Lake
County. The mortgage application denial rate for Hispanics (20%) in Salt Lake City is significantly higher
than that of non-Hispanics (13%).40
Transportation costs can be a barrier to affordable housing, especially if transportation costs are
significant due to distances traveled and time spent during the commute. Nearly half of workers living
in the City travel 15 to 29 minutes for work.
Housing Services
The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City currently manages 30 properties including Housing Choice
Vouchers, Project Based Vouchers, Mod Rehab Vouchers and programs for Veterans, homeless,
disabled, and elderly persons. These properties offer over 1,600 units of varying sizes.
A variety of facilities and services are offered to homeless individuals and families, including emergency
shelters, transitional housing, safe havens, permanent supportive housing, tenant based rental
assistance, outreach and engagement, housing placement, general medical, employment, substance
abuse, behavioral health, legal aid, veteran services, public assistance, family crisis, hygiene, and other
miscellaneous services. These services are provided by govern ment agencies, faith -based
organizations, service-oriented groups, housing authorities, health service organizations, and others.
39 Cushman Wakefield, Apartment Market Report: Greater Salt Lake Area, 2018
40 Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
100
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
In addition to supporting housing and homeless services with federal funding, Salt Lake City
Corporation spent $2,554,000 on Homelessness Related Services in fiscal year 2018-19. The funding
came from General Fund resources and highlights the City’s commitment to providing support for our
most vulnerable citizens.
Salt Lake City’s housing and supportive service network addresses the needs of the elderly, persons
with disabilities, persons with substance addictions, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, and
public housing residents through a variety of efforts that are designed to be coordinated a case
manager and referral format to link residents to services and support opportunities.
MA-10 NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS – 91.120(a)&(b)(2)
INTRODUCTION
The Census Bureau estimates in the 2014-2018 American Community Survey that there are 84,784 housing
units in the City with 92.3% reportedly occupied; 48.4% of those units are owner-occupied. The number of
housing units has increased by 4,060 units from the 80,724 units reported in the 2010 U.S. Census. This is an
increase of 5%, which is much higher than the national increase of 3.6% in that same period. Salt Lake City is
the most populated city in the County and comprises 21.7% of the County’s housing stock.
Table MA-10.1 shows a breakdown of the housing inventory located within the City. 1-unit detached structures
are the largest property type, accounting for almost half the housing units in Salt Lake City. However, multi -
family housing complexes of 20 or more units saw the largest growth since 2013 in terms of percentage and
now represents approximately 22% of the properties by ho using type.
TABLE MA-10.1
ALL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES BY NUMBER OF UNITS
Property Type 2018 Units % of Total Units
1-unit Detached Structure 40,112 47.3%
1-unit, Attached Structure 2,741 3.2%
2-4 Units 11,785 13.9%
5-19 Units 10,245 12.1%
20 or More Units 19,052 22.5%
Mobile Home, Boat, RV, Van. Etc. 849 1.0%
Total 84,784 100.00%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Selected Housing Characteristics
TABLE MA-10.2
ALL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES BY NUMBER OF UNITS 2018
Unit Size by Tenure Owners Renters
Number Percentage Number Percentage
No Bedroom 359 0.9% 3,111 7.7%
1 Bedroom 1,833 4.8% 14,370 35.6%
2 or 3 Bedrooms 21,579 57.0% 20,177 50.0%
4 or More Bedrooms 14,098 37.2% 2,702 6.7%
Total 37,869 100.00% 40,360 100.00%
Sou rce: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Physical Housing Characteristics for Occupied Housing Units
101
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
DESCRIBE THE NUMBER AND TARGETING (INCOME LEVEL/TYPE OF FAMILY SERVED) OF
UNITS ASSISTED WITH FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PROGRAMS:
Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division and community partners utilize federal,
state, and local funding to expand housing opportunities for low - and moderate-income households, as well as
vulnerable and at-risk populations. Sources and financing include low -income housing tax credits, Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME), Emergency Solutions Grant
(ESG), HOPWA, Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund, the Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Salt Lake Cit y’s
Redevelopment Agency, the City’s General Fund, Funding Our Future, and Housing Connect. The following
funding sources are utilized to target specific housing activities:
CDBG
A portion of Salt Lake City’s CDBG funding is utilized for housing activitie s, including housing rehabilitation,
historic preservation, home repair programs, tenant -based rental assistance, homeownership, and down
payment assistance. CDBG funding is targeted to households earning 0 to 80% of AMI.
ESG
Salt Lake City utilizes ESG f unds to provide homelessness prevention assistance to households who would
otherwise become homeless and to rapidly re-house persons who are experiencing homelessness. The funds
provide for a variety of assistance, including emergency shelter, homeless pre vention, short- or medium -term
rental assistance, housing placement, and housing stability case management. ESG funding is targeted to
extremely low -income individuals and households that are at or below 30% AMI.
HOME
Salt Lake City utilizes HOME funds to provide a wide range of activities including building, acquiring, and/or
rehabilitating affordable housing for rent or homeownership, as well as providing direct rental assistance to
low-income households. HOME funding is targeted to households earning 0 to 80% AMI with rental assistance
specifically targeted to a lower AMI.
HOPWA
Salt Lake City administers the HOPWA program for the Salt Lake Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), which
includes Salt Lake, Summit, and Tooele Counties. HOPWA funds are utiliz ed to provide the following housing
services to HOPWA eligible persons:
Housing Information Services
Tenant-based Rental Assistance (TBRA)
Project-based Rental Assistance (PBRA)
Short-term Rent, Mortgage, Utility Assistance (STRMU)
Permanent Housing Placement Assistance (PHP)
Housing Supportive Services
Housing Coordination/Resource Identification
HOPWA funding targets extremely low - to low-income individuals diagnosed with HIV/AIDS.
Local Funds
The Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund provides financial as sistance to support the development and
preservation of affordable and special needs housing in Salt Lake City. Eligible Activities include acquisition, new
construction, and rehabilitation of both multi -family rental properties and single-family homeownership.
Funding is targeted to households earning up to 80% AMI.
102
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency
Under Utah Code Title 17C Community Reinvestment Agencies Act, the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency is
able to contribute up to 20% of tax increment from each project area to fund affordable housing projects
throughout the City. Available funds vary from year-to-year, depending on the amount of tax increment
generated in the Agency’s various project areas. In the past 50 years, the Redevelopment Agency has created
nearly 7,000 housing units of which nearly half are affordable.
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
The Utah Housing Corporation (UHC) Multifamily Finance Department is committed to partnering with
developers and investors to utilize State and Federal Tax Credits and bond financing. These resources facilitate
the development of new and rehabilitated apartments to provide housing for low -income families, senior
citizens, and more. The program increases the availability of rental housing to househ olds earning 60% or less
of the area median income.
During the 2019 fiscal year, UHC allocated $8.7 million in annual 9% federal tax credits and $1.3 million in
annual 4% federal tax credits. The UHC helped over 4,200 families purchase a home with its dow n payment
assistance program and helped fund affordable housing development that created nearly 1,000 new rental units
across Utah.
Much of the development of affordable housing development or preservation that occurs in Salt Lake City
requires a funding partnership that includes a combination of LIHTC, State funding via the Olene Walker
Housing Loan Fund, and City resources.
State Funds
The Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund’s (OWHLF) Multi -Family Program provides financial assistance for the
acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of affordable rental households at or below 50% of AMI, and the
median income of all households served through the OWHLF is 43.8% of AMI.
During fiscal year 2019, the fund supported construction or rehabilitation of 1,281 un its of multi-family housing,
as well as 136 single-family units statewide.
PROVIDE AN ASSESSMENT OF UNITS EXPECTED TO BE LOST FROM THE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING INVENTORY FO R ANY REASON, SUCH AS EXPIRATION OF SECT ION 8 CONTRACTS:
TABLE MA-10.3
HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS WITH AT LEAST ONE AFFORDABILITY CONTRACT EXPIRING WITHIN THE NEXT TEN YEARS
Project Total Affordable Units Nearest Expiration
Art Space II 53 2025
Aspen View 16 2026
Bradley Apartments 6 2024
Calvary Tower 30 2020
Cedar Crest Apartments 12 2023
Country Oaks I 7 2023
Country Oaks II 17 2024
CW Development-Parker 16 2025
Grace Mary Manor 80 2026
Granite Park Condo 9 2021
Harmony Gardens 96 2026
Hidden Oaks II 24 2022
Hidden Oaks IV 36 2021
103
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Project Total Affordable Units Nearest Expiration
Hidden Oaks VI 28 2025
Hidden Oaks VII 6 2029
Holladay Hills I 70 2023
Holladay Hills II 60 2024
Huntsman 36 2028
Ivanhoe Apartments 19 2021
Liberty Midtown 65 2023
Lowell Apartments 80 2025
Meredith Apartments 22 2019
Millcreek Meadows 56 2024
New Grand Hotel 80 2020
Ouray Duplex 2 2026
Palladio Apartments 36 2025
Parkway Commons 81 2024
Pauline Downs Apartments 112 2024
Rio Grande Hotel 49 2023
Riverside Cove Apartments 28 2023
Riverview Townhomes 61 2025
Riverwood Cove Apartments 110 2022
Robert A Wiley Apartments 7 2026
Safe Haven I 22 2029
Salt Lake County - Cnsrt 11 2029
Sedona 18 2025
South Salt Lake Crown 4 2026
Aspenview 19 2029
Village Apartments 24 2024
Wandamere Place Apartments 10 2019
Wasatch Commons Crown 5 2029
Source: Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Developm ent
DOES THE AVAILABILIT Y OF HOUSING UNITS MEET THE NEEDS OF THE POPULATION?
According to an apartment market report completed in the summer of 2018, the Salt Lake City area apartment
vacancy rate was at 2.7% with the Downtown area reporting a 1.7% vacanc y rate.41 With rental inventory nearly
completely occupied, it is difficult for households at all AMI levels to find adequate rental housing, with
increased difficulty for households at lower AMIs. Limitations on housing choice are particularly significant for
the low-income elderly, who have the highest levels of disability and tend to live in older housing stock.
Housing availability for persons with a disability will become increasingly scarce as the baby -boomer cohort
increases in age.
41 Cushman Wakefield, Apartment Market Report: Greater Salt Lake Area, 2018
104
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
DESCRIBE THE NEED FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF HOUSING:
Salt Lake City has evaluated the need for specific housing types in consideration of current housing needs and
future population changes. Currently, specific segments of Salt Lake City’s population are not well -served by the
housing market, with gaps in the following types of housing:
Affordable rental housing for extremely low -income households
Affordable and accessible housing for persons with disabilities
Affordable rental housing for large families
Permanent supportive housing for vulnerable populations to include individuals who are chronically
homeless, mentally disabled, physically disabled and others
MA-15 COST OF HOUSING – 91.210(a)
INTRODUCTION
Between 2000 and 2018, the cost of housing significantly increase d for both renters and homeowners. As
demonstrated in Table MA-15.1, the median contract rent increased from $516 in 2000 to $938 in 2018, an
81.8% increase. Median home values increased 89.8%, from $152,400 to $289,200. During the same time
period, the median household income only increased by 52.6%, from $36,944 in 2000 to $56,370 in 2018. Since
incomes have not kept up with increasing housing costs, it is more difficult for residents to buy or rent a home.
Subsequently, homeownership rates have decreased from 56.9% in 2000 to 48.4% in 2018.
TABLE MA-15.1
COST OF HOUSING
Base Year: 2000 2010 ACS 2018 ACS
Percent
Change (2000
- 2018)
Median Home Value $152,400 $243,200 $289,200 89.8%
Median Contract Rent $516 $712 $938 81.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Selected Housing Characteristics
TABLE MA-15.2
ALL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES BY NUMBER OF UNITS AND RENT COSTS
Gross Rent Number of Units Percentage
Less than $500 3,769 9.6%
$500-999 18,454 47.1%
$1,000-1,499 11,598 29.6%
$1,500-1,999 4,234 10.8%
$2,000 or More 1,128 2.9%
Total 39,183 100.00%
No cash rent included in the Less than $500 category
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Selected Housing Characteristics
105
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
TABLE MA-15.3
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Rental Units Units
Affordable RHUD: 30% or below 4,775 Affordable VHUD: 50% or below 5,465
Affordable RHUD: 31% - 50% 15,000 Affordable VHUD: 51% - 80% 9,845
Affordable RHUD: 51%-80% 16,700
TOTAL 36,475 TOTAL 15,310
Source: 2012-2016 CHAS
TABLE MA-15.4
MONTHLY RENT
Market Rent Efficiency (no
bedroom) 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom
Fair Market Rent $708 $870 $1,075 $1,518 $1,727
High HOME Rent $708 $870 $1,075 $1,364 $1,501
Low HOME Rent $708 $775 $931 $1,075 $1,200
Source: HUD FMR and HOME rents
FIGURE MA-15.1
2019 MARKET VALUE OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN SALT LAKE CITY
Source: Salt Lake County Assessor’s Database 2019
106
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
IS THERE SUFFICIENT HOUSING FOR HOUSEHOL DS AT ALL INCOME LEV ELS?
The low supply of affordable housing can be seen when comparing Salt Lake City’s supply of housing at various
price points with the number of households who can afford such housing. The lack of affordable housing is
particularly prevalent for extremely low -income households. An analysis of housing gaps has determined that
Salt Lake City has a shortage of 6,177 rental units affordable to renters earning less than $20,000 per year. This
indicates that the shortage has decreased by 2,063 since 2013 when the reported shortage was 8,240. Some of
these renters are university students who will have future earnings increases, but many are low -income families,
persons with disabilities,10 and persons who are unemployed.
TABLE MA-15.5
SALT LAKE CITY RENTAL MARKET MISMATCH
Income Range
Maximum
Affordable Rent,
Including Utilities
Renters Rental Units Housing
Mismatch Number Percentage Number Percentage
Less than $5,000 $125 2,798 6.9% 289 1% (2,509)
$5,000 - $9,999 $250 2,523 6.3% 1,235 3% (1,288)
$10,000 - $14,999 $375 3,012 7.5% 1,400 3% (1,612)
$15,000 - $19,999 $500 2,467 6.1% 1,699 4% (768)
$20,000 - $24,999 $625 2,716 6.7% 3,871 9% 1,155
$25,000 - $34,999 $875 5,520 13.7% 13,490 32% 7,970
$35,000 - $49,999 $1,250 6,129 15.2% 11,155 27% 5,026
$50,000 - $74,999 $1,875 7,067 17.5% 6,830 16% (237)
$75,000 or more $1,875+ 8,128 20.1% 1,623 4% (6,505)
Total/Low-Income Gap 40,360 41,592 100% (6,177)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates
HOW IS AFFORDABILITY OF HOUSING LIKELY TO CHANGE CONSIDERING CHANGES TO HOME
VALUES AND/OR RENTS?
Housing costs have increased during the past few years in both the rental and ownership markets. As Table
MA-15.6 demonstrates, Salt Lake County rental rates are at an all -time high, with a 51% increase between 2010
and 2018. Decreases in rental affordability combined with low vacancy rates have created a very tight rental
market, particularly for low -income households.
TABLE MA-15.6
CHANGE IN AVERAGE RENTAL BY TYPE OF UNIT: SALT LAKE COUNTY
Market Rent 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 % Change:
2010-2018
Studio $480 $515 $538 $586 $603 $638 $705 $745 $827 72.3%
One Bedroom $629 $659 $709 $745 $757 $804 $833 $906 $969 54.1%
Two Bedroom, One
Bath $706 $725 $759 $792 $809 $833 $879 $932 $1,023 44.9%
Two Bedroom, Two
Bath $816 $862 $943 $969 $983 $1,050 $1,085 $1,158 $1,242 52.2%
Three Bedroom,
Two Bath $956 $1,025 $1,051 $1,075 $1,085 $1,132 $1,244 $1,275 $1,373 43.6%
Overall $720 $754 $814 $850 $865 $907 $949 $1,011 $1,087 51.0%
Source: Cushman and Wakefield, 2017 Apartment M arket Report: Greater Salt Lake Area; CBRE, 2018 Greater Salt Lake Area
Multifamily Market Report
107
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
As indicated in Table MA-15.7, prices for existing home sales in the Salt Lake City metropolitan area were up
between 2018 and 2019 and the number of homes sold saw a small increase.
TABLE MA-15.7
NUMBER OF HOMES SOLD AND AVERAGE SALES PRICE: SALT LAKE CITY METROPOLITAN AREA
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD PD&R Regional Reports, 3rd Quarter 2019
HOW DO HOME RENTS/FAIR MARKET RENT COMPARE TO AREA MEDIAN RENT? HOW MIGHT
THIS IMPACT YOUR STRATEGY TO PRODUCE OR PRESERVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING?
HOME rents and Housing Choice Fair Market Rents are lower than actual rental rates in Salt Lake City.
Therefore, it is critical that the existing stock of subsidized housing is preserved and mechanisms are put in
place to help address the gap in HOME/Fair Market Rents and t he prevailing rent amounts. Individuals and
families displaced from subsidized housing will have a difficult time finding suitable replacement housing
affordable at their income level. In the current housing market, rental subsidies are usually required fo r
populations that fall below 50% AMI. The City should prioritize the rehabilitation of existing housing stock and
anti-displacement strategies to meet the needs of vulnerable populations and stabilize neighborhoods.
DISCUSSION
Tight market conditions with historically high rents and very low vacancy rates have exacerbated the challenges
of low-income households to obtain affordable housing. An analysis of housing gaps has determined that Salt
Lake City has a shortage of 6,177 rental units affordable to renters earning less than $20,000 per year. This is a
decline of 2,063 units from the shortage of 8,240 rental units in 2013. With rising rents and few units available,
this situation is likely to worsen. It is the City’s intent to be proactively involved i n preserving existing affordable
housing and facilitating the development of additional affordable housing. This is essential in order to prevent
an increase in homelessness from the current extremely tight housing market. The Strategic Plan identifies how
Salt Lake City intends to use federal funding to preserve and facilitate affordable housing in our community.
MA-20 CONDITION OF HOUSING – 91.210(a)
INTRODUCTION
HUD defines housing conditions as overcrowding, cost -burdened, a lack of complete plumbing, or kitchen
facilities. Based on this definition, about 44.8% of renters and 20.8% of the owners live in a unit with at least one
condition. CHAS data also indicates that there are 570 housing units, vacant and occupied, that lack a complete
kitchen or plum bing facilities.
DESCRIBE THE JURISDICTION’S DEFINITION F OR “SUBSTANDARD COND ITION” AND
“SUBSTANDARD CONDITION BUT SUITABLE FOR REHABILITATION:”
The City defines substandard housing units as those that are not in compliance with the City’s existing housi ng
code. “Substandard condition” is not a term this jurisdiction uses; instead, projects are designed to address
items in residential units that do not meet that code. The City also follows the federal register definitions for
substandard housing as defined in 24 CFR § 5.425 Federal preference: Substandard housing. For units to be
considered in “substandard condition but suitable for rehabilitation,” they must be both economically and
Number of Homes Sold Average Price
Q3 2018 Q3 2019 % Change Q3 2018 Q3 2019 % Change
18,500 17,750 -4% $357,400 $383,600 7%
108
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
structurally viable. All rental properties in Salt Lake City require a bu siness license. Landlords are required to
maintain minimum standard condition of housing, as per Salt Lake City’s Existing Residential Code. The purpose
of the Residential Housing Code is to provide for the health, safety, comfort, con venience, and aesthetics of the
City.
TABLE MA-20.1
CONDITION OF UNITS
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Number % Number %
With one selected
condition 7,595 20.1% 16,508 40.9%
With two selected
conditions 174 0.5% 1,544 3.8%
With three selected
conditions 19 0.1% 43 0.1%
With four selected
conditions 42 0.1% - 0.0%
No selected conditions 30,039 79.3% 22,265 55.2%
Total 37,869 100.00% 40,360 100.00%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Tenure by Selected Physical and Financial Conditions
TABLE MA-20.2
YEAR UNIT BUILT
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Number % Number %
2000 or later 2,250 6% 3,710 9%
1980-1999 3,820 11% 7,000 18%
1960-1979 5,490 15% 11,815 30%
Before 1960 24,800 68% 16,540 42%
Total 36,360 100% 39,065 100%
Source: 2012-2016 CHAS
TABLE MA-20.3
RISK OF LEAD BASED PAINT HAZARD
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Number % Number %
Total number of units built before 1980 30,290 83% 28,355 73%
Housing units built before 1980 with
children present 4,600 13% 4,225 11%
Source: 2012-2016 CHAS
TABLE MA-20.4
VACANT UNITS
Suitable for Rehabilitation Not Suitable for Rehabilitation Total
Vacant Units 140 0 140
Abandoned Vacant Units 0 0 0
109
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
REO Properties 0 0 0
Abandoned REO Properties 0 0 0
Source: Salt Lake City Civil Enforcement
DESCRIBE THE NEED FO R OWNER AND RENTER REHABILITATION BASED ON THE CONDITION
OF THE JURISDICTION’S HOUSING:
An indicator commonly used to evaluate the condition of housing stock is the age of the unit. Older homes are
more likely to have condition problems and are at higher risk of lead-based paint. Approximately 29% of
housing units in Salt Lake City were built prior to 1940.42 Many older homes may be in excellent condition due
to revitalization efforts in the area; however, condition issues are still mor e likely to occur in older homes. Many
of the block groups with a high percentage of older units tend to be located below 900 South and east of State
Street. This can be seen in the figure below:
FIGURE MA-20.1
PERCENT OF B LOCK GROUP HOUSING UNITS B UILT BEFORE 1950
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates
ESTIMATE THE NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS WIT HIN THE JURISDICTION THAT ARE
OCCUPIED BY LOW- OR MODERATE-INCOME FAMILIES THAT CONTAIN LEAD -BASED PAINT
HAZARDS. 91.205 (e), 91.405
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified that approximately three -quarters of the nation’s
housing stock built before 1978 contains some lead -based paint. This means residential units built prior to 1978
42 U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates
110
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
are considered to be most at risk for containin g lead-based paints (LBP) as the use of LBP was prohibited in
residential units after 1978. The 2012-2016 CHAS reports that approximately 83% of owner-occupied units and
73% of renter-occupied units were built prior to 1980. This means that up to 77.7% of Salt Lake City’s total
housing stock is at risk of exposure to LBP.
DISCUSSION
Salt Lake City has many older homes which are more likely to contain LBP. Homes built before 1940 have an
87% chance of containing LBP according to the EPA and 29% of the City’s housing supply was built during 1939
or earlier.43
FIGURE MA-20.2
PROBABILITY OF CONTAINING LEAD-BASED PAINT BY YEAR CONSTRUCTED
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www2.epa.gov/lead/protect-your-family
Lead is highly toxic and can c ause many serious health problems, especially in young children who have a
greater risk of exposure and also a higher level of susceptibility to lead poisoning. Families with children under
six may face the risk of the child ingesting paint chips on the wa lls and floors of these older buildings. These
highly toxic paint chips, and even lead dust, can cause lead poisoning. According to the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, there is no identified safe level of lead exposure in children.
Exposure to lead can lead to:
Damage to the brain and nervous system
Slowed growth and development
Learning and behavior problems
Hearing and speech problems
Which can cause:
Lower IQ
Decreased ability to pay attention
Underperforming in school44
43 Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, http://www2.epa.gov/lead/protect-your-family
44 Center for Disease Control and Prevention – Health Effect of Lead Exposure. (2019, July 30). Retrieved November 12, 2019, from
https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/prevention/health -effects.htm.
87%
69%
24%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Before 1940
1940 - 1959
1960-1977
111
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Salt Lake City has various programs through the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division and local
nonprofits, such as ASSIST and Community Development Corporation of Utah, to remediate lead hazards in
residential units. Additionally, the Lead Safe Housing program created by Salt Lake County provides free
inspections, dust sampling analysis, blood testing for children under six, window replacement, paint removal on
doorjambs and floors, and specialized cleaning.45 The program is aimed at assisting low - or moderate-income
households in providing lead-safe homes.
MA-25 PUBLIC AND ASSISTED HOUSING – 91.210(b)
INTRODUCTION
Local housing authorities provide long -term rental housing and rental assistance through Low -Income Public
Housing (LIPH), Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8), and Continuum of Care housing vouchers. In addition,
the housing authorities as well as privately owned entities provide additional subsidized housing opportunities
through affordable housing and supportive housing programs.
TABLE MA-25.1
TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS
Program Type
Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total Project-
based
Tenant-
based
Special Purpose Vouchers
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled*
Number of
units/vouchers
available
99 NA 2,894 380 1,876 161 67 410
Number of accessible
units NA 24 NA NA NA NA NA NA
Source: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City
DESCRIBE THE NUMBER AND PHYSICAL CONDITION OF PUBLIC HOUSING UNITS IN THE
JURISDICTION, INCLUD ING THOSE THAT ARE PARTICIPATING IN AN APPROVED PUBLIC
HOUSING AGENCY PLAN:
The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City currently manages 30 properties including Housing Choice Vouchers,
Project Based Vouchers, Mod Rehab Vouchers and programs for Veterans, homeless, disabled, and elderly
persons. These properties offer over 1,800 units of varying sizes. The table below lists each property by name,
type, and number of units.
TABLE MA-25.2
LIST OF PUBLIC HOUSING PROPERTIES BY TYPE AND UNITS
Name Type Units
Phillips Plaza Senior Public 1 Bed 99
Romney Plaza Senior Public 1 Bed 70
City Plaza Senior Public 1 Bed 150
Rendon Terrace Senior Public 1-2 Bed 70
45 Salt Lake County, Lead Safe Housing Program, from https://slco.org/lead-safe-housing/qualify-for-free-services/services/
112
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Name Type Units
Cedar Crest LIHTC/VSH/Affordable 1-2 Bed 12
Sunrise Metro LIHTC Homeless 1 Bed 100
Valor Apts. Vet. Homeless 1 Bed 14
Valor House Vet. Homeless 1 Bed 72
Freedom Landing Vet. Homeless 1 Bed 109
Jefferson Circle Section 8 Multi-Family 2 Bed 20
Faultline Family Affordable 1-2 Bed 8
Redwood Road Family Affordable 2-3 Bed 22
330 North Family Affordable 2-3 Bed 25
Pacific Ave Family Affordable 2-5 Bed 25
Pacific Heights Family Affordable 2-5 Bed 22
Central City Family Affordable 2-3 Bed 17
Palmer Court Single/Family Affordable 1-3 Bed 201
Denver NA 12
771 South Family Affordable 2-3 Bed 17
Capitol Homes Low-Income 1-2 Bed 39
Jefferson School I LIHTC Family Mixed 1-2 Bed 84
Jefferson School II LIHTC Family Mixed 1-2 Bed 84
Taylor Springs Senior LIHTC Affordable 1-2 Bed 95
Taylor Gardens Senior LIHTC Affordable 1-2 Bed 112
9th East Lofts LIHTC Family Mixed 1-2 Bed 68
Fairmont Fourplex Family Affordable 1 Bed 4
West Temple Duplexes Family Affordable 3 Bed 4
Riverside Senior Affordable 1-2 Bed 41
Ben Albert Family Affordable 1-2 Bed 68
Canterbury Family Affordable 2-3 Bed 77
Cambridge Cove Family Affordable 2 Bed 71
TOTAL 1,812
Source: Housing Authority of Salt Lake City
DESCRIBE THE RESTORATION AND REVITALIZAT ION NEEDS OF PUBLIC HOUSING UNITS IN
THE JURISDICTION:
All housing authority units are maintained in excellent condition. The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City and
Housing Conn ect both conduct and complete an annual property needs assessment in order to maintain the
properties in a decent and safe manner.
The Housing Authority has maintained its Public Housing properties in the past with the use of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) Capital Fund Grants. These grants are tied to Public Housing. The Housing Authority
of Salt Lake City has applied for a HUD program, Resident Assistance Demonstration (RAD), which is a voluntary
program, seeking to preserve public housing by providi ng housing agencies with access to more stable funding
to make needed improvements to properties.
113
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
The RAD program allows PHAs to manage a property using one of two types of HUD funding contracts that are
tied to a specific building and replace the operating subsidy and capital funds previously used. Housing Choice
project-based voucher (PBV) or Housing Choice project -based rental assistance (PBRA). Both are 15-20 years
long and are more stable funding sources. This shift will make it easier for PHAs to bo rrow money and use low-
income housing tax credits (LIHTCs) as well as other forms of financing. These private sources of additional
money will enable the Housing Authority to make improvements essential for preserving the Public Housing
stock. This funding change does not change the amount of rent paid by residents or the clientele served.
HASLC has also developed a 30-year replacement and improvement plan and each property has a schedule for
improvements that is broken down to one- and five-year plans.
DESCRIBE THE PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY’S STRATEGY FOR IMPROVING T HE LIVING
ENVIRONMENT OF LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME FAMILIES RESIDING IN PUBLIC HOUSING:
The following are examples of strategies that have been implemented to improve living conditions at City
housing complexes: a strengthened application screening process; strict lease enforcement; off -duty Salt Lake
City Police Officer conducting security patrols on their properties; improved exterior lighting; added accessibility
for those aging in place; implementation of a preventative maintenance program; and upgrades and
renovations to properties when possible, as needed.
MA-30 HOMELESS FACILITIES AND SERVICES – 91.210(c)
INTRODUCTION
A variety of facilities and services are offered to homeless individuals and families, including emergency
shelters, transitional housing, safe havens, permanent supportive housing, tenant based rental assistance,
outreach and engagement, housing placement, general medical, employment, substance abuse, behavioral
health, legal aid, veteran services, public assistance, family crisis, hygiene, and other miscellaneous services.
These services are provided by government agencies, faith -based organizations, service-oriented groups,
housing authorities, health service organizations an d others.
TABLE MA-30.1
FACILITIES AND HOUSING TARGETED TO HOMELESS HOUSEHOLDS
Population ES: Year-Round
Beds
ES: Voucher/
Seasonal/
Overflow Beds
Transitional
Housing Beds
Permanent
Supportive
Housing Beds
PSH Beds
Under
Development
Households with
Adult(s) and Child(ren) 542 33 143 1,257c 165
Households with Only
Adults 814 147 165 1,271d 0
Chronically Homeless
Households 0 0 0 1,502e 0
Veterans 0 0 67a 597 75
Unaccompanied Youth 34 20 37b 9 0
Source: Utah Homeless Management Information System (HMIS)
aAll 67 Veterans are also counted in the Households with Only Adults
bAll 37 Unaccompanied Youth beds are also counted in the Households with Only Adults
c150 of the Households with Adult(s) and Child(ren) are also veteran dedicated beds
d447 of the Households with Only Adults are also veteran dedicated beds
e775 of the Chronically Homeless beds are also counted in Households with Only Adults, 727 are also counted in Households with
Adult(s) and Child(ren), and 20 are also veteran dedicated beds.
114
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
DESCRIBE MAINSTREAM SERV ICES, SUCH AS HEALTH, MENTAL HEALTH, AND EMPLOYMENT
SERVICES TO THE EXTENT THOSE SERVICES ARE USED TO COMPLEMENT SERVICES TARGETED
TO HOMELESS PERSONS.
A wide array of mainstream services augments homeless specific services in Salt Lake City. These programs are
an important aspect of providing homeless services in the City. Some of these services are:
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Medicare
Medicaid
Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
Veteran’s Benefits
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Housing Choice Vouchers (Section 8)
Unemployment
Worker’s Compensation
Social Security Disability (SSDI)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Social Security
Other miscellaneous benefits
The Salt Lake homeless services community has a strong history of effectively leveraging these mainstream
benefits in providing homeless services.
LIST AND DESCRIBE SERVICES AND FACILITIES THAT MEET THE NEED S OF HOMELESS
PERSONS, PARTICULARL Y CHRONICALLY HOMELE SS INDIVIDUALS AND F AMILIES, FAMILIES
WITH CHILDREN, VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND UNACCOMPANIED YOUTH. IF THE
SERVICES AND FACILITIES ARE LISTED ON SCREEN SP-40 INSTITUTIONAL DEL IVERY
STRUCTURE OR SCREEN MA-35 SPECIAL NEEDS FACILITIES AND SERVICES, DESCRIBE HOW
THESE FACILITIES AND SERVICES SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF THESE
POPULATIONS.
Salt Lake City Corporation spent $2,554,000 on Homeless Related Services in fiscal year 2018 -19. The funding
came from the General Fund.
TABLE MA-30.2
2019-2020 HOMELESS RELATED SERVICES
Agency/Program Facility Name Address Description
Family Promise Emergency Shelter 814 W. 800 S., Salt Lake City,
Utah 84104
Serves families with
children
Rescue Mission
Women’s Center Emergency Shelter 1165 S. State Street, Salt Lake
City, Utah 84111 Serves Single Women
Rescue Mission Emergency Shelter/Day
Center/
463 S. 400 W., Salt Lake City,
Utah 84101 Serves Men
South Valley
Services Emergency Shelter 8400 S., Redwood Rd.,
West Jordan, Utah 84088
Serves female and
male victims of
domestic violence
and their children
115
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Agency/Program Facility Name Address Description
YWCA Shelter Emergency Shelter 322 E. 300 S., Salt Lake City,
Utah 84111
Serves female victims
of domestic violence
and their children
Salt Lake County
Youth Services Emergency Shelter 377 W. Price Ave., (3610 S.) Salt
Lake City, Utah 84115 Serves youth
Gale Miller
Resource Center Emergency Shelter 242 Paramount Ave., Salt Lake
City, Utah, 84115
Serves homeless men
and women
Geraldine E King
Women’s Center Emergency Shelter 131 E. 700 S., Salt Lake City,
Utah 84111
Serves homeless
women
Volunteers of
America Youth
Resource Center
Emergency Shelter/Day
Center
888 S. 400 W., Salt Lake City,
Utah 84101
Serves homeless and
at-risk teens ages 15-
22
Men’s Resource
Center Emergency Shelter 3380 S. 1000 W., South Salt
Lake, Utah 84119 Serves homeless men
Volunteers of
America Homeless
Outreach Program
Donation Disbursement/
Case Management
131 E. 700 S, Salt Lake City,
Utah 84111
Serves homeless
women, men, and
youth living on the
street
Weigand Homeless
Resource Center Day Center 437 W. 200 S., Salt Lake City,
Utah 84101
Serves all homeless
residents
VA Homeless
Program Veteran’s Assistance 2970 S. Main St., South Salt
Lake City, Utah 84115
Serves chronically
homeless and VA
veterans
Metro Employment
Center
Employment/Welfare/
Financial Assistance
720 S. 200 E., Salt Lake City,
Utah 84111
Serves all homeless
residents
Utah Community
Action Program
Employment/Welfare/
Financial Assistance
764 S. 200 W., Salt Lake City,
Utah 84101
Serves all homeless
residents
Eagle Ranch
Ministries
Prepared Meals & Food
Pantries
500 S. 600 E., Salt Lake City,
Utah 84102
Serves all homeless
residents
Good Samaritan
Program | The
Cathedral of the
Madeleine
Prepared Meals & Food
Pantries
331 E. South Temple, Salt Lake
City, Utah 84103
Serves all homeless
residents
Rescue Mission Prepared Meals & Food
Pantries
463 S. 400 W., Salt Lake City,
Utah 84101
Serves all homeless
residents
St. Vincent de Paul
Dining Hall
Prepared Meals & Food
Pantries
437 W. 200 S., Salt Lake City,
Utah 84101
Serves all homeless
residents
Salt Lake City
Mission
Prepared Meals & Food
Pantries
1151 S. Redwood Rd. #106, Salt
Lake City, Utah 84104
Serves all homeless
residents
Crossroads Urban
Center Food Pantries 347 S. 400 E., Salt Lake City,
Utah 84111
Serves all homeless
residents
Eagle Ranch
Distribution Center Food Pantries 1899 S. Redwood Rd., Salt Lake
City, Utah 84104
Serves all homeless
residents
Hildegarde’s Pantry Food Pantries 231 E. 100 S., Salt Lake City,
Utah 84111
Serves all homeless
residents
House of Prayer Food Pantries 839 S. 200 W., Salt Lake City,
Utah 84101
Serves all homeless
residents
116
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Agency/Program Facility Name Address Description
Volunteers of
America Adult
Detox
Drug/Alcohol
Detoxification
252 W. Brooklyn Ave., Salt Lake
City, Utah 84101
Serves men suffering
from addiction
VOA Detox Center
for Women and
Children
Drug/Alcohol
Detoxification
697 W. 4170 S., Murray, Utah
84123
Serves adult women
and children under
the age of 10
Wasatch Homeless
Healthcare dba 4th
Street Clinic
Medical Care for Homeless 409 W. 400 S., Salt Lake City,
Utah 84101
Serves all homeless
residents
Source: Salt Lake County
MA-35 SPECIAL NEEDS FACILITIES AND SERVICES – 91.210(d)
INTRODUCTION
This section provides an overview of the facilities and services that ensure at -risk and special needs populations,
including persons returning from physical and mental health facilities, receive appropriate supportive housing.
TABLE MA-35.1
HOPWA ASSISTANCE BASELINE
Type of HOPWA Assistance Number of People Receiving Services
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) 58
Permanent Housing in Facilities NA
Short-Term Rent, Mortgage, Utility Assistance (STRMU) 52
Short Term or Transitional H ousing Facilities NA
Permanent H ousing Placement 24
Source: HOPWA CAPER and HOPWA Beneficiary Verification Worksheet, 2018-2019
INCLUDING THE ELDERL Y, FRAIL ELDERLY, PERSO NS WITH DISABILITIES (MENTAL, PHYSICAL,
DEVELOPMENTAL), PERSONS WITH ALCOHOL OR OTHER DRUG ADDICTIONS, PERSONS WITH
HIV/AIDS AND THEIR F AMILIES, PUBLIC HOUSING RESIDENTS AND ANY OTHER CATEGORIES
THE JURISDICTION MAY SPECIFY AND DESCRIBE THEIR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING NEEDS.
Salt Lake City’s housing and supportive service network addresses the needs of the elderly, persons with
disabilities, persons with substance addictions, persons with HIV/AIDS and their families, and public housing
residents through the following efforts. Efforts are typically coordinated through a case management and
referral format to link services and opportunities.
Physical healthcare programs
Mental healthcare programs
Emergency daycare services
Youth day centers
Homeless day centers
Emergency food pantries
Tenant-based rental assistance (TBRA) programs
Project-based rental assistance (PBRA) programs
Transitional housing programs
117
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Rapid re-housing programs permanent supportive housing programs
Housing accessibility programs homelessness prevention services
Substance addiction treatment programs
Life skills training programs
Employment training programs
Transportation assistance programs
Fair housing advocacy programs
Even with the multitude of diverse services available in Salt Lake City, there are still gaps in services. For
example, substance addiction treatment centers that serve homeless and low -income individuals, including First
Step House, St. Mary’s Center for Recovery, and The Haven, have considerable waiting lis ts. Similarly, programs
that provide physical healthcare, rental assistance, homelessness prevention, employment services, and life skills
training do not have enough funding to meet demand.
DESCRIBE PROGRAMS FOR ENSURING THAT PERSONS RETURNING FROM MENTAL AND
PHYSICAL HEALTH INST ITUTIONS RECEIVE APPROPRIATE SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.
Programs that provide supportive housing opportunities for persons dealing with mental and physical health
recovery are available in Salt Lake City. However, supportive housing oppo rtunities for these populations are in
high demand with limited resources available.
The Valley Behavioral Health’s Safe Haven program provides homeless individuals with severe mental illness
housing and personalized assistance programs. It also provides comprehensive mental health support and
treatment for temporary and lifelong issues caused by traumatic life events. The program offers treatments for
psychiatric conditions, behavioral issues, autism, addiction, and other health conditions.
In addition, Salt Lake City partners with the local housing authorities, Utah Community Action Program, the Salt
Lake Continuum of Care, local homeless resource centers, Salt Lake County and the State of Utah to determine
the housing and supportive services need of non -homeless population who require these services.
SPECIFY THE ACTIVITIES THAT THE JURISDICTION PLANS TO UNDERT AKE DURING THE NEXT
YEAR TO ADDRESS THE HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES NEEDS ID ENTIFIED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH 91.215(e) WITH RESPECT TO PE RSONS WHO ARE NOT HOMELESS BUT
HAVE OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS. LINK TO ONE-YEAR GOALS 91.315(e).
Please refer to section AP -20 and AP-35 of the Salt Lake City 2020-21 Annual Action Plan for specific one- year
goals to address housing and supportive service needs of non -homeless, special needs populations.
FOR ENTITLEMENT/CONSORTIA GRANTEES: SPECIFY THE ACTIVITIES T HAT THE
JURISDICTION PLANS T O UNDERTAKE DURING T HE NEXT YEAR TO ADDRESS THE HOUSING
AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES NEEDS IDENTIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 91.215(e) WITH
RESPECT TO PERSONS WHO ARE NOT HOMELESS BUT HAVE OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS. LINK TO
ONE-YEAR GOALS. (91.220(2))
The City will continue to provide tenant-based rental assistance, project-based rental assistance, short-term
rental assistance, housing placement, an d supportive services for persons with HIV/AIDS and other special
populations through the HOPWA, HOME, and ESG programs.
118
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
MA-40 BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING – 91.210(e)
Various market barriers can limit the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, especially in
regard to affordable housing for low and moderate-income residents. Both market and regulatory factors affect
the ability to meet current and future housing needs. Barriers have been identified by previous task force
groups organized by Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division, as well as through
extensive interviews with local brokers, developers, housing representatives, planners, etc.
Identified barriers to the preservation, improvement and development of h ousing of affordable to low and
moderate-income households include the following:
Economic Conditions
While incomes have increased significantly in the Salt Lake Valley since 2010, they have not kept pace
with increases in construction costs and housing v alues. Consequently, the gap between incomes and
housing has increased.
Select neighborhoods in Salt Lake City spend significantly more on transportation costs than others.
This results in less income available for housing .
Land Regulations and Permitting Process
Salt Lake City’s Zoning Ordinance (similar to other cities) contains regulations that establish standards
for residential development including minimum lot size, density, unit size, height, setback, and parking
standards. Some of these regulation s can inhibit the ability for affordable housing development
feasibility (i.e., profitability), including the following:
o Density limitations
o Lack of multifamily zoning
o Stringent parking requirements (reducing cost feasibility)
The process to waive/reduce i mpact fees for affordable housing is reportedly difficult to navigate for
some developers.
Permitting and environmental review processes are often time consuming and reduce possible profits
for developers, thereby discouraging development and/or encouragin g development of higher-margin
product (i.e., market-rate units).
Land Costs
High land costs in certain areas do not allow for adequate profit in the development of lower -income
housing product, particularly in desirable neighborhoods that have experience d growth and new
construction over the past decade. Most affordable land is located on the west side of Salt Lake City,
furthering the concentration of affordable housing in select areas, and inhibiting the dispersal of
housing options throughout the City.
Land costs restrict the ability to place affordable housing in closer proximity to necessary services,
particularly near transit options and employment centers. Consequently, new housing often is
constructed in areas that result in high percentages of inc ome being spent towards transportation.
Ultimately, these developments further exacerbate traffic issues.
Construction Costs
Construction costs, particularly labor costs, have experienced notable fluctuations in the recent past.
This has caused upward pressure on rent and limited what type of product developers are able to
provide. Consequently, the profit margin in providing affordable housing is typically limited, or
altogether non-existent without the presence of incentives and tax credits.
Rehabilitation of existing product has increased in cost due to overall labor shortages. Furthermore, the
gained value of improvements is often not more than the costs of construction, resulting in limited or
119
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
no profit for undertaking such renovation. This limits the desire to undertake such endeavors unless
incentives can be provided.
Development and Rehabilitation Financing
Affordable housing projects with complex layered finance structures can experience increased land
holding costs because of additional due diligence and longer timelines. This is partially alleviated with
City incentive programs that reduce some financing pressures.
There is strong competition for local funding tools, such as the State of Utah’s Olene Walker Housing
Loan Fund.
Neighborhood Market Conditions
Negative public perception and community opposition (“NIMBYism”) can limit affordable housing
development when a zoning approval process is required .
Some neighborhoods that have access to transit options do not have the appeal for large -scale
housing developments, due primarily to low -quality surrounding improvements, higher crime rates,
and limited employment diversity .
For a discussion on current and proposed efforts to reduce or barriers to affordable housing, please see section
SP -55 Barriers to Affordable Housing in this Plan .
MA-45 NON-HOUSING COMMUNITY DE VELOPMENT ASSETS
– 91.215(f)
INTRODUCTION
Salt Lake City is on the pathway to becoming one of the most diverse, sustainable, and innovative economies in
the nation. The City links together unsurpassed outdoor recreation opportunities; internationally acclaimed
technology and research facilities; competitive higher education institutions; industry -leading healthcare
facilities; a light rail and streetcar transit system; an international a irport; and cultural opportunities. Strong
economic activity is enhanced by culturally rich neighborhoods that intermix diverse housing opportunities with
locally owned businesses.
Although Salt Lake City’s economy is strong, economic inequality is escala ting within the community. Between
2000 and 2017, homeowner incomes increased by 52.7% while renter incomes only increased by 40.9%. The
individual poverty rate increased between 2000 and 2017 rising from 13.7% to 17.8%. There are high social and
economic costs for increasing economic inequality and allowing families to remain in poverty.
TABLE MA-45.1
BUSINESS BY SECTOR
Business by Sector Number of
Workers
Number of
Jobs
Share of
Workers
Share of
Jobs
Jobs Less
Workers
Agriculture, Mining,
Oil & Gas Extraction 678 687 1% 0% -1%
Art, Entertainment,
Accommodations 13,079 23,121 12% 11% -1%
Construction 5,115 8,507 5% 4% -1%
Education and Health
Care Services 28,729 38,374 27% 18% -9%
Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate 7,492 17,007 7% 8% 1%
120
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Business by Sector Number of
Workers
Number of
Jobs
Share of
Workers
Share of
Jobs
Jobs Less
Workers
Information 2,558 6,896 3% 3% 0%
Manufacturing 9,295 24,775 9% 12% 3%
Other Services 5,637 6,718 5% 3% -2%
Professional,
Scientific,
Management
Services
14,898 19,470 14% 9% -5%
Public Administration 3,764 17,111 4% 8% 4%
Retail Trade 10,702 17,854 10% 9% -1%
Transportation &
Warehousing 4,448 16,600 4% 8% 4%
Wholesale Trade 2,147 12,071 2% 6% 4%
TOTAL 108,542 209,191
U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, 2017 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (Jobs)
TABLE MA-45.2
LAB OR FORCE
Labor Force
Total Population in the Civilian Labor Force 113,308
Civilian Employed Population 16+ Years 108,542
Unemployment Rate 4.1%
Unemployment Rate for Ages 16-24 N/A
Unemployment Rate for Ages 25-65 N/A
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Selected Economic Characteristics
TABLE MA-45.3
OCCUPATIONS BY SECTOR
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Selected Economic Characteristics
Tables MA-45.4 and Figure MA-45.1 break down the travel trends and commute distances for Salt Lake City
residents. Table MA-45.4 shows that nearly half of the workers living in the City travel 15 to 29 minutes for
work. The majority of City residents work relatively close to home with four of every five workers experiencing a
daily commute under 30 minutes.
Occupations by Sector Number of People Percentage
Management, Business, Science, and Arts
Occupations 49,312 45.4%
Service Occupations 17,568 16.2%
Sales and Office Occupation s 21,804 20.1%
Natural Resources, Construction, and Maintenance
Occupations 6,829 6.3%
Production, Transportation, and Material Moving
Occupations 13,029 12.0%
Total 108,542 100.00%
121
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
TABLE MA-45.4
TRAVEL TIME
Travel Time Number of People Percentage
< 15 Minutes 36,473 35.1%
15-29 Minutes 47,383 45.6%
30-44 Minutes 14,236 13.7%
45-59 Minutes 2,806 2.7%
60 or More Minutes 3,013 2.9%
Mean Travel Time to Work (Minutes) 19.1 Minutes
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Means of Transportation to Work by Selec ted Characteristics
Figure MA-45.1 shows how the usage rate of public transportation and carpooling decreases as the level of
income increases with those making higher incomes electing to drive to work alone.
FIGURE MA-45.1
MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION TO WORK BY INCOME LEVEL
Source: U.S. Census Bureau:
2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Means of Transportation to Work by Selected Characteristics
TABLE MA-45.5
BUSINESS BY SECTOR
Educational Attainment Civilian Employed Unemployed Not in Labor Force
Less Than High School Graduate 9,112 655 3,605
High School Graduate (Includes
Equivalency) 12,712 712 4,165
Some College or Associates Degree 21,771 712 5,117
Bachelor's Degree or Higher 42,345 963 6,738
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Educational Attainment by Employment Status for the Population 25
to 64 Years Old
Below the Poverty Level 100% to 149%
of the Poverty Level
At or Above 150%
of the Poverty Level
64%
21%
15%
73%
14%
13%
81%
12%
7%
Drove Alone
Carpooled
Public Transportation
(Excludes Taxi)
122
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
TABLE NA-45.6
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT BY AGE Age
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-64 65+
Less than 9th Grade 2546 3,834 3,340 5,543 2,170
9th to 12th Grade, No Diplom a 6,124 6,335 4,403 6,851 4,383
High School Graduate (Includes
Equivalency) 13,620 10,994 6,659 9,958 5,652
Some College, No Degree 3,924 21,070 12,228 16,804 8,962
Associates Degree 2546 3,834 3,340 5,543 2,170
Bachelor's Degree 6,124 6,335 4,403 6,851 4,383
Graduate or Professional Degree 13,620 10,994 6,659 9,958 5,652
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Educational Attainment by Employment Status for the Population 18
Years Old
TABLE MA-45.7
BUSINESS BY SECTOR
Educational Attainment Median Earnings in the Past 12 Months
Less than High School Graduate $25,114
High School Graduate (Includes Equivalency) $27,493
Some College or Associate Degree $31,981
Bachelor's Degree $42,626
Graduate or Professional Degree $67,029
Sou rce: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Earnings in the Past 12 Months (In 2018 Inflation -Adjusted Dollars)
BASED ON THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY TABLE ABOVE, WHAT ARE THE MAJ OR EMPLOYMENT
SECTORS WITHIN YOUR JURISDICTION?
Table MA-45.1 shows that the major employment sectors within this jurisdiction are: 1) Education and Health
Care Services; 2) Professional, Scientific, Management Services; 3) Arts, Entertainment, Accommodations; and 4)
Retail Trade. The largest employers in the County are the University Hospital, Salt Lake County, and the
University of Utah.
DESCRIBE THE WORKFORCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY:
Salt Lake City has been known as the “Crossroads of the West” for over 150 years. The term originated when the
Transcontinental Railroad was completed in 1869 at Promontory, Utah and is still true as the Salt Lake
International Airport is one of the busiest airports in the western United States. It facilitated over 330,000 flights
in 2018. These flights connect cargo, passengers, and international business opportunities to the area and these
factors have played a large role in many businesses choosing to use Salt Lake City as their corporate
headquarters. Two major interstates – I-15 and I-80 – intersect in Salt Lake City, thus providing significant
distribution accessibility and economic opportunity. The newly -designated Inland Port, located in the northwest
quadrant of Salt Lake City, will provide further opportunities for industry and job growth. Due to rapid growth ,
the City needs better east-west connections between residential development and employment centers.
123
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
DESCRIBE ANY MAJOR CHANGES THAT MAY HAVE AN ECONOMIC IMPACT, SUCH AS
PLANNED LOCAL OR REGIONAL PUBLIC OR PRIV ATE SECTOR INVESTMENTS OR INITIATIVES
THAT HAVE AFFECTED OR MAY AFFECT JOB AND BUSINESS GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES
DURING THE PLANNING PERIOD. DESCRIBE ANY NEEDS FOR WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT,
BUSINESS SUPPORT, OR INFRASTRUCTURE THESE CHANGES MAY CREATE.
Salt Lake City International Airport Expansion
The expansion of the Salt Lake City International Airport is expected to be completely finished by 2025, but it is
anticipated that the first phase will open in September of 2020. The expansion focuses on utilizing new and
sustainable practices that will increase space, comfort, and convenience for passengers. This includes a
complete technological and artistic redesign of the current airport which will allow Utah’s natural outdoor
beauty to be displayed to millions of airport visitors each year. A recent economic impact analysis conducted by
GSBS Consulting projected that the rebuild will inject $5.5 billion into the local economy and create more than
3,300 jobs.46 Between July 2018 and June 2019, the Salt Lake City International Airport served over 26.2 million
passengers and had 341,152 Total Aircraft Ops.47 The airport ranks as the 23rd busiest airport in North America
and the 85th busiest in the world with over 340 flights departing daily. It is located about 15 minutes from
downtown Salt Lake City and is serviced by a direct light rail line to the downtown area including the Salt Palace
Convention Center. The proximity of these create opportunities for training and workforce housing.
Inland Port Authority
The Inland Port, located in the northwest quadrant of Salt Lake City, covers approximately 16,000 acres, sits at
the intersection of two interstate freeways, major national railways and an international airport. This puts the
area in high demand for expanding warehouse, distribution and manufacturing facilities. The Inland Port
Authority was created to engage with interested organizations and individuals to establish a strategic plan to
maximize the economic benefits of the Inland Port.
Due to these and other large-scale projects and an overwhelming need for more skilled workforce, Salt Lake
City Community College created a brand new, cutting edge campus that focuses primarily on building our
skilled labor workforce. This effort and many more will work to help support large scale projects as our
community evolves.
HOW DO THE SKILLS AND EDUCATION OF THE CURRENT WORKFORCE CORRESPOND TO
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN THE JURISDICTION?
The percentage of residents with at least some higher education is higher than the national average with over
71% of residents reporting they’ve received some college education. The national average is 60%. As
demonstrated in Table MA-45.8, Salt Lake City also has a much higher percentage of residents with bachelor’s
degrees and graduate degrees than the rest of the nation.
46 GSBS Consulting, Salt Lake City International Airport Redevelopment Program: Economic Impact Analysis,
https://www.slcairport.com/assets/pdfDocu ments/The-New-SLC/Airport-EIA-Final-Report.pdf
47 Salt Lake City Department of Airports, Elevations, Summer 2019, https://www.slcairport.com/assets/pdfDocuments/
Elevations-Newsletter/Elevations-Summer-Edition -August-2019.pdf
124
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
TABLE MA-45.8
EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT, SALT LAKE CITY AND UNITED STATES
Educational Attainment Salt Lake City
% of Population
United States
% of Population
Less Than High School Graduate 11.2% 12.4%
High School Graduate (Includes Equivalency) 18.1% 27.6%
Some College or Associates Degree 30.2% 31.0%
Bachelor's Degree or Higher 23.7% 18.4%
Graduate or Professional Degree 19.4% 10.6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates: Educational Attainment by Employment Status for the Population 25
Years and Over
The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates quarterly underemployment through alternative measures of labor
utilization. The measure used for underemployment is U -6 which not only measures unemployment, but also
includes those who are willing to work and have recently looked for work, as well as those working part -time
but who want to work full-time. This means this categorization includes current employees who feel
underutilized in their current employment. The national U -6 rate between the fourth quarter of 2018 and the
third quarter of 2019 was 7.3. In Utah, this rate was 5.5%.48
DESCRIBE ANY CURRENT WORKFORCE TRAINING INITIATIVE INCLUDING THOSE SUPPORTED
BY WORKFORCE INVESTMENT BOARDS, COMMUNIT Y COLLEGES AND OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS. DESCRIBE HOW THESE EFFORTS WILL SUPPO RT THE JURISDICTION’S
CONSOLIDATED PLAN.
The 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan emphasizes providing opportunities to help build healthy neighborhoods.
This can be supported by efforts and organization with job training initiatives. Salt Lake City already has several
community programs that provide job training. These organizations typically assist clients in learning how to
search for jobs, write resumes, and interview in addition to key life skills that are necessary to be successful in
the w orkplace. By highlighting these initiatives in the Consolidated Plan, the City can assist these programs in
increasing their capacity to provide services.
Many of these programs focus on assisting vulnerable populations and a few are listed below:
Advantage Services (non-profit that employs homeless people with disabilities)
Refugee and Immigration Center - Asian Association of Utah (refugees and immigrants)
The Columbus Foundation (individuals with disabilities)
English Skills Learning Center (teaching English as a 2nd language)
Odyssey House (alcohol and drug rehabilitation)
First Step House (substance use disorders and mental health)
DOES YOUR JURISDICTION PARTICIPATE IN A COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGY?
No, Salt Lake City does not partici pate in a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy.
48 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, https://www.bls.gov/lau/stalt.htm
125
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
IF SO, WHAT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES ARE YOU UNDERTAKING THAT MAY BE
COORDINATED WITH THE CONSOLIDATED PLAN. IF NOT, DESCRIBE OTHE R LOCAL/REGIONAL
PLANS OR INITIATIVES THAT IMPACT ECONOMIC GROWTH.
Salt Lake City does not currently have a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy; however, the City
does have a variety of local plans and initiatives that impact economic growth. In addition to the job training
initiatives listed above, here are a few of the City’s plans and projects designed to stimulate economic
development:
Economic Development Loan Fund
The Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) is designed to stimulate business development and expansion,
create employment opportunities, encourage private investment, promote economic development, and
enhance neighborhood vitality and commercial enterprise in Salt Lake City by making loans available to
businesses that meet City objectives. Loans are available for:
Startup and existing businesses
Revenue producing non -profit ventures
A business expanding or relocating to Salt Lake City
Energy-efficient (e2) equipment upgrades and building retrofits
Businesses impacted by construction
Construction/tenant improvement and/or real estate acquisition
Signage, retail presentation, and display work
Fixtures, furnishings, equipment and inventory
Working capital and marketing
The EDLF fills a gap in economic development by lending to high -tech and manufacturing businesses that
would not otherwise be eligible for a traditional bank loan yet have strong potential for growth. Loans are
considered a bridge loan and not meant to be long -term financing.
Salt Lake City Emergency Loan Program
During the recent COVID-19 crisis, Salt Lake City launched an Emergency Loan Program to assist business with
funding to support them through a short -term community crisis. This Program is designed as a bridge to
ensure that business can stay afloat including making rent/mortgage payments, keep staff employed, cover
utility and ongoing costs during a time of crisis and significantly decreased revenues. While it is not anticipated
that this program will continue in this exact form throughout the entire Consolidated Plan, it is important to
note that the City has the ability to react quickly and provide additional resources when necessary.
Master Plans
Salt Lake City’s Master Plans provide an outline of community and economic development goals for specific
areas of the City. Planning efforts since 2010 include the planning documen ts:
Central Community
o 400 South Livable Communities Project - 2012
Downtown
o Downtown Plan – 2016
East Bench
o Existing Conditions Report – 2014
o East Bench Master Plan – 2017
o Parley’s Way Corridor – 2017
Northwest Community
o North Temple Boulevard Plan - 2010
126
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Northwest Quadrant
o Northwest Quadrant Master Plan – 2016
Sugar House
o Sugar House Streetcar Update to Master Plan – 2016
o Circulation and Streetcar Amenities for Sugar House Business District – 2014
o 21st and 21st Neighborhood Plan – 2017
o Sugar House Circulation Plan – 2013
o Sugar House Phase 2 Alternative Analysis – 2013
Westside Master Plan
o Westside Master Plan – 2014
o 9-Line Corridor Master Plan - 2015
Redevelopment Agency Programs
The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA) works to revitalize Salt La ke City’s neighborhoods and
business districts to improve livability, spark economic growth, and foster authentic communities, serving as a
catalyst for strategic development projects that enhance the City’s housing opportunities, commercial vitality,
and public spaces. The RDA accomplishes this through the following tools:
Property acquisition, clearance, re-planning, sale, and redevelopment
Planning, financing, and development of public improvements
Providing management support and tax increment reimburs ement for projects that will revitalize
underutilized areas
Gap financing in the form of loans, grants, and equity participation to encourage private investment
Relocation assistance and business retention assistance to businesses.
Improved redevelopment areas contribute to the overall health and vitality of the City by reversing the negative
effects of blight, while increasing the tax base from which taxing entities draw their funds. In Salt Lake City,
Redevelopment Project Areas’ tax bases have historic ally grown at twice the rate of surrounding areas that are
not designated as RDA project areas.
National Development Corporation
Since 1969, the NDC has carried out its mission to create jobs and promote community development
opportunities in economically-disadvantaged neighborhoods. NDC raises equity through its Corporate Equity
Fund and invests in affordable housing. NDC also creates jobs in underserved areas through its New Markets
Tax Credit Program and through its Small Business Lending Program, NDC Grow America Fund. The City uses
the expertise and knowledge of NDC to continue to develop, finance, and market community development and
affordable housing.
Façade Grant Program
The Housing and Neighborhood Development Division utilizes federal funding t o support local businesses by
offering up to $25,000 in grants to improve their façades. These improvements could include items such as
door upgrades, window improvements, paint or stucco updating, installing of garages, security lighting,
fascia/soffit work, etc. Increasing the street appeal of small businesses located within the City positively affects
the surrounding neighborhoods through increasing the visual appeal of neighboring commercial areas and
boosting the economy on a local level.
City Transportation Plans
In 2020, the City will update its Transportation Plan which was prepared in 1996. As the Plan unfolds, efforts will
continue to be made to coordinate and leverage resources in low -income neighborhoods. At the current time,
the City’s Transit Master Plan (2017) and the Pedestrian/Bike Master Plan (2015) are the most recent and
relevant.
127
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
The City is currently committing $5.3m to improved bus service, $1.1m for capital investments related to bus
service (bus stops, transit hubs, first/last mile improvements such as sidewalks and bike lanes), and $800,000 for
a pilot on-demand ride hailing service. This provides an opportunity to leverage CDBG funds in disadvantaged
neighborhoods to improve access to transportation and facilitate multimodal trans portation options. At the
time the Transit Master Plan was completed, 83% of bus stops did not have shelters or benches, effectively
discouraging potential riders. The study further found that access to transit in Salt Lake City is challenging
because of the large blocks and wide streets, as well as lack of ADA improvements and access to stations.
Finally, the Transit Master Plan found that the “cost of transit is particularly burdensome on large families,
youth, and transit-dependent populations – low -income, older adults, persons with disabilities, and zero car
households.”49
The City’s anticipates spending $1-2m per year in capital improvement projects such as traffic signal upgrades,
safety projects, and bike/pedestrian enhancements. Again, there is th e opportunity to provide better access to
transportation and leverage funds from several sources.
New Market Tax Credits (NMTC)
Capital is attracted to eligible communities (where the poverty rate is at least 20% or where the median family
income does not exceed 80% of the area’s median income) by providing private investors with a credit on their
federal taxes for investments in qualifying areas. NMTC investors receive a tax credit equal to 39% of the
Qualified Equity Investment (QEI) made in a Community Development Entity (CDE) over a 7-year period.
MA-50 NEEDS AND MARKET ANALYSIS DISCUSSION
ARE THERE AREAS WHERE HOUSEHOLDS WITH MULTIPLE HOUSING PROBL EMS ARE
CONCENTRATED?
Salt Lake City has neighborhoods that are more likely to have housing units with m ultiple housing problems.
These neighborhoods generally contain an older housing stock occupied by low -income households. Many of
these neighborhoods are located in the Central City, Ballpark, Rose Park, Fairpark, Poplar Grove, and Glendale.
ARE THERE ANY AREAS IN THE JURISDICTION WHERE RACIAL OR ETHNIC MINORITIES OR
LOW-INCOME FAMILIES ARE CONCENTRATED?
In the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan there were three racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty
(RCAP/ECAP) in Salt Lake County, two of which were in Salt Lake City. The number of racially/ethnically
concentrated areas of poverty in the County has dropped to only one, and this area is located just south of the
City’s boundaries. An RCAP/ECAP is defined as a census tract with a family poverty rate gre ater than or equal to
40%, or a family poverty rate greater than or equal to 300% of the metro tract average, and a majority non -
white population, measured at greater than 50%.
The absence of RCAP/ECAPs does not mean that there aren’t areas where there i s a substantial concentration of
minorities with reportedly low incomes. Most census block groups to the west of I -15 reported a population
composed of more than 50% minorities. These block groups also report some of the lowest incomes in the City
as well. Most of these areas are located in the Glendale and Poplar Grove neighborhoods.
49 Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan 2017 Executive Summary
128
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
WHAT ARE THE CHARACT ERISTICS OF THE MARKET IN THESE AREAS/NE IGHBORHOODS?
The City has been experiencing increasing housing costs and wages have failed to increase at the sam e rate
which can influence the ability for income mobility. Salt Lake City is focusing efforts to mitigate the negative
externalities of poverty by increasing economic opportunities, improving neighborhood infrastructure,
expanding services in distressed n eighborhoods, improving the housing stock, and increasing access to public
transit and multi-modal transportation options. The City is also making steps to incentivize affordable housing
development in opportunity areas in order to expand housing choices t hrough the City.
In general, median sales prices and rents are significantly lower in areas of concentrated poverty than in the rest
of the C ity. Households located in neighborhoods on the west side of I-15, such as Poplar Grove and Glendale
have higher homeownership rates than the C ity average. The Ballpark and Central City neighborhoods have a
much higher rental rate than the City average. Other housing market and demographic data points can be
found in Table MA-50.1.
TABLE MA-50.1
AREAS WITH HIGHER POVERTY LEVELS Neighborhood Census Tract Population Minority Poverty Rate Average Household Size Median Household Income Median Home Value Tenure Cost-Burdened Renters All People Families Under 18 Owner Renter Central City
1019 2,470 23% 34% 24% 50% 1.51 $31,852 $172,500 10% 90% 43%
1020 2,382 22% 21% 23% 16% 1.91 $40,395 $208,500 26% 74% 46%
1023 2,931 33% 24% 8% 17% 1.82 $22,568 $186,100 17% 83% 43%
1021 1,460 21% 27% 14% 31% 1.29 $24,815 $173,100 12% 88% 46%
Ballpark 1029 4,514 22% 42% 47% 81% 2.01 $22,203 $147,100 23% 77% 54%
Glendale 1028.01 5,319 57% 35% 28% 49% 4 $43,750 $164,700 43% 57% 67%
1028.02 6,704 54% 35% 28% 53% 3.73 $42,891 $142,100 70% 30% 66%
Poplar Grove
1026 3,658 51% 28% 26% 44% 2.92 $40,133 $145,900 57% 43% 64%
1027.01 5,209 62% 29% 25% 46% 3.13 $35,465 $133,700 49% 51% 75%
1027.02 4,128 76% 29% 29% 32% 3.56 $33,359 $129,400 31% 69% 51%
Salt Lake City All 194,188 26% 18% 11% 22% 2.45 $54,009 $266,800 48% 52% 46%
Note: Cost-Burdened Renters spend 30% or more of m onthly income on housing costs.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2013-2017 American Community Survey
These 10 Census tracts identified above as having some of the highest poverty levels in the City are generally
located within RDA project areas.
ARE THERE ANY COMMUNITY ASSETS IN THESE AREAS/NEIGHBORHOODS?
Education
Numerous schools are located in the target area, including the Dual Immersion Academy, the City
Academy and Salt Lake Arts Academy. The Pete Suazo Business Center is also located in the area.
Health Services
129
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
There are 23 clinical services/programs offered in Glendale/Poplar Grove, provided by a host of clinics
including Donated Dental, Friends for Sight, Concentra Urgent Care, the University of Utah Clinic, First
Med and the Glendale/Mountain View Community Learning Center, among others.
Eight programs providing health education were found in the neighborhood. These programs
are offered through Communidades Unidas, Sunday Anderson Senior Center, Mexican Consulate,
Glendale Senior Housing, and the B oys and Girls Club. A total of six mental health services were
identified in West Salt Lake. Four of the six programs are family and school -based mental health
counseling offered through Valley Behavioral Health.
Cultural Arts
The Sorenson Unity Center has a theatre and hosts performances within the community. The Utah
Cultural Celebration Center has three different opportunities for youth specifically to enjoy ethnic
performances as well as Shakespeare performances. Both venues also have art galleries tha t are open
to the public.
Community Centers and Gardens
The Hartland Partnership Center is located in the Glendale Neighborhood. This center offers resources
such as English language instruction, mental health support, citizenship classes, and employment
workshops.
There are several community gardens in the target area. These gardens provide an opportunity for
community interaction and allow for households to grow their own produce. Of special note are the
International Peace Gardens which presents gardens and festivals from around the world, as well as a
Farmer’s Market and Seed Swap event.
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
One of West Salt Lake’s greatest assets is the abundance of parks and open space. Of Glendale and
Poplar Grove residents, 83% live within a quarter mile of some form of green space. This is the highest
percentage in the City. There are 14 parks, including the notable International Peace Garden, located in
these neighborhoods and comprising over 100 acres. All green spaces are managed b y Salt Lake City
Parks and Public Lands.
The Jordan River Parkway offers outdoor boating opportunities.
The Jordan River Parkway and 9 Line trails provide recreational opportunities and connectivity to
natural environments. They also provide additional c ommunity connectivity and transportation options.
Fitness
The Glendale/Poplar Grove neighborhoods, located within the target area, offer 77 total health and
fitness programs. The largest facility is the Sorenson Multicultural Center which offers a wide va riety of
youth programs including aquatics. Two fitness centers are targeted for seniors – the Sunday Andersen
Senior Center and the Westside Center.
Public Transit
The TRAX light rail line runs through the Ballpark and Poplar Grove neighborhoods. The li ght rail also
runs within one block of the Central City neighborhood. These transit lines connect these
neighborhoods to the rest of the Salt Lake Valley and allow for greater employment opportunities.
Redevelopment Project Areas
130
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Redevelopment project areas cover the entire target area. This means that incremental tax revenues
can be used to improve their respective project areas through a wide variety of projects including but
not limited to infrastructure improvements (water, sewer, transportation, etc.), beautification, economic
development incentives, façade renovation, grant funds, parks development, signage and wayfinding,
etc. Specific objectives identified by the RDA for uses of funds within its existing project areas include:
o Emphasize transit and connections to multi-modal transportation means
o Create high-quality pedestrian environments
o Promote infill development
o Support high quality, diverse and affordable housing
o Support public art in public places
o Encourage innovative sustainability practices a nd limit carbon emissions
o Promote transit-oriented development at key sites located at TRAX stations
o Foster growth of small and new businesses
o Participate in streetscape enhancements
Opportunity Zones
As shown in the map below, a large percentage of the t arget area is also located in an opportunity
zone. Opportunity zones were established under the Investing in Opportunity Act as a way to revitalize
economically-distressed communities using private investment. Tax benefits to investors include the
deferral and reduction of tax gains, thereby making these zones more attractive to investors and
increasing the potential of leveraging private funds with public investment.
131
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
FIGURE MA-50.1
SLC RDA PROJECT AREAS AND OPPORTUNITY ZONES
MA-60 BROADBAND NEEDS OF HOUSING OCCUPIED BY
LOW- AND MODERATE - INCOME HOUSEHOLDS – 91.210(a)(4),
91.310(a)(2)
DESCRIBE THE NEED FO R BRAODBAND WIRING AND CONNECTIONS FOR HOUSHOLDS,
INCLUDING LOW- AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS AND NEIGHBORHOODS.
A dependable broadband network provides many benefits. These networks attract businesses, provide social
connections, increase educational opportunities, and improve the quality of life for citizens. According to
Broadbandnow.com/Utah, 11.6% of Utah residents are underserved by broadband service providers. However,
most of these underserved communities are in rural areas of the state and only 0.6% Salt Lake County is
reportedly underserved.
While service is provided to most households in Salt Lake County, that do esn’t mean all households can afford
access to the internet. The 2018 ACS 5-year Estimate reported that there were 9,249 households in Salt Lake
City without an internet connection. This represents almost 12% of the City’s households. A household which
doesn’t have access to internet services through a broadband connection is at a significant disadvantage
economically when seeking new employment and educationally if children or adults in the household are
attending school. If these households are also low - or moderate-income households then a lack of internet
connection could prove to be one of the largest barriers to economic growth for the household.
132
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
DESCRIBE THE NEED FO R INCREASED COMPETIT ION BY HAVING MORE T HAN ONE
BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER SERVE THE JURISDICTION.
Competition is a basic economic principal that states that when there are multiple providers of a service then
the prices of that service will be lower as the providers attempt to gain more market share through a more
favorable price offered to the consumer. By providing more options, if a consumer feels they are being charged
too much for a service then the consumer can look to an alternative provider. This movement in the market
encourages providers to produce services at a competiti ve rate and protects consumers from unfair prices.
MA-65 HAZARD MITIGATION – 91.210(a)(5), 91.310(a)(2)
DESCRIBE THE JURISDICTION’S INCREASED NATURAL HAZARD RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH
CLIMATE CHANGE.
According to the Salt Lake County Multi-Jurisdictional Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan the main natural hazards
identified and investigated for Salt Lake County include:
Earthquake
Flood
Wildland Fire
Slope Failure
Severe Weather
Dam Failure
Avalanche
Pandemic
Drought
Infestation
Radon
Problem Soils
Of these natural hazards, Salt Lake County identified Salt Lake City as being high risk for only earthquakes,
floods, and wildfires while being at moderate risk for severe weather.
DESCRIBE THE VULNERABILITY TO THESE RISKS OF HOUSING OCCUPIED BY LOW- AND
MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS BASED ON AN ANALYSIS OF DATA, FINDINGS, AND
METHODS.
Many low- and moderate-income households would suffer a greater financial impact from these risks than
other households as repairs from earthquake, severe weather, flooding, or wildfires could cause serious financial
stress. This negative effect could be compounded if these households could not afford additional insurance
coverage.
The Salt Lake County Multi -Jurisdictional Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies areas west of I-15 as a
potential flood risk due to the Jordan River. In the plan, the area directly surrounding the Jordan River State
Parkway is listed as a low - to moderate-risk with flood risk increasing at nearer proximity to the river. There is
also low-risk of flooding on the west side of the Rose Park neighborhood. These two flood areas are significant
because they are areas with low - and moderate-income households.
133
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
STRATEGIC PLAN
The Strategic Plan identifies Salt Lake City’s priority needs and describes strategies that the City will undertake
to serve priority needs over a five-year period. The plan focuses on building Neighborhoods of Opportunity to
promote capacity in low -income neighborhoods and to support the City’s most vulnerable populations.
134
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
SP-05 OVERVIEW
The 2020-2024 Strategic Plan is based on an assessment of community needs as identified in this Consolidated
Plan, in City planning documents, and on the ability of federal funds to meet the identified needs. Within this
context, the 2020-2024 Strategic Plan focuses on building Neighborhoods of Opportunity to promote capacity
in low -income neighborhoods and to support the City’s most vulnerable populations. The five -year plan
provides a strategy for maximizing and leveraging the City’s block grant allocations with other funding sources,
including the City’s Redevelopment Agency, to build healthy and sustainable communities that connect and
expand opportunities for housing, education, transportation, behavioral health services and economic
development. Strategic plan goals call for Consolidated Plan funds to focus on the following:
Housing
To provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of Salt Lake City’s
population while diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods.
Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing stock through targeting
rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods
Expand housing support for aging residents that ensure acce ss to continued stable housing
Support affordable housing development that increases the number and types of units available for
income eligible residents
Support programs that provide access to home ownership via down payment assistance, and/or
housing subsidy, and/or financing
Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to prevent and
end homelessness
Support programs that provide connection to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health
programs. Support may include, but is not limited to supporting obtaining housing via deposit and
rent assistance and barrier elimination to the extent allowable to regulation
Provide housing and essential services for persons with HIV/AIDS
Transportation
To promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation options.
Improve bus stop amenities as a way to encourage the accessibility of public transit and enhance the
experience of public transit in target areas
Support access to transportation prioritizing very low-income and vulnerable populations
Expand and support the installation of bike racks, stations, and amenities as a way to encourage use of
alternative modes of transportation in target areas
Build Community Resiliency
Build resiliency by providing tools to increase economic and/or housing stability.
Provide job training/vocational training programs targeting low -income and vulnerable populations
including, but not limited to; chronically homeless; those exiting treatment centers/programs and/or
institutions; and persons with disabilities
Economic Development efforts via supporting the improvement and visibility of small businesses
through façade improvement programs
Provide economic development support for microenterprise businesses
Direct financial assistance to for-profit businesses
Expand access to early childhood education to set the stage for academic achievement, social
development, and change the cycle of poverty
135
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication technologies an d the internet
Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population
Homeless Services
To expand access supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief, and non -recurring.
Expand support for medical and dental care options for those experiencing homelessness
Provide support for homeless services including Homeless Resource Center Operations and Emergency
overflow operations
Provide support for programs providing outreach services to address the needs of t hose living an
unsheltered life
Expand case management support as a way to connect those experiencing homelessness with
permanent housing and supportive services
Behavioral Health
To provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing b ehavioral health concerns such as
substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges.
Expand treatment options, counseling support, and case management for those experiencing
behavioral health crisis
The City intends to leverage all potential funding resources to achieve its goals, recognizing the need to
maximize participation from a variety of resources. The City has also established specific measurement criteria
by which to measure its progress in meeting its goals.
SP-10: GEOGRAPHIC PRIORITIES 91.215(a)(1)
GEOGRAPHIC AREAS
For the 2020-2024 program years, Salt Lake City has designated one local CDBG target area to concentrate and
leverage funding to stimulate comprehensive neighborhood revitalization that expands housing opportunities,
economic opportunities and neighborhood livability. Our selected target area corresponds with the City’s
existing RDA project areas. If the RDA project areas change, the target area will adjust to continue to
correspond to the RDA project areas. Throughout the durati on of this Plan, the CDBG target area will represent
any RDA project area. The combined RDA project areas were chosen as the target area for the following
reasons:
The RDA areas generally overlap the lower-income areas of the City and areas that scored lo wer on the
Opportunity Index. The Opportunity Index measures 16 factors including education, health,
environment, social, and economic that indicate the relative opportunity in various geographic
locations.
Tax increment funds are already being generated i n RDA areas. While some funds are currently
committed, there is the potential for additional tax increment revenues as new development occurs in
these areas. These funds can then be spent within their respective RDA areas for a wide variety of
purposes, including housing, beautification, revolving loan funds, public infrastructure, etc.
Most of the RDA areas were established with a required, designated set -aside (usually 10-20%) for
housing. This provides an opportunity to leverage other funds with RDA fund ing.
Some of the redevelopment areas also included a finding of blight which indicates rundown
conditions, with poor visual appearance. This is a deterrent to economic development and funding is
needed to mitigate these conditions.
136
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
The RDA areas overlap with designated Opportunity Zones and by design will see an increase in private
market investments.
FIGURE SP-10.1
WEST SIDE TARGET AREA
TABLE SP-10.1
LOCAL TARGET AREAS
1 Area Name CDBG Target Area
Area Type West Side Target Area
Revital Type Comprehensive
Identify the neighborhood boundaries for
this target area.
Beginning at 2100 South and State Street, the Target Area
follows the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency’s State
Street Project Area’s eastern boundary going north until
900 South. It then continues north along State Street to
600 South. The boundary then continues west on 600
South to 500 West. It then goes north on 500 West to 300
North. The boundary continues west on 300 North to
Redwood Road. It then continues south on Redwood Road
until 2100 South. The boundary then continues east on
2100 South until it reaches State Street where it ends at the
intersection of 2100 South and State Street.
137
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
1 Area Name CDBG Target Area
Include specific housing and commercial
characteristics of this area
44% owner occupied
The neighborhood poverty rate as determined by the ACS
information within Census Block Groups within the area
ranges from 4 to 38%. The block groups average a poverty
level of 27% compared to 17.8% in Salt Lake City.
The average household size is 3.02, compared to 2.47
citywide.
36% of the area’s residents identify as Hispanic, compared
to 22.3% of Salt Lake City.
How did your consultation and citizen
participation process help you to identify
this neighborhood as a target area?
Our Citizen Participation Plan included an online survey
and public outreach with over 4,000 responses.
Neighborhoods in the RDA areas consistently ranked high
in the survey results. As such, Council prioritized the RDA
areas in the most vulnerable sections of the City, resulting
in the current West Side Target Area.
Identify the needs in this target area. Many of the existing housing units are old and rundown.
Therefore, rehabilitation of existing housing stock is key for
this area. Poverty levels are higher in this area than in other
areas of the City. A reduction in poverty levels could be
accomplished through the encouragement of mixed -
income housing. Improving streetscapes and the visual
appearance of the area could also attract more mixed -
income development.
There is a lack of bus and rail lines in large portions of the
target area resulting in higher transportation costs for
much of the target area.
What are the opportunities for
improvement in this target area?
Opportunities exist to enhance business districts and
neighborhood nodes to promote economic development,
job creation, and overall community revitalization. Several
arterials cross through the target area with high traffic
counts suitable for economic development that could bring
jobs to these lower-income areas. Housing rehabilitation
and the development of strategic mixed-income housing
will promote housing stability and economic diversity
within the target area.
Are there barriers to improvement in this
target area?
Many residents do not speak English as their first language.
High renter levels often make for a more transitory
population with less investment in the community.
GENERAL ALLOCATION P RIORITIES
Locally-defined target areas provide an opportunity to maximize impact and align HUD funding with existing
investment while simultaneously addressing neighborhoods with the most severe needs. According to HUD
standards, a Local Target Area is designated to allow for a locally targeted approach to the investment of CDBG
and other federal funds.
The target area for the 2020-2024 program years has been identified in Figure SP-10.1. CDBG and other
federal funding will be concentrated (not limited) to the target area. Neighborhood and community nodes will
be identified and targeted to maximize community impact and driv e further neighborhood investment. On an
138
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
annual basis, internal city divisions/departments including the Redevelopment Agency, Salt Lake City
Transportation, and Economic Development will strategize if specific areas of the CDBG target area are in need
of additional focus/resources as it relates to CDBG eligible projects. This type of flexibility will ensure that the
focus within the target area can move around as per the needs of the community. Activities will be coordinated
and leveraged, and can include an increase of marketing and outreach for housing programs, transportation
improvements, and commercial façade improvements.
FIGURE SP-10.2
TARGET AREA AND SLC NEIGHBORHOODS
Source: Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency Target Areas
The Target Area was identified through an extensive process that analyzed local poverty rates, low - and
moderate-income rates, neighborhood conditions, citizen input, and available resources.
A recent fair housing equity assessment (May 2018) completed by the Kem C. Gardne r Policy Institute at the
University of Utah states that there is a housing shortage in Utah, with the supply of new homes and existing
“for sale” homes falling short of demand. While the impact of higher housing prices is widespread, affecting
buyers, sellers, and renters in all income groups, the report concludes that those households below the median
income, and particularly low -income households, are disproportionately hurt by higher housing prices. In fact,
households with incomes below the median have a 1 in 5 chance of a severe housing cost -burden, paying at
139
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
least 50% of their income toward housing, while households with incomes above the median have a 1 in 130
chance.50
Targeting area resources are necessary to expand opportunity for the West Side Ta rget Area as well as the
impacted RDA Project Areas. The following area ways that investments will be realized:
Concentrating resources geographically will provide a way to help stabilize and improve distressed
areas in these neighborhoods.
Connectivity between the target area and other areas of the Salt Lake Valley will reduce transportation
costs and reduce financial burdens on households.
Neighborhood and/or community nodes will be targeted for commercial façade improvements, public
transit enhancements and amenities that support non -motorized modes of transit.
Economic development and transportation projects can be located throughout the target area.
Housing rehabilitation projects can be located throughout the City, with a focus on the target area.
Support to microenterprises and for-profit businesses can be offered to qualified business across the
City, however, additional focus and marketing efforts will occur within the target area.
In an effort to expand community engagement in the local target area, HAND will reach out to residents,
business owners, property owners, community councils, non -profit organizations, and other stakeholders to
gather input on housing and community development needs. City departments and divisions will collaborate to
leverage resources and efforts within the target area. HAND and the Department of Economic Development will
create an inventory of eligible commercial buildings to target for façade improvements and/or interior code
deficiencies and will engage property owners and entrepreneurs in outreach efforts.
RATIONAL E FOR THE PRIORITIES F OR ALLOCATING INVEST MENTS GEOGRAPHICALLY
Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division, along with internal and community
stakeholders, identified the target area through an extensive process that included data analysis, identification
of opportunities/barriers, a citizen survey, and an evaluation of potential resources. Through this process, the
RDA neighborhoods were identified as areas where a concentration of resource s would make significant
impacts within the community. This approach would also allow for ongoing leveraging of resources and efforts
in these areas.
Of particular importance is to direct resources to expand opportunity within areas where poverty levels a re
higher. According to HUD, neighborhoods of concentrated poverty isolate residents from the resources and
networks needed to reach their potential and deprive the larger community of the neighborhood’s human
capital. In another study, it was found that there were significant physical health improvements from reducing
concentrated areas of poverty.51
Opportunity zones are also located within the target area. This affords an opportunity to further leverage
private investment within these economically -distressed areas. Opportunity zones attract private capital
because of the ability to defer and reduce taxes associated with capital gains. The tax savings that can be
realized are significant. Only 46 geographic areas in Utah have been designated as opportunity zones by the
federal government, making these highly attractive sites. Further, other funding resources, such as low -income
housing tax credits (LIHTC) and tax increment can also be realized in these zones, making for extremely
competitive investment opportunities in areas that were previously overlooked.
50 James Wood, Dejan Eskic and D. J. Benway, Gardner Business Review, What Rapidly Rising Prices Mean for Housing Affordability,
May 2018.
51 Third Way, Moving to Opportunity: The Effects of Concentrated Poverty on the Poor, August 2014.
140
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Salt Lake City intends to expand opportunity within the target areas to limit intergenerational poverty, increase
access to community assets, facilitate upward mobility, and provide safe, affordable hous ing.
SP-25 PRIORITY NEEDS 90.215(a)(2)
Salt Lake City has determined the following priority needs after broad stakeholder outreach and analysis of
community needs:
TABLE SP-25.1
PRIORITY NEEDS
1 Priority Need: Homeless Services
Priority Level High
Population Extremely low-income
Homeless large families
Homeless families with children
Unaccompanied youth
Homeless individuals
Elderly
Chronic homeless
Mentally ill
Chronic substance abuse
Veterans
Persons with HIV/AIDS
Persons with disabilities
Survivors of domestic violence
Geographic Areas
Affected
Citywide
Associated Goals Goal:
Expand access to supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness
is rare, brief, and non-recurring.
Focus Areas:
Expand medical and dental care programs
Increase outreach programs
Support homeless resource centers & emergency overflow
operations
Provide essential supportive services including case management
for homeless
Description Support the operating cost of homeless resource centers, day centers,
emergency sheltering systems, and supportive services for the homeless.
Increase access to critical health systems such as medical and dental care.
Increase case management support for those working directly with
homeless populations.
Basis for Relative Priority According to the 2019 Point-in-Time Count, Salt Lake County has 1,844
homeless individuals, 193 of whom are unsheltered.
Results of the Citizen Online Survey and public outreach with over 4,000
responses listed this as the top priority .
141
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
PRIORITY NEEDS
2 Priority Need: Affordable Housing
Priority Level High
Population Extremely low-income
Low-income
Moderate-income
Large families
Families with children
Elderly
Public housing residents
Released jail inmates
Refugees
Geographic Areas
Affected
Citywide
Associated Goals Goal:
Provide Expanded housing options for all economic and demographic
segments of Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying housing stock
within neighborhoods.
Focus Areas:
Preserve and rehabilitate existing, aging affordable h ousing stock
through improving the condition of housing throughout the City
Support anti-displacement strategies, prioritizing the target area
identified in the plan. This may include strategies such as
supporting Community Land Trust programming, historic
preservation and others.
Improve and expand the affordable housing stock including
lifecycle housing, including special needs housing, elderly, and
ADA accessible housing. As applicable, this should explore the
ability to place housing in high opportunity areas and/or within
walking distance of transit stations
Increase homeownership opportunities
Provide rent assistance to emphasize stable housing
Provide housing and essential supportive services for persons
with HIV/AIDS
Description Provide loans, grants, and other financial assistance for the acquisition,
preservation and development of affordable rental and homeownership
opportunities. Provide financial assistance to stabilize low -income renters
and homeowners. Explore and support strategies that ensure long-term
affordability. Evaluate the relationship of housing and transit as a way of
reducing overall housing costs.
Basis for Relative Priority According to the 2017 ACS data, 45.6% of Salt Lake City renter
households and 25.5% of households with a mortgage are cost-
burdened, spending over 30% of their monthly income on
housing costs. 22.3% of renter households spend over 50% of
142
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
2 Priority Need: Affordable Housing
their monthly income on housing.52 Families who are cost-
burdened have limited resources for food, childcare, healthcare,
transportation, education, and other basic needs.
The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City currently administers
Housing Choice (Section 8) vouchers for 3,000 households, with
5,188 households on the waiting list. Countywide there are 15,981
households on a Housing Choice waiting list. A family on the
waiting list can expect to wait 6 years before receiving a Housing
Choice voucher. Between 2000 and 2018, the cost of housing
increased significantly for both renters and homeowners. The
median contract rent increased by 81.8% and home values
increased 89.8%. During the same time period, the median
household income only increased by 52.6%. Since incomes did
not keep up with increases in housing costs, it has become more
difficult for residents to buy or rent a home. The homeownership
rate decreased from 56.9% in 2000 to 48.4% in 2018.
Results of the Citizen Online Survey and public outreach with over
4,000 responses listed this as the top priority
PRIORITY NEEDS
3 Priority Need: Transportation
Priority Level High
Population Extremely low-income
Low-income
Moderate-income
Large families
Families with children
Elderly
Persons with disabilities
Geographic Areas
Affected
Citywide (Public Service) & CDBG Target Area (Infrastructure)
Associated Goals Goal
Promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation
options
Focus Areas:
Provide increased access to and cost assistance for public
transportation services for vulnerable populations
Install bus stop improvements, including coordination with multi-
modal transit needs – limited to CDBG Target Area
Improve bus stop shelters and sidewalk access to transit to
increase mobility, especially for persons in wheelchairs or with
disabilities – limited to CDBG Target Area
Install bike racks and stations in key areas to encourage
alternative modes of transportation – limited to CDBG Target Area
52 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2014-2018 5-Year Estimates
143
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
3 Priority Need: Transportation
Description Support improvements to transit that will improve affordability and
increase access and safety
Basis for Relative Priority Transportation serv ices ranked high on the citizen participation survey and
public outreach that received more than 4,000 responses. Annual
household transportation costs are high in much of the target area.
PRIORITY NEEDS
4 Priority Need: Build Community Resiliency
Priority Level High
Population Extremely low-income
Homeless large families
Homeless families with children
Unaccompanied youth
Homeless individuals
Elderly
Chronic homeless
Mentally ill
Chronic substance abuse
Veterans
Persons with HIV/AIDS
Survivors of domestic violenc e
Geographic Areas
Affected
Citywide
Associated Goals Goals:
Provide tools to increase economic and/or housing stability
Focus Areas:
Support job training and vocational rehabilitation programs that
increase economic mobility
Improve visual and physical appearance of deteriorating
commercial buildings - limited to CDBG Target Area
Provide economic development support for microenterprise
businesses
Direct financial assistance to for-profit businesses
Expand access to early childhood edu cation to set the stage for
academic achievement, social development, and change the cycle
of poverty
Promote digital inclusion through access to digital
communication technologies and the internet
Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity f or
vulnerable population
Description Expand opportunities for individuals and households living in poverty or in
the cycle of intergenerational poverty. Activities include services to expand
accessibility to employment opportunities, improve and enhance small
businesses, promote access to early childhood education, expand the
availability of digital technologies, and reduce food insecurities.
144
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
4 Priority Need: Build Community Resiliency
Basis for Relative Priority As our community faces challenges that hinder economic mobility,
education, access to technology and increase food insecurity. Service
providers, industry experts, data analysis, community members, and
elected officials all agree that providing support for these efforts will
enhance community resiliency as we look to improve access to cr itical
services, rebuild from national, state or local emergencies.
PRIORITY NEEDS
5 Priority Need: Behavioral Health Services to Expand Opportunity and Self -
Sufficiency
Priority Level High
Population Extremely low-income
Homeless large families
Hom eless families with children
Unaccompanied youth
Homeless individuals
Elderly
Chronic homeless
Mentally ill
Chronic substance abuse
Veterans
Persons with HIV/AIDS
Victims of domestic violence
Refugees
Geographic Areas
Affected
Citywide
Associated Goals Goal:
Provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing
behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental
health challenges.
Focus area:
Provide supportive services such as treatment, case management
and counseling to expand opportunity and self -sufficiency for
vulnerable populations
Support programs that provide connections to permanent
housing upon exiting behavioral health programs
Description Expand opportunities and counseling services for individuals wi th
behavioral health issues. Activities include counseling and treatment
services for opioid and other substance abuse and mental health issues.
Basis for Relative Priority Stakeholder meetings, City departments and public feedback from an
online survey and public outreach with over 4,000 responses prioritized
behavioral health issues as there is an apparent link between behavioral
health issues, homelessness, and the ability to maintain housing and
sustain employment.
145
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
SP-30 INFLUENCES OF MARKET CONDITIONS 91.215 (a)(2)
Market Characteristics that will influence the use of funds available for housing type :
As the needs assessment and market analysis have demonstrated, just over 22,500 Salt Lake City households
are cost-burdened, spending 30% or more of their monthly income on housing (including utility costs) and are
in need of housing that is affordable. Of these households, just over 10,000 households are severely cost -
burdened, spending more than 50% of their monthly income on housing. These household s are at risk of
homelessness. Market conditions influencing the production, rehabilitation, and assistance of affordable
housing are as follows:
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA)
Incomes are not keeping up with rising rental costs. The median income rose 52.6% between 2000 and 2018
while rent rates increased by 81.8% over the same time period. Based on CBRE’s Real Estate Market Outlook
2019, vacancy rates are low (4.0%) placing upward pressure on rents. Strong population growth is also
projected to continue, placing additional pressure on rents. Salt Lake County average monthly rents have
increased from an average of $1,087 per month in 2017 to $1,153 in 2018.
Market conditions have increased demand for Housing Choice vouchers, which currently have a gap of
approximately 6,177 units for low -income households.
Research also indicates that there is a lack of affordable units in close proximity to service providers to assist at -
risk populations with housing and other needs. In addition, there is a need f or additional partnerships between
affordable housing landlords, property, and social services organizations.
TBRA for Non-Homeless Special Needs
Low rental vacancy rates and incomes not keeping up with rising rental costs lead to increasing housing cost -
burden rates and very high demand for Housing Choice vouchers. There is a gap of approximately 10,000 units
for severely cost-burdened households. Funds are also needed for transitioning participants with HOPWA -
funded housing to other housing subsidies and affordable housing units in closer proximity to transportation
and essential services. There is a need for additional partnerships between affordable housing landlords,
property managers, and social service organizations.
New Unit Production
According to CBRE’s Real Estate Market Outlook 2019, “the market continues to expand at an above-average
rate, adding a record 7,467 units along the Wasatch Front during 2018 (a growth rate of 4.6%). Approximately
6,244 units were slated for 2019. As rental rates rise, the question of rental affordability is of top concern.
Renters coming from more expensive Tier 1 markets will continue to absorb many of these new units, and many
locals will not be accustomed to paying higher rates. Rental rates are pushing upward due to a variety of factors
including a construction industry stretched thin due to labor supply issues and rising costs. In addition to
increasing construction costs, land costs are also rising, thereby driving up rents even further.
This results in increasing cost-burden rates, very high demand for Housing Choice (Section 8) vouchers, and a
gap of approximately 10,000 units for severely cost -burdened households. There is a need for additional
partnerships between affordable housing developers/providers, prop erty managers and social service
organizations. Additional affordable units are needed in high -opportunity neighborhoods as well as units in
close proximity to transportation and essential services.
Rehabilitation
Lower interest rates have somewhat improv ed the cost of construction and home ownership. However, many
low-income households are still unable to qualify for loans for home ownership or home improvement
146
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
financing. The share of elderly homeowners is projected to increase as the median age increases in the Salt
Lake Valley. Salt Lake City has an older housing stock, with about 30.1% of units built prior to 1940. Older
housing stock located in concentrated areas of poverty and RDA project areas are at risk for deterioration.
Incomes are not keeping up with rising costs. Affordable units are at risk of being replaced with newer housing
stock or that with revitalization the rents will convert to market rate. Stabilization of existing housing in the
target area is imperative.
Acquisition, Including Preservation
According to CBRE’s Real Estate Market Outlook 2019, a robust market performance resulted in a historic $1.4
billion in multifamily sales across the Wasatch Front. Salt Lake City is increasingly viewed as a preferred, Tier 2
market. CAP rates have stayed low, suggesting confidence in the multifamily market outlook. The strong rental
market-rate rental market shows the increasing need to preserve affordable rentals, as converting substandard
rental housing to market-rate can be very desirable for property owners.
SP-35 ANTICIPATED RESOURCE S 91.215(a)(4), 91.220(c)(1,2)
INTRODUCTION
Salt Lake City’s funding year 2020-2024 CDBG, HOME, ESG, and HOPWA allocations are estimated to be a total
of $25,000,000 estimating an average of $5,000,000 per year. In addition, Salt Lake City anticipates receiving
program income of $7.5 million during the same time period, with an estimated average of $1.5 million of
program income available to spend each year. HUD allocations will be utilized to address the growing h ousing
and community development needs within Salt Lake City. However, funding has declined over the past decade,
making it more difficult to address needs and overcome barriers. Over the course of the 2020 -2024
Consolidated Plan, Salt Lake City will coord inate and leverage HUD allocations to assist the City’s most
vulnerable populations, increase self -sufficiency and address needs in the geographic target area.
TABLE SP-35.1
ANTICIPATED RESOURCES
Uses of Funding
Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected
Amount
Available –
Remainder
of Con Plan
Description Annual
Allocation
Program
Income
Prior Year
Resources Total CDBG Acquisition
$3,509,164 $0 $35,000 $3,544,164 $13,600,000
Prior year
resources are
unspent funds
from previous
years.
Administration
Economic
Development
Homebuyer
Assistance
Homeowner
Rehabilitation
Multifamily Rental
Construction
Multifamily
Public
Improvements
147
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Uses of Funding
Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected
Amount
Available –
Remainder
of Con Plan
Description Annual
Allocation
Program
Income
Prior Year
Resources Total
Public Services
Rental
Rehabilitation
New Constru ction
for Ownership
TBRA
Historic Rental
Rehabilitation
New Construction HOME Acquisition
$957,501 $300,000 $0 $1,257,501 $4,600,000
Program
income is
typically
generated
from housing
loan
repayments
from nonprofit
agencies.
Administration
Homebuyer
Assistance
Homeowner
Rehabilitation
Multifamily Rental
Construction
Multifamily
Rental
Rehabilitation
New Construction
for Ownership
TBRA ESG Administration
$301,734 $0 $2,500 $304,234 $1,160,000
Prior year
resources are
unspent funds
from previous
years.
Financial
Assistance
Overnight Shelter
Rapid Re-Housing
(Rental Assistance)
Rental Assistance
Services
Transitional
Housing HOPWA Administration
$600,867 $0 $15,000 $615,876 $1,720,000
Prior year
resources are
unspent funds
from previous
years.
Permanent
Housing in
Facilities
148
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Uses of Funding
Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected
Amount
Available –
Remainder
of Con Plan
Description Annual
Allocation
Program
Income
Prior Year
Resources Total
Permanent
Housing
Placement
STRMU
Short-Term or
Transitional
Housing Facilities
Supportive
Services
TBRA OTHER: HOUSING – TRUST FUND Acquisitions
$0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $3,000,000
The Trust Fund
has a budget
of $2m and
expects to
receive a total
of
approximately
$3m in
revenue over
the next plan
period.
Administration
Conversion and
Rehab for
Transitional
Housing
Homebuyer
Rehabilitation
Housing
Multifamily Rental
New Construction
Multifamily Rental
Rehab
New Construction
for Ownership
Permanent
Housing in
Facilities
Rapid Re-Housing
Rental Assistance
TBRA
Transitional
Housing OTHER PROGRAM INCOME All CDBG Eligible
Activities per
Housing Program
Rules $0 $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $6,000,000
Salt Lake City
Housing
Programs –
Program
Income
All HOME Eligible
Activities per
Housing Program
Rules
149
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Uses of Funding
Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected
Amount
Available –
Remainder
of Con Plan
Description Annual
Allocation
Program
Income
Prior Year
Resources Total OTHER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND Economic
Development $0 $0 $0 $0 $4.000,000
The fund
currently has a
balance of
approximately
$4m.
EXPLAIN HOW FEDERAL FUNDS WILL LEVERAGE THOSE ADDITIO NAL RESOURCES (PRIVATE,
STATE, AND LOCAL FUNDS), INCLUDING A DESCRIPTION OF HOW MATCHING
REQUIREMENTS WILL BE SATISFIED:
Match Requirements
HUD, like many other federal agencies, encourages the recipients of federal monies to demonstrat e that efforts
are being made to strategically leverage additional funds in order to achieve greater results. Leverage is also a
way to increase project efficiencies and benefit from economies of scale that often come with combining
sources of funding for similar or expanded scopes.
HOME Investment Partnership Program – 25% Match Requirement Salt Lake City will ensure that
HOME match requirements are met by utilizing the leveraging capacity of its subrecipients. Funding
sources used to meet the HOME match requirements include federal, state, and local grants; private
contributions; private foundations; United Way; local financial institutions; City General Fund; and
unrestricted donations.
Emergency Solutions Grant – 100% Match Requirement Salt Lake City wi ll ensure that ESG match
requirements are met by utilizing the leveraging capacity of its subgrantees. Funding sources used to
meet the ESG match requirements include federal, state, and local grants; private contributions; private
foundations; United Way; Continuum of Care funding; City General Fund; in -kind match and
unrestricted donations.
Fund Leveraging
Leverage, in the context of the City’s four HUD programs, means bringing other local, state, and federal
financial resources in order to maximize the reach and impact of the City’s HUD Programs. Resources for
leverage include the following:
Housing Choice Section 8 Vouchers
150
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City and Housing Connect currently administer Housing Choice
(Section 8) vouchers. The City projects the local housing authorities will receive approximately $173.6
million in funding during the plan period to support public housing units.
Low -Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
Created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the LIHTC program gives State and local LIHTC -allocating
agencies the equivalent of nearly $8 billion in annual budget authority to issue tax credits for the
acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction of rental housing target ed to lower-income households.
Federal 4% and 9% tax credits are a major funding source of capital for the construction and
rehabilitation of affordable rental homes. In 2019, the Agency allocated $10,900,317 in Federal and
State Housing Credits.53 At the c urrent funding level, approximately $55 million will be available for
low-income homebuyer programs to developers to build or renovate affordable apartment housing
products over the course of this Plan.
New Market Tax Credits
New Market Tax Credits are an additional tool utilized to attract private capital investment in areas in
need of job growth and economic development.
RDA Development Funding
The RDA has 12 project areas, nine of which are currently collecting tax increment. Tax increment funds
are required to be reinvested back into the same “project area” from which funds are generated and to
contribute to the overall health and vitality of the City. The purpose of an RDA is to reverse the
negative effects of blight, while increasing the tax base fro m which the taxing entities draw their funds.
The RDA generated $33,833,404 in tax increment receipts in 2018. The RDA generally uses a 2% annual
growth rate for existing project areas. State legislation governing RDAs require that 20% of tax
increment rec eipts is set aside for the creation or preservation of affordable housing. A portion of
those funds can be used in the CDBG Target Area. In addition, in 2019 the following two additional
project areas will commence generating tax increment for the RDA:
o Stadler Rail CRA: $180,750
o Northwest Quadrant: $18,873
Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund (HTF)
Salt Lake City’s Housing Trust Fund strives to address the health, safety, and welfare of the City’s
citizens by providing assistance for affordable and special needs housing within the City. The Trust
Fund has a 2019 budget of $7,400,023.
Salt Lake City Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF)
The City administers the Economic Development Loan Fund which makes loans to small businesses
located in the City for the purpose of stimulating economic development and commercial and
industrial diversity by enhancing business opportunities, providing employment and promoting
neighborhood revitalization. This fund currently has a cash balance of approximately $4.0m and loans
outstanding of $5.6m.
Salt Lake City General Fund
The City uses excess general funds for homeless services when such funds are available, and
opportunities present themselves. The City has allocated $2.5M of resources for homeless services in
fiscal year 2020.
53 https://www.novoco.com/sites/default/files/atoms/files/utah_2019_lihtc_awards_2019.pdf
151
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund
Utah State’s Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund is one of the largest affordable housing loan funding
tools for affordable housing developers working in Salt Lake City. The loan fund had about $14 million
available in fiscal year 2020.
Industrial & Commercial Bank Funding
Although it is not possible to estimate how much Community Reinvestment Act funding will be made
available locally, there are a large number of industrial and commercial banks that reside in Salt Lake
City and that have requirements to invest in low -income areas.
Continuum of Care Funding
The Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (Continuum of Care) provides approximately $7.8
million of annual funding for local homeless housing and service prog rams.
Foundations & Other Philanthropic Partners
Charitable establishments and philanthropic partners make up a critical part of the funding stream
used in the State of Utah. It is estimated that during the Consolidated Plan period, over $100m will be
used to support low - and moderate-income residents, with a considerable amount of the funding
being used in Salt Lake City.
IF APPROPRIATE, DESCRIBE PUBLICLY-OWNED LAND OR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE
JURISDICTION THAT MAY BE USED TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS IDENTIF IED IN THE PLAN:
Salt Lake City intends to expand affordable housing and economic development opportunities through the
redevelopment of City -owned land, strategic land acquisitions, parcel assembly, and disposition. As per City
ordinance, Housing and Neighborhood Development Division will work collaboratively with other City divisions
that oversee or control parcels that are owned by the City to evaluate the appropriateness for affordable
housing opportunities.
DISCUSSION:
Salt Lake City will continue to seek other federal, state, and private funds to leverage entitlement grant funding.
The City has already shown its commitment to leveraging funding through the selection of the target area
which matches the current RDA areas. In addition, the City will sup port the proposed community development
initiatives outlined in this Plan through strategic initiatives, policies, and programs.
SP-40: INSTITUTIONAL DE LIVERY STRUCTURE 91-215(k)
Explain the institutional structure through which the jurisdiction will carr y out its Consolidated Plan including
private industry, non-profit organizations, and public institutions.
TABLE SP-40.1
INSTITUTIONAL DELIVERY ORGANIZATIONS
Responsible Entity Responsible Entity
Type
Role Geographic Area
Served
Advantage Services, Inc. Non -profit organization Non -homeless special
needs, Homeless services Region
Alliance House Non -profit organization Affordable housing: rental Region
152
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Responsible Entity Responsible Entity
Type
Role Geographic Area
Served
Asian Association of Utah Non -profit organization Non -homeless special
needs Region
ASSIST, Inc. Non -profit organization Affordable housing:
ownership Region
Big Brothers Big Sisters of
Utah Non -profit organization Non -homeless special
needs Region
Boys and Girls Club of Salt
Lake Non -profit organization Non -homeless special
needs Region
Catholic Communi ty
Services Non -profit organization Homelessness, non -
homeless special needs Region
Community Development
Corp of Utah Non -profit organization Affordable housing:
ownership State
Community Health
Centers Non -profit organization Homelessness, non -
homeless special needs Region
Crossroads Urban Center Non -profit organization Homelessness, non -
homeless special needs Region
Disability Law Center Non -profit organization Non -homeless special
needs Region
English Skills Learning
Center Non -profit organization Non -homeless special
needs Region
Family Promise of Salt
Lake Non -profit organization Homelessness Region
Family Support Center Non -profit organization Homelessness, non -
homeless special needs Region
First Step House Non -profit organization Homelessness , non -
homeless special needs Region
Guadalupe School Non -profit organization Non -homeless special
needs Region
Helping Hands
Association dba The
Haven
Non -profit organization Homelessness, non -
homeless special needs Region
House of Hope Non -profit organ ization Homelessness, non -
homeless special needs Region
Housing Authority of Salt
Lake City PHA Public housing, affordable
housing: rental Jurisdiction
Housing Authority of the
County of Salt Lake PHA Public housing, affordable
housing: rental
Region
U tah Law Related
Education Project Non -profit organization Non -homeless special
needs State
Legal Aid Society of Salt
Lake Non -profit organization Non -homeless special
needs
Region
Literacy Action Center Non -profit organization Non -homeless special
needs
Region
Neighborhood House Non -profit organization Non -homeless special
needs Jurisdiction
NeighborWorks Salt Lake CHDO
Affordable housing:
ownership, economic
development
Region
Odyssey House Non -profit organization Homelessness, non -
homeless special needs Region
153
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Responsible Entity Responsible Entity
Type
Role Geographic Area
Served
People Helping People Non -profit organization Non -homeless special
needs Region
Rape Recovery Center Non -profit organization Non -homeless special
needs Region
Road Home Non -profit organization Homelessness Region
Salt Lake City Department
of Community and
Economic Development
Departments and agencies
Affordable housing,
neighborhood
improvements
Jurisdiction
Salt Lake City Department
of Public Services Departments and agencies Neighborhood
improvements Jurisdiction
Salt Lake City Division of
Planning Departments and agencies Neighborhood
improvements Jurisdiction
Salt Lake City Division of
Economic Development Departments and agencies Neighborhood
improvements Jurisdiction
Salt Lake City Division of
Engineering Departments and agencies Neighborhood
improvements Jurisdiction
Salt Lake City Housing and
Neighborhood
Development Division
Departments and agencies
Affordable housing,
neighborhood
improvements
Jurisdiction
Salt Lake City Division of
Parks and Public Lands Departments and agencies Neighborhood
improvements Jurisdiction
Salt Lake City Division of
Streets Departments and agencies Neighborhood
improvements Jurisdiction
Salt Lake City Division of
Transportation Departments and agencies Neighborhood
improvements Jurisdiction
Salt Lake City Housing
Trust Fund Government Affordable housing:
homeownership, rental Jurisdiction
Salt Lake City RDA Redevelopment authority
Affordable housing,
neighborhood
improvements
Jurisdiction
Salt Lake City School
District Other Non -homeless special
needs Jurisdiction
Salt Lake Community
Action Program Non -profit organization Homelessness, non -
homeless special needs Region
Salt Lake and Tooele
Continuum of Care Continuum of Care Homelessness Region
Salt Lake Donated Dental
Services Non -profit orga nization Homelessness, non -
homeless special needs Region
Sarah Draft Home Non -profit organization Affordable housing; home
ownership Region
Sorenson Unity Center Government Non -homeless special
needs Jurisdiction
Utah AIDS Foundation Non -profit organiza tion Non -homeless special
needs Region
Utah Food Bank Non -profit organization Homelessness, non -
homeless special needs State
Utah Health and Human
Rights Non -profit organization Non -homeless special
needs State
154
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Responsible Entity Responsible Entity
Type
Role Geographic Area
Served
Utah Homeless
Management Information
System
Government Homelessness, non -
homeless special needs State
Utah Housing Corporation Other Affordable housing
homeownership, rental State
Utah Non -Profit Housing
Corporation Non -profit organization Affordable housing: rental Region
Utahns Against Hunger Non -profit organization Homelessness, non -
homeless special needs Region
Valley Behavioral Health Non -profit organization Non -homeless special
needs State
Volunteers of America
(VOA) Non -profit organization Homelessness, non -
homeless special needs Region
Wasatch Community
Gardens Non -profit organization Neighborhood
improvements Region
Wasatch Homeless
Healthcare – 4th Street
Clinic
Non -profit organization Homelessness, non -
homeless special needs Region
Welcome Home Salt Lake
City Government Home ownership City
YMCA Non -profit organization Non -homeless special
needs Region
YMCA Non -profit organization Homelessness, non -
homeless special needs Region
ASSESS STRENGTHS AND GAPS IN THE INSTITUT IONAL DELIVERY SYSTEM
Community needs are efficiently and eff ectively addressed through the knowledge, commitment, and resources
of a broad range of partners. By working closely with governmental partners and private organizations, Salt
Lake City is able to carry out an institutional delivery structure that emphasiz es collaboration and resource
leveraging.
Public services for Salt Lake City’s homeless and extremely low -income population are delivered through a
network of integrated public -private partnerships. Coordination meetings are regularly held to manage servi ce
delivery for individuals and families that have multiple and complex problems that require comprehensive
services form more than one organization. Coordination meetings are also utilized to streamline services and
prevent the duplication of efforts.
A significant institutional delivery barrier is that financial resources limit the amount of services provided in the
community. Many service providers have long wait lists. Salt Lake City is working with community partners to
prioritize and restructure serv ices to utilize funding resources more effectively.
TABLE SP-40.2
AVAILABILITY OF SERVICES TARGETED TO HOMELESS PERSONS AND PERSONS WITH HIV
Homelessness Prevention Services
Available
in the
Community
Targeted
to
Homeless
Targeted to
People with
HIV
Homelessness
Prevention Services
Counseling/Advocacy X X X
Legal Assistance X
155
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Homelessness Prevention Services
Available
in the
Community
Targeted
to
Homeless
Targeted to
People with
HIV
Mortgage Assistance X X
Rental Assistance X X X
Utilities Assistance X X
Street Outreach
Services
Law Enforcement X X X
Mobile Clinics X X
Other Street Outreach Services X X X
Supportive Services
Alcohol & Drug Abuse X X
Child Care X X
Education X X
Employment/Employment Training X X
Healthcare X X X
HIV/AIDS X X X
Life Skills X X X
Mental Health Counseling X X X
Transportation X
DESCRIBE T HE EXTENT TO WHICH SERVICES TARGETED TO HOMELESS PERSONS AND
PERSONS WITH HIV AND MAINSTREAM SERVICES, SUCH AS HEALTH, MENT AL HEALTH AND
EMPLOYMENT SERVICES ARE MADE AVAILABLE T O AND USED BY HOMELESS PERSONS
(PARTICULARLY CHRONICALLY HOMELESS INDIV IDUALS AND FAMILIES, FAMILIES WITH
CHILDREN, VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND UNACCOMPANIED YOUTH) AND PERSONS
WITH HIV WITHIN THE JURISDICTION.
Fourth Street Clinic, dba Wasatch Homeless Healthcare, is an AAAHC Patient Centered Medical Home that
provides coordinated medical, mental health, substance abuse, case management, dental, and pharmacy
services. It provides the primary medical services to the homeless community. Other organizations such as
Donated Dental provide complimentary services.
In 1985, the Utah Department of Health reported a total of 17 persons living with AIDS in Utah. At that time, the
state and most citizens were unprepared to address the HIV/AIDS issue. The need for public information and
for assistance for persons living with HIV/AIDS forced a community-based response, which ultimately became
the Utah AIDS Foundation (UAF). Today, a two -fold approach of direct client services and targeted prevention
education still comprises the basis for all UAF programming. UAF works with Clinic 1A to ensu re that those
diagnosed with HIV/AIDS are connected to medical case management, housing case management,
employment opportunities, and other services.
Valley Behavioral Health, formerly known as Valley Mental Health, provides services to all residents in Salt Lake
County (including those who are experiencing homelessness) that experience serious mental illnesses,
substance use disorders and behavioral problems. Valley Behavioral Health operates Safe Haven and Salt Lake
Valley Storefront. Located at 550 W 700 S Salt Lake City, Safe Haven is a permanent supportive housing
program for those that meet Valley Behavioral Health’s client criteria. Salt Lake Valley Storefront is a day center
at Safe Haven and is solely for those experiencing serious mental illnesse s.
The State of Utah’s Department of Workforce Services has an employment center co -located at the Weigand
Day Center. This offers those using services on Rio Grande or meals at St. Vincent DePaul’s Dining Hall, a
chance to connect with employment withou t traveling.
156
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Founded in 1958, First Step House is a co -occurring capable, behavioral health treatment and housing provider.
First Step is a Joint Commission-accredited organization and is a consistent leader in the Salt Lake metro area
delivering evidence-based interventions and achieving positive outcomes for individuals, Veterans, and families
experiencing substance use disorders, homelessness, mental health conditions, justice system involvement, and
primary health concerns. First Step operates two resi dential treatment facilities, two outpatient treatment
centers, and six transitional housing facilities in Salt Lake County. The scope of services includes substance use
disorder, criminogenic, and mental health assessment and referral, residential and out patient treatment,
recovery residence services, transitional housing, case management, employment support, primary health care,
peer support services, and long-term recovery management.
Odyssey House of Utah focuses on addiction recovery services through both in-patient and out-patient
programs. Programs are available for both adults and teens.
Other programs serving our community include Volunteers of America Cornerstone, which provides substance
use treatment for low -income and homeless individuals. In addition, Volunteers of America has two detox
programs including Adult Detox and Center for Women and Children. Both serve low -income, homeless
individuals or families.
DESCRIBE THE STRENGT HS AND GAPS OF THE SERVICE DELIVERY SYST EM FOR SPECIAL
NEEDS POPUL ATION AND PERSONS EX PERIENCING HOMELESSNESS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT
LIMITED TO, THE SERV ICES LISTED ABOVE.
Homeless services organizations within the Salt Lake and Tooele Counties Continuum of Care work diligently to
coordinate services and place people in hou sing. Local organizations participate in HMIS, managed by the State
of Utah. Through HMIS, service providers are able to view other services their clients access and coordinate on a
client-by-client basis. The local CoC also uses the VI-SPDAT (Vulnerability Index – Service Prioritization Decision
Assistance Tool) form in the annual Point -in-Time count. By using the VI-SPDAT at first contact, the clients can
be connected to services quicker and receive help sooner. However, there are always improvements that can be
made in coordinating activities. Meetings with stakeholders revealed concerns that case management loads
were too large and that reductions were necessary for better coordination and provision of services. So, while
coordination occurs, there is of ten a high level of demand for services in comparison to the availability of
needed treatment and services.
PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF THE STRATEGY FOR OVE RCOMING GAPS IN THE INSTITUTIONAL
STRUCTURE AND SERVICE DELIVERY SYSTEM FO R CARRYING OUT A STRATEGY TO ADD RESS
PRIORITY NEEDS.
The Salt Lake and Tooele Counties Continuum of Care continues to implement coordinated access based on the
VI-SPADT form. Salt Lake County is leading efforts to coordinate services for the homeless with the end goal of
providing homeless services as seamlessly as possible.
157
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
SP-45: GOALS
In consideration of priority needs and anticipated resources, Salt Lake City has defined the following five -year
goals:
TABLE SP-45.1
G OALS, PRIORITY NEEDS AND OUTCOME INDICATORS
Sort Order Goal Start
Year
End
Year Category Geograp
hic Area
Priority Needs
Addressed Funding
Goal
Outcome
Indicator
1 - Housing Expand housing
options 2020 2024 Affordable
Housing
Citywide Affordable
Housing CDBG $ 6,000,000
ESG $343,750
HOME $2,500,000
HOPWA
$1,940,000
5075
Households
assisted
2 –
Transportation
Improve access
to
transportation
2020 2024 Transportation Target
Areas/Cit
y Wide
Transportation CDBG $4,000,000
100,300
Households
assisted
3 – Community
Resiliency
Increase
economic
and/or housing
stability
2020 2024 Economic
Development/Pu
blic Services
Target
Areas/Cit
y Wide
Community
Resiliency
CDBG $1,250,000 325
Individuals or
businesses
assisted
4 – Homeless
Services
Ensure that
homelessness is
brief, rare, and
non-recurring
2020 2024 Public
Services/Homele
ss Services
Citywide Homeless
Services CDBG $1,000,000
ESG $825,000
2050 Persons
assisted
5 – Behavioral
Health
Support
vulnerable
populations
experiencing
substance abuse
and mental
health
challenges
2020 2024 Public
Services/Behavio
ral Health
C itywide Behavioral
Health
CDBG $500,000 400
households
assisted
6 –
Administration
Administration 2020 2024 Administration Citywide Administration CDBG $3,200,000
ESG $103,125
HOME
HOPWA $60,000
N/A
TABLE SP-45.2
G OAL DESCRIPTIONS
Goal Name Goal Description
1 Housing To provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic
segments of Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying the housing stock
within neighborhoods.
Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing
stock through targeted rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the
housing stock within the neighborhoods
Support affordable housing development that increases the number
and types of units available for qualified residents
Support programs that provide access to home ownership
Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable housing as a
primary strategy to prevent and/or end homelessness
Support programs that provide connection to permanent housing
upon exiting behavioral health programs
Provide housing and essential supportive services to persons with
HIV/AIDS
2 Transportation To promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation options.
158
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Goal Name Goal Description
Within eligible target areas, improve bus stop amenities as a way to
encourage the accessibility o f public transit and enhance the
experience of public transit
Within eligible target areas, expand and support the installation of
bike racks, stations, and amenities as a way to encourage use of
alternative modes of transportation
Support access to transp ortation, prioritizing very low -income and
vulnerable populations
3 Community Resiliency Provide tools to increase economic and/or housing stability
Support job training and vocational rehabilitation programs that
increase economic mobility
Improve visual and physical appearance of deteriorating commercial
buildings - limited to CDBG Target Area
Provide economic development support for microenterprise
businesses
Direct financial assistance to for -profit businesses
Expand access to early childhood education to set the stage for
academic achievement, social development, and change the cycle of
poverty
Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication
technologies and the internet
Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for
vulnerable population
4 Homeless Services To expand access to supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is
rare, brief, and non -recurring
Expand support for medical and dental care options for those
experiencing homelessness
Provide support for homeless services including Homeless Resource
Center Operations and Emergency Overflow Operations
Provide support for programs undertaking outreach services to
address the needs of those living an unsheltered life
Expand case management support as a way t o connect those
experiencing homelessness with permanent housing and supportive
services
5 Behavioral Health To provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing
behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental
health challenges.
Expand treatment options, counseling support, and case management
for those experiencing behavioral health crisis
6 Administration To support the administration, coordination and management of Salt Lake
City’s CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA programs.
ESTIMATE THE NUMBER OF EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME, LOW-INCOME, AND MODERATE -
INCOME FAMILIES TO WHOM THE JURISDICTION WILL PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS
DEFINED BY HOME 91.315(B)(2):
Over the course of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, the City antici pates that CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA
funds will provide affordable housing and housing subsidy assistance as follows:
Housing Rehabilitation: 1,000 Households
159
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Direct Financial Assistance to Home Buyers: 100 Households
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance/Rapid Re-housing: 2,800 Households
Homeless Prevention: 500 Persons
SP-50: PUBLIC HOUSING ACCESSIBILITY AND INVOLVEMENT
91.215(c)
NEED TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE UNITS (IF REQUIRED BY A SECTION 504
VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT)
The local housing authorities are in compliance with the Section 504 Voluntary Compliance agreement.
Activities to Increase Resident Involvement:
Monthly tenant meetings
Tenant association meetings with both City and County tenants
Salt Lake County Aging Services has a center located on site at high rise
HACSL has a Resident Advisory Board that has representatives from public housing (including the high -
rise), Section 8, and special needs programs. A member of the Resident Advisory Board is appointed to
the Housing Authority’s Board of Commissioners.
IS THE PUBLIC HOUSING AGENCY DESIGNATED AS TROUBLED UNDER 24 CFR PART 902?
No. The Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake and the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City are both
designated as high performers.
SP-55: STRATEGIC PLAN BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE
HOUSING 91.215(h)
As discussed in detail in section MA -40, the most critical public policy barriers (direct and indirect) to the
production and preservation of affordable housing include the following:
Economic Conditions
Housing costs have risen more quickly than incomes over the past 10 years
Transportation costs are significantly higher in some neighborhoods than others due to a disparity in
the availability of transit and distance from employment centers
Land Regulations and Permitting Process
Salt Lake City’s Zoning Ordinance (similar to other cities) contains regulations that establish standards
for residential development including minimum lot size, density, unit size, height, setback, and parking
standards. Some of these regulations can inhibit the ability for affordable housing development
feasibility (i.e., profitability), including the following:
o Density limitations
o Lack of multifamily zoning
o Stringent parking requirements (reducing cost feasibility)
The process to waive/reduce impact fees for affordable housing is reportedly difficult to navigate for
some developers
Permitting and environmental review processes are often time consuming and reduce possible profits
for developers, thereby discouraging development and/or encouraging development of higher-margin
product (i.e., market-rate units)
160
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Land Costs
High land costs in certain areas do not allow for adequate profit in the development of lower -income
housing product, particularly in desirable neighborhoods that have experienced growth and new
construction over the past decade. Most affordable land is located on the west side of Salt Lake City,
furthering the concentration of affordable housing in select areas, and inhibiting the dispersal of
housing options throughou t the city
Land costs restrict the ability to place affordable housing in closer proximity to necessary services,
particularly near transit options and employment centers. Consequently, new housing often is
constructed in areas that result in high percentages of income being spent towards transportation.
Ultimately, these developments further increase traffic issues
Construction Costs
Construction costs, particularly labor costs, have experienced notable fluctuations in the recent past.
This has caused upw ard pressure on rents, and limited what type of product developers are able to
provide. Consequently, the profit margin in providing affordable housing is typically limited, or
altogether non-existent without the presence of incentives and tax credits
Rehabilitation of existing product has increased in cost due to overall labor shortages. Furthermore, the
gained value of improvements is often not more than the costs of construction, resulting in limited or
no profit for undertaking such renovation. This lim its the desire to undertake such endeavors unless
incentives can be provided
Development and Rehabilitation Financing
Affordable housing projects with complex layered finance structures can experience increased land
holding costs because of additional due diligence and longer timelines. This is partially alleviated with
City incentive programs that reduce some financing pressures
There is strong competition for local funding tools, such as the State of Utah’s Olene Walker Housing
Loan Fund
Neighborhood Ma rket Conditions
Negative public perception and community opposition (“NIMBYism”) can limit affordable housing
development when a zoning approval process is required
Some neighborhoods that have access to transit options do not have the appeal for large -scale
housing developments, due primarily to low -quality surrounding improvements, higher crime rates,
and limited employment diversity
The City’s recently completed Growing Salt Lake City: A Five -Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 provides the
following goals to remove barriers to affordable housing:
Goal 1: Reform City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high -opportunity housing market
Includes reforming City practices, such as land use and zoning regulations, as well as impediments in
City processes
Goal 2: Increase housing opportunities for cost-burdened households
Prioritizes stabilizing very low -income renters, the development of more affordable units and increased
home ownership opportunities
Goal 3: Build a more equitable city
161
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Eliminate incidences of housing discrimination and promote a diversity of housing throughout all areas
of the City
Other strategies employed by the City include the following:
Homeless Strategies
Coordinating with local service providers, municipalities, State of Utah, Continuum of Care, and others through
the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness in an effort to create a system by which resources, services,
data collection, and analysis results in coordination among all stakeholders.
Growing SLC: A Five-Year Plan
The City has formally adopted a new housing plan that will begin to address many of the barriers listed above
and catalyze partners in the city and region to focus on the current housing crisis. The plan provides an
assessment of citywide housing needs, with emphasis on the availability and affordability of housing, housing
needs for changing demographics, and neighborhood -specific needs. The updated plan will serve as a five -year
policy guide to address housing needs across the economic and demographi c spectrum of Salt Lake City’s
current and future residents.
Affordable Housing Initiative
The City is committed to providing a comprehensive housing initiative to address Salt Lake City’s lack of
housing options affordable to low -wage workers and moderate-income families, persons with disabilities and
those on fixed incomes. By utilizing the Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund and other community resources, the
City will support the preservation, development, and rental assistance of housing units over the time period of
the Consolidated Plan. The initiative will target these forms of assistance to extremely low -income renter
households as well as expanding homeownership and housing opportunities for low - to middle-income
families and individuals.
Community Land Trust
Salt Lake City has launched a Community Land Trust (CLT) that will allow donated and trusted land to maintain
perpetual affordability while ensuring the structure on the land, the home, is purchased, owned, and sold over
time to income-qualifying households, just as any other home would be. This provision is intended to ensure a
fair return on investment for the homeowner if a sale occurs during the period of affordability. By holding the
land itself in the trust, the land effectively receives a write down each time the home is sold, insulating the
property for growing land costs but still allowing equity to be built by the homeowner.
Blue Ribbon Commission
This commission was tasked with identifying how the City can fund and produce 1,000 units of affordable
housing throughout Salt Lake City. This commission has since been sun -setted, but the efforts of creating
affordable housing through the mechanisms identified continue to move forward.
Welcome Home Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City initiated a new homeownership program, Welcome Home SLC, which is aimed at increasing
housing options for low - and moderate-income households. It will help stabilize communities, provide incentive
for neighborhood investments, and allow families to build wealth.
Leverage Public Land
Promote affordable housing development by leveraging public resources with private investments. Potential
tools include the following:
Development of affordable housing on publicly -owned land
Utilize proceeds form development of publicly -owned land to fund affordable housing
Create a policy for prioritizing affordable housing uses when disposing of public land.
162
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Impact Fee Exemption
The City’s recently completed Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan, 2018-2022 recommends that impact fees
c ould be reduced by a decision-making body that reviews project transactions and that could only be accessed
by developers who commit to a percentage of units at a specific level of affordability.
Funding Our Future
In 2018, the City Council approved a 0.5% sales tax increase to address several important issues within the City
including transportation, housing, infrastructure, and public safety. This is estimated to provide an estimated $5
million additional sales tax revenues to support housing needs each year. Revenues may be shared between
development efforts and supporting affordable housing program efforts.
Redevelopment Agency
Salt Lake City’s Redevelopment Agency committed $17 million to address affordable housing efforts, with a
third of that targeted to areas where the City has experienced high land costs.
SLC Housing Trust Fund
The Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund was created in 2000 to provide financial assistance to support the
development and preservation of affordable and special needs hous ing in Salt Lake City. Eligible activities
include acquisition, new construction, and rehabilitation of both multifamily rental properties and single -family
homeownership. Additional assistance relating to housing for eligible households also may include p roject or
tenant-based rental assistance, down payment assistance and technical assistance. Applications for funding can
be accepted year-round and are approved through a citizen’s advisory board, the Mayor and the City Council.
Funding Targeting
The Housing and Neighborhood Development Division continually evaluates ways to coordinate and target
affordable housing subsidies more effectively, including:
Coordinate local funding sources – Olene Walker, SLC Housing Trust Fund, County partnerships
Target soft money to housing units affordable to households with lower AMIs
Target soft money with low or no interest loans.
Policies
Salt Lake City will work to remove or ameliorate public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing
through the following efforts:
Affordable Housing Development Incentives: Zoning and fee waiver incentives will be implemented
and/or strengthened, including the following:
Refine the Impact Fee Exemption Ordinance to improve user friendliness and refine the range of
application.
Evaluate the accessory dwelling unit ordinance for a broader range of application.
Evaluate the transit station area zoning district regulations for a broader range of affordability
requirements and potentially expand the use of that zone.
Evaluate the feasibility of density bonuses and other development incentives for affordable housing
development and preservation, specifically in Historic Landmark Districts where it is particularly difficult
to add housing.
Review the City’s Fee Schedule to eliminate added fees for developers of affordable housing.
Review the City’s Housing Loss Mitigation ordinance to ensure that the city’s stock of inexpensive
housing isn’t rapidly being replaced by more expensive units.
Leverage Public Resources for Affordable H ousing Development: Public resources, including C ity-
owned land, will be leveraged with private resources for affordable housing development.
· Funding Targeting: The Housing and Neighborhood Development Division is evaluating ways to
coordinate and target affordable housing subsidies more effectively, to include the coordination of
163
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
local funding sources (Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund, Salt Lake
County funding, etc).
Utilize the Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund: Funding is focused on acquisition, new construction, and
rehabilitation of both multifamily rental properties and single-family homeownership. Additional
assistance relating to housing for eligible househol ds also may include project or tenant based rental
assistance, down payment assistance and technical assistance. The City has been very successful in
spending down the Trust’s funds over FY17-18 and is resulting in an increased number of affordable
units being built in the city. Applications for funding can be accepted year -round and are approved
through a citizen’s advisory board, the Mayor and the City Council.
Implement Fair Housing Action Items: Salt Lake City will work to remove and/or ameliorate housing
impediments for protected classes through action items as identified in the City’s 2015- 2019 Fair
Housing Action Plan.
Utilize Federal Funding to Expand Affordable Housing Opportunities: Utilize CDBG, ESG, HOME, and
HOPWA funding to expand housing opportunity through homeowner rehabilitation, emergency home
repair, acquisition/rehabilitation, direct financial assistance, tenant -based rental assistance, project-
based rental assistance, and rapid re-housing.
In addition to the Action Items listed above, the City aims to tackle some of the larger problems behind the lack
of affordable housing – mainly the lack of a living wage. One way the City is addressi ng this issue is through
strategic targeting of its CDBG funds to programs that provide job training for vulnerable populations or to
organizations that create economic development opportunities.
SP-60: HOMELESS STRATEGY 91.215(h)
REACHING OUT TO HOME LESS PERSONS (ESPECIALLY UNSHELTERED PERSONS) AND
ASSESSING THEIR INDIVIDUAL NEEDS.
Salt Lake City’s primary homeless services goal is to help homeless individuals and families get off the street
and eventually into permanent housing. In the short term, Salt L ake City will continue to provide collaborative
services to the homeless population.
Salt Lake City recognizes that not every homeless individual is alike and because of that, there is no one size fits
all solution. There are groups of chronic homeless i ndividuals, veterans, families, women with children, youth,
and homeless-by-choice in the greater community. Each of these groups has different needs and each stage of
homelessness must also be considered. The four stages of homelessness are prevention (ke eping people from
dropping into homelessness with jobs and affordable housing), homelessness (helping with daily needs –
lockers, showers, etc.), transcending homelessness (finding housing, employment), preventing recurrence
(offering supportive services to housing). If the four stages are not considered for each group, efforts will
eventually be unsuccessful.
Personalized one-on-one outreach to homeless individuals providing information about the specific services
that individual needs (e.g., housing, men tal health treatment, a hot meal) is the most effective outreach
approach. Salt Lake City works regularly with various community partners that provide outreach and assessment
of individuals experiencing homelessness including Catholic Community Services; V olunteers of America, Utah;
the Department of Veterans Affairs; The Road Home and others. In 2016, Salt Lake City opened the Community
Connection Center (CCC) located in the primary homeless services area of the City. The CCC operates as a drop -
in center and employs social workers that assess individuals’ needs and help connect people with available
housing and supportive services. The CCC has been successful in filling the need for additional homeless
outreach and case management services in the City. The Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) is also
beginning a new pilot program. When available, while responding on a call with a person experiencing
164
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
homelessness, SLCPD will bring with them a social worker to engage with the client and help assess their
service needs and connect them to services.
ADDRESSING THE EMERGENCY SHELTER AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING NEEDS OF HOMELESS
PERSONS.
Starting with the State of Utah’s Ten -Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness, most efforts to deal with
homelessness in Utah rely on the Housing First model. Although the ten - year plan has sunset, the programs
and direction are still being implemented throughout the State. The premise of Housing First is that once
homeless individuals have housing, they are more likely to seek and continue receiving services and can search
for employment. The Housing First model has been effective in Salt Lake City, though meeting the varied
housing needs of this population can be challenging. The homeless housing market needs more permanent
supportive housing, housing vouchers, affordable non -supportive housing, and housing located near transit
and services. Salt Lake City is working towards new solutions in these areas as outlined in the City’s newly -
adopted housing plan, Growing SLC.
There is a continued need for day services to meet the basic needs of persons experiencing homelessness.
Needed daytime services include bathrooms, laundry, safe storage for their life’s belongings, mail receipt, and
an indoor area to “hang out.” Salt Lake City addresses these issues by supporting shelters, day services, and
providing a free storage program. Furthermore, Salt Lake City has constructed two new homeless resource
centers that will provide emergency shelter and housing -focused supportive services. This shift in how
homeless services are provided will help the community realize our goal that homelessness is rare, brief, and
non-recurring.
Moving forward, Salt Lake City will aim to assist homeless persons make the transition to permanent housing,
including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homelessness, facilitating
access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families
who were recently homeless from becoming h omeless again.
The City plays an important role by providing strategic funding for the valuable efforts undertaken by other
stakeholders and, at times, filling in gaps in essential services. The City can also lend its voice and political
weight to lobby for changes in policy, regulation, and statutes as needed to facilitate a comprehensive and
effective approach to addressing homelessness and related issues.
Salt Lake City’s newly adopted housing plan, Growing SLC, includes efforts to provide affordable housing
options along the spectrum of housing including permanent supportive housing, transition in place, tenant
based rental assistance, and affordable non -supportive housing.
Shelter the Homeless, Collective Impact to End Homelessness Steering Committ ee, and the Salt Lake City
Continuum of Care voted in support of merging these two entities into a new homeless system structure called
the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness. This Coalition’s primary goals are to prevent and end
homelessness in the Salt Lake Valley through a system -wide commitment of resources, services, data collection,
analysis and coordination among all stakeholders. Salt Lake City staff play a key role in assisting this effort as it
moves forward.
HELPING HOMELESS PERSONS (ESPECIALLY CHRONICALLY HOMELESS INDIVID UALS AND
FAMILIES, FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN, VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND
UNACCOMPANIED YOUTH) MAKE THE TRANSITION TO PERMANENT HOUSING AND
INDEPENDENT LIVING, INCLUDING SHORTENING THE PERIOD OF TIME T HAT INDIVIDUALS
165
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
AND FAMILIES EXPERIE NCE HOMELESSNESS, FACILITATING ACCESS FO R HOMELESS
INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES TO AFFORDABLE H OUSING UNITS, AND PREVENTING
INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES WHO WERE RECENT LY HOMELESS FROM BEC OMING HOMELESS
AGAIN.
Salt Lake City and its service partners work with homeless individuals to help them successfully transition from
living on the streets or shelters and into permanent housing or independent living.
The Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness’s primary goals are to prevent and end homelessness in Salt
Lake Valley through a system -wide commitment of resources, services, data collection, analysis, and
coordination among all stakeholders. Salt Lake City staff play a key role in assisting this effort as it moves
forward.
The City’s recently completed Growing Salt Lake City: A Five -Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 provides the
following goals to remove barriers to affordable housing:
Goal 1: Reform City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high -opportunity housing market
Includes reforming City practices, such as land use and zoning regulations, as well as impediments in
City processes
Goal 2: Increase housing opportunities for cost -burdened households
Prioritizes stabilizing very low -income renters, the development of more af fordable units and increased
home ownership opportunities
Goal 3: Build a more equitable city
Eliminate incidences of housing discrimination and promote a diversity of housing throughout all areas
of the City
Coupling along with Growing Salt Lake City, in 2018 City Council and the Mayor increased the sales tax by .5%
in an effort to create funding streams to address several critical needs within the City. Once such need is
affordable housing. Through this mechanism, it is anticipated that over $2m of fund ing will be available each
year to support low -income individuals and families access to affordable housing. Among other housing needs,
funds will be used to support access of permanent housing opportunities for those that are exiting
homelessness or at risk of becoming homeless.
HELPING LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES AVOID BE COMING HOMELESS,
ESPECIALLY EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES AND THOSE WHO ARE:
BEING DISCHARGED FROM PUBLICLY FUNDED INSTITUTIONS AND SYSTE MS OF CARE (SUCH
AS HEALTH CARE FACILITIES, MENTAL HEALTH FACILIT IES, FOSTER CARE AND OTHER YOUTH
FACILITIES, AND CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS AND INSTITUTIONS); OR, RECEIVING
ASSISTANCE FROM PUBL IC OR PRIVATE AGENCIES THAT ADDRESS HOUSING, HEALTH,
SOCIAL SERVICES, EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, OR YOUTH NEEDS
The City’s recently completed Growing Salt Lake City: A Five -Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 provides the
following goals to remove barriers to affordable housing:
Goal 1: Reform City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high -opportunity housing market
Includes reforming City practices, such as land use and zoning regulations, as well as impediments in
City processes
166
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Goal 2: Increase housing opportunities for cost -burdened households
Prioritizes stabilizing very low -income renters, the development of more affordable units and increased
home ownership opportunities
Goal 3: Build a more equitable city
Eliminate incidences of housing discrimination and promote a diversity of housing throughout all areas
of the City
Coupling along with Growing Salt Lake City, in 2018 City Council and the Mayor increased the sales tax by .5%
in an effort to create funding streams to address several critical needs within the City. Once such need is
affordable housing. Through this mechanism, it is antici pated that over $2m of funding through Funding Our
Future will be available each year to support low -income individuals and families access affordable housing.
Among other needs, funds will be used to identify and support households that are at risk of los ing housing
due to a variety of reason, including but not limited to eviction for non -payment, those that are precariously
housed, those that are in fact at risk of becoming homeless, but do not meet HUD’s definition of homeless, or
that are in a judicial process in which mitigation and resolution is possible.
Salt Lake City, along with other organizations in the Salt Lake Continuum of Care, work to prevent and divert
individuals and families from experiencing homelessness. Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County and the State of Utah
all provide funding to Utah Community Action for short -term rental assistance to families at risk of falling into
homelessness.
Salt Lake City is reducing and ending homelessness in the community through strong collaborations with
partner organizations throughout the Salt Lake Continuum of Care. Salt Lake City works closely with Salt Lake
County, the State of Utah and service providers to stop families from dropping into homelessness, reduce the
length of time individuals and famili es experience homelessness, help individuals and families successfully
transition out of homelessness, and keep individuals and families from rescinding back into homelessness.
The Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness’s primary goals are to preve nt and end homelessness in Salt
Lake Valley through a system -wide commitment of resources, services, data collection, analysis and
coordination among all stakeholders. Salt Lake City staff play a key role in assisting this effort as it moves
forward.
SP-65: LEAD-BASED PAINT HAZARDS 91.215(i)
Because a high percentage of the housing units in Salt Lake City were built before 1978, outreach and
education efforts about lead-based paint must continue. As such, the City has implemented a plan to address
lead issues in our residential rehabilitation projects. The City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program is in compliance
with HUD’s rules concerning identification and treatment of lead hazards. During the 2018 -2019 program year,
Salt Lake City worked in conjunction wit h our partners on the state and county levels to educate the public on
the dangers posed by lead based paint, including the following:
Undertake outreach efforts through direct mailings, the Salt Lake City website, various fairs
and public events, and the local community councils.
Provide materials in Spanish to increase lead -based paint hazard awareness in minority
communities.
Partner with Salt Lake County’s Lead Safe Salt Lake program to treat lead hazards in the
homes of children identified as having elevated blood levels.
Emphasize lead hazards in our initial contacts with homeowners needing rehabilitation.
Work with community partners to encourage local contractors to obtain worker certifications
for their employees and sub-contractors.
167
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
HOW ARE THE ACTIONS LISTED ABOVE RELATED TO THE EXTENT OF LEAD POISONING AND
HAZARDS?
Our efforts over the last five years have resulted in a significant increase in the number of children being tested
for elevated blood-lead levels. This has been made possible through improvements in testing technology which
has allowed the City to better detect and protect children and their family members who might be living in a
hazardous environment. The percentage of children testing positive has continued to remain below 1% despi te
the action level for blood-lead levels has been reduced from 10 mcg/dl to 5 mcg/dl. Through our rehabilitation
and outreach efforts, we hope to continue to maintain these low testing levels and continue to protect our
children from dangerous living conditions.
HOW ARE THE ACTIONS LISTED ABOVE INTEGRATED INTO HOUSING POL ICIES AND
PROCEDURES?
The abatement of lead in Salt Lake City’s existing housing stock is an important component of addressing fair
housing impediments for low -income families with children. It is a policy of Salt Lake City’s Housing
Rehabilitation program, as well as other housing programs funded through the City’s federal entitlement block
grants, to employ safe work practices when working to identify and abate lead -based paint in househ olds.
SP-70: ANTI-POVERTY STRATEGY 91.215(j)
JURISDICTION GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND POLICIES FOR REDUCING THE NUMBER OF
POVERTY-LEVEL FAMILIES
Similar to cities across the country, Salt Lake City is faced with growing income inequality and must address
poverty in our community. The limited incomes of many Salt Lake City residents have left them with insufficient
means to meet an adequate standard of living – especially in light of the massive increase in housing,
transportation, health care, and many other critical need costs. In a strategic effort to reduce the number of
households living in poverty and prevent households from falling into poverty, Salt Lake City is focusing on a
multi-pronged approach:
1. Identify strategic opportunities to build capacity, p revent displacement, and expand resources within
the target area that align with other large-scale community investment.
2. Support the City’s most vulnerable populations, including the chronically homeless, homeless
individuals and families, those faci ng behavioral health concerns, persons living with HIV/AIDS,
disabled, and the low -income elderly.
The City’s anti-poverty strategy aims to close the gap in a number of socioeconomic indicators, such as
improving housing affordability, stabilizing househ olds that may be at risk of losing their housing, deploy anti -
displacement strategies, increase employment skills of at -risk adults, access to transportation for low -income
households, and support behavioral health programs. Efforts will focus on the follo wing objectives:
Assist low -income individuals to maximize their incomes.
Expand housing opportunities.
Ensure that vulnerable populations have access to supportive services.
Evaluate the use of anti -displacement strategies and access to high opportunity areas.
Increase access to public transit systems for vulnerable populations.
Federal entitlement funds allocated through this Consolidated Plan will support the City’s anti -poverty strategy
through the following:
168
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Provide job/vocational training for vulnerable populations.
Provide essential supportive services for vulnerable populations.
Provide housing rehabilitation for low -income homeowners.
Expand affordable housing opportunities.
Improve neighborhood/commercial infrastructure in target areas.
Provide transportation amenities that support multi-modal transportation.
Increase access to public transit systems for vulnerable populations.
HOW ARE THE JURISDICTION’S POVERTY REDUCING GOALS, PROGRAMS, AND POLICIES
COORDINATED WITH THIS AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN:
Anti-poverty efforts outlined in this plan will be leveraged with other City plans, programs, initiatives and
resources to undertake a comprehensive approach to reduce the occurrence of poverty within Salt Lake City.
City programs and initiatives that su pport anti-poverty efforts include, but are not limited to, the following:
Growing SLC : A Five-Year Housing Plan 2018-2022
Affordable Housing Rehabilitation and Development
Rental Assistance Programs
Direct Financial Assistance Programs
Economic Development Loan Fund
SP-80: MONITORING 91.230
DESCRIBE THE STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES TH AT THE JURISDICTION WILL USE TO
MONITOR ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT IN FURTHE RANCE OF THE PLAN AND WILL USE TO
ENSURE LONG-TERM COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROGRAMS INVOLVED,
INCLUDING MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PL ANNING
REQUIREMENTS.
To ensure compliance from the start of a project or program, the Housing and Neighborhood Development
(HAND) Division uses the application process to start the monitoring pr ocess of all agencies. Each application
must go through an extensive review process that includes a risk analysis of proposed activities and ensures
that each applicant meets a national objective and that the organizational goals are aligned with the goals
identified in the City’s Consolidated Plan.
Once the applications pass the initial review, each application is taken through an extensive public process, with
the final funding decisions being made by our City Council. At that time, contracts are drawn up that identify
governing regulations, scope of work, budgets and any other Federal requirements and local requirements of
the grant. Once fully executed contracts are in place, HAND’s Capital Planning staff are responsible for
monitoring the agencies through the life of the contract. The agencies are monitored for compliance with the
program regulations as well as the content found in the City contracts.
To ensure sub-grantees are aware of program requirements, each agency that was awarded funds receive d an
invitation to attend a mandatory grant training seminar. This seminar allows HAND staff to reiterate Federal
regulations, provide guidance on changes for the upcoming grant year, identify Federal funding concerns, and
review expectations of the agenci es. The City requires that at least one attendee from each agency come to the
training. Each person attending the training seminar receives a handbook that contains important information
including contacts, website links, timelines, and a list of documents that are required to be submitted to the
169
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
City annually. Agencies that were unable to attend do have the ability to receive training documents if they
contact the City.
The City operates all CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA grants on a reimbursement basis. This ensures that desk
reviews, an important part of monitoring, can be completed before federal funds are utilized for any program
or project. A desk review was completed for every reimbursement request. This allowed HAND staff to ensure
that all requirements of the contract and federal regulations were actively being met prior to disbursing any
funds or drawing funds from HUD’s Integrated Disbursement and Information System (IDIS). The IDIS system
also helps to assist with program/project eligibility requirem ents, track spending rates and report performance
measurements.
During the program year, the HAND staff works together with sub -grantees to ensure Federal regulations are
followed. This ensures consistent communication between staff and agencies and redu ces confusion. Through
the use of a Risk Analysis, coupled with reporting mechanisms, the Division Director and HAND staff are able to
determine which agencies would benefit from a technical training session, and which agencies need to have an
on-site monitoring visit. The agencies that score highest typically have a monitoring visit during the following
program year. As per Federal regulations, select agencies from each program (CDBG, ESG, HOME & HOPWA)
are monitored on an annual basis.
Because it is a HAND policy that each reimbursement request receives a desk review prior to funds being
disbursed, it is a straightforward process to monitor compliance throughout the term of the contract. In
addition to desk reviews, tailored guidance is given throughout t he year via telephone and email conversations.
Many of the agencies receiving funding were for programs that have received grant funds over a long period of
time and had no substantial changes to their programs. As such, the City focused its efforts on new agencies
needing technical assistance, and on working with veteran agencies and their performance measurements to
ensure better data quality for outcomes.
Agencies receiving Tenant Based Rental Assistance funding are highly encouraged to place clients in
multifamily units that meet the City Housing standards. It is the City’s requirement that all residential rental
units must have a current City business license. These units are regularly inspected as per City Ordinance.
However, it is also our understanding that some clients may not be housed in multifamily units for one reason
or another. In an effort to ensure safe, decent housing, a process exists whereby a Landlord may self -certify that
the unit meets City Housing Code. Outside of the City’s incorpora ted boundaries, agencies must follow local
housing ordinances. In these instances, a Housing Quality Standard Inspection form must be in the client’s file.
All inspections and housing standards must be met prior to the clients moving into their units.
HAND staff provides year-round technical assistance via phone, email and when needed, in person. This
technical assistance provides the agencies with an opportunity to evaluate programs, policies and practices in a
low stress environment. Continued technical assistance ensures compliance with federal regulations.
Technical assistance and monitoring visits reveal that, in general, our agencies have well documented processes
and are quick to contact the City when questions arise. If deficiencies are identifie d and agencies will work
quickly to adjust processes as necessary and move forward with stronger programs.
The City encourages citizens to become active in their communities, providing feedback to the City about how
their neighborhoods could be improved, how funding should be prioritized, and address safety concerns.
170
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
169
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
APPENDIX A: 2020-2024 FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN
Salt Lake City is dedicated to affirmatively furthering the purposes of the Fair Housing Act to ensure equal
access to rental and homeownership opportunities for all residents. Through the efforts identified in the 2020-
2024 Fair Housing Action Plan, Salt Lake City will continue to collaborate with our partners to enforce federal,
state, and local laws that prohibit housing discrimination based on a person’s race, color, religion, sex, disability,
familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, source of income, age, parental status, or
marital status. In addition, the City will address practices and policies that have the effect of limiting housing
choice for protected classes. As part of a larger network of fair housing stakeholders, Salt Lake City will work
toward a future where everyone has an equitable and affordable place to call home.
ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS
In 2014, the Bureau of Economic and Business Research at the University of Utah completed a comprehensive
analysis of fair housing on both a regional and city level with a grant from HUD. Salt Lake City continues to use
the 2014 data due to the fact that there are no significant changes to the data, nor significant changes to the
methods to address the impediments identified. However, the City will continue to work collaboratively with
community members, data experts, and local municipalities if additional data comes forward. The Regional
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Salt Lake County and Salt Lake City Fair Housing Equity
Assessment provide an analysis of the following:
Patterns of segregation
Racial and ethnic concentrated areas of poverty
Disparities by race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, and disability in access to housing
and community assets, including education, transit, and employment
This Analysis of Impediments builds on that prior study and focuses on current areas of impediments.
Between 2013 and 2018, The Fair Housing Program of the Disability Law Center (DLC) of Utah conducted fair
housing testing for the purpose of uncovering rental housing discrimination directed towards protected classes.
This program serves Salt Lake City and all areas of Utah to ensure that an individual’s housing rights are upheld
and that micro or systematic discrimination is not present.
ACTION PLAN
Salt Lake City has utilized the regional analysis of impediments, fair housing equity assessment, and data
gathered through the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan planning process to identify impediments to fair housing
choice that disproportionately affect members of protected classes. The following Action Plan provides an
overview of fair housing impediments and provides action items to remove or ameliorate each impediment.
Impediments can be direct or indirect, created by both public sector and private sector actions, and have been
divided into the following categories:
1. Discrimination in Housing
2. Mobility and Access to Opportunity
3. Availability of Affordable and Suitable Housing
4. Zoning, Land Use Regulations and Redevelopment Policies
5. Fair Housing Coordination and Knowledge
1. Discrimination in Housing
As a HUD-funded recipient Salt Lake City does not discriminate in housing or services on the basis of race,
color, national origin, disability, familial status, religion, or sex, as well as protected classes covered under state
170
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
and local regulations. The City works to eliminate discriminatory practices and ensure equal housing
opportunities for all. Even with the City’s efforts to eliminate discriminatory practices, fair housing equity
assessments have, on occasion, found discriminatory practices.
Impediment: Unfair Lending Practices
A contrast of mortgage denials and approvals exists between racial and ethnic populations in Salt Lake County.
The mortgage application denial rate for Hispanics (20%) in Salt Lake City is higher than that of non-Hispanics
(13%).1
Actions to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment:
I. Expand homeownership opportunities by continuing to target the City’s Low and
Moderate-Income Homebuyer program, as well as other direct financial assistance
programs funded through CDBG and HOME, to racial and ethnic minorities, persons
with disabilities, single-parent households, and large families.
II. Collaborate with community partners, including community development
organizations, religious institutions, employment centers, and housing counseling
agencies to support education programs on bank products and services, financial
management, and homebuyer counseling. Programs should be offered in English and
Spanish, as well as other languages as needed.
III. Work with local lenders, financial institutions, and real estate institutions to build
awareness on fair housing laws and practices.
IV. Support the Disability Law Center’s fair housing testing efforts directed at private market real estate
practices
Impediment: Rental Discrimination
The Fair Housing Program at Utah’s Disability Law Center serves people from all protected classes (race, color,
ethnicity, sex/gender, religion, disability, familial status) and not just people with disabilities. Utah law also
protects against discrimination based on source of income, sexual orientation and gender identity. The program
serves Salt Lake City and is intended to ensure that an individual’s housing rights are upheld and that micro or
systematic discrimination is not present.
The Disability Law Center helps ensure that people who belong to protected classes have equal access and
opportunity to rent or own homes and apartments in their communities. This work includes, but is not limited
to, the following:
Ensuring that landlords and property owners do not discriminate in renting or selling property
Making sure that housing is accessible to people with disabilities to the extent required by law
Advocating to increase the amount of accessible, affordable, and integrated housing
Providing fair housing trainings for providers, landlords, and consumers of housing
Conducting fair housing testing to ensure that landlords are complying with fair housing laws
Enforcing fair housing laws through administrative and judicial complaint processes
The Disability Law Center has uncovered rental housing discrimination directed toward protected classes. The
Center conducts tests with matched pairs of individuals, couples, or families. Testers are matched on rental
eligibility characteristics so that the only significant difference between them is the factor being tested.
1 Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
171
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
On average, approximately 300 calls a year to the Disability Law Center originate from Salt Lake City
residents.
Data on fair housing testing from the Disability Law Center, the most common rental housing
discrimination in Salt Lake City are primarily based on disability status, national origin, and race.
Data collected from 2013 to 2018 showed 97 cases of confirmed disparate treatment and signs of
disparate treatment, regarding housing discrimination in Salt Lake City. During this period there were a
total of 1,078 reports of people who felt they had been discriminated against. Of those, 456 total
required short-term assistance and instructions on how to advocate for what they need on their own or
required referrals to other legal agencies.
In 2019 Approximately 40 of the total calls were elevated to case level. Of those, the Disability Law
Center successfully mediated directly with landlords on behalf of tenants.
Approximately 150 fair housing tests per year are completed by the Disability Law Center, with about
25% of the total having some sort of housing discrimination red flag.
Examples of the incidents around rental housing discrimination, all of which are illegal, verified by the Disability
Law Center testing are:
Landlords requesting tenants to waive HIPAA rights to verify their disabilities.
Requiring extra deposit fees for service animals.
Landlords wanting to visibly identify a person’s severity of disability to determine if they should rent to
them.
When an Arabic sounding name was given to a landlord, the landlord wanted to see the potential
tenant before deciding to rent to them.
Potential tenants of color being told to pay higher deposits and higher monthly rents compared to
white potential tenants.
Potential renters of color being told there are no apartments available when white potential renters are
told there are several available to them that day.
Different move in specials given to white applicants over applicants of color. Such as free parking
spaces, or being offered apartments closer to amenities.
Actions to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment:
I. Utilize the Good Landlord program to educate landlords and property managers on
fair housing laws and requirements;
II. In partnership with the Utah Antidiscrimination and Labor Division and the Disability
Law Center, the Apartment Association, utilize the Mayor’s Office of Diversity and
Human rights to provide educational programming on tenant rights and fair housing;
III. Refer victims of housing discrimination to the Utah Antidiscrimination and Labor
Division and the Disability Law Center to process fair housing complaints.
2. MOBILITY AND ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
Fair housing choice provides that members of protected classes are able to choose a residence that offers
access to opportunity including essential services, transit, quality schools, job opportunities, and healthy
communities. As the map below demonstrates, there are differences in access to transit based on
neighborhood. The Center for Neighborhood Technology tracks an overall transit score for municipalities based
on trips per week and number of jobs accessible by transit. The central parts of the City score highly by this
standard but, as shown in Figure 1, some areas with lower incomes, such as the Glendale, Poplar Grove, and
Rose Park neighborhoods, score lower in the transit scores as transit lines are not as accessible in these
neighborhoods.
172
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
FIGURE 1
Source: The Center for Neighborhood Technology, AllTransit, 2019
It is Salt Lake city’s goal to expand housing opportunity within neighborhoods by increasing economic diversity
and addressing spatial disparities and impediments. Mobility and opportunity impediments are as follows:
Impediment: Racial and Ethnic Segregation
Figure 2 shows a breakdown of the City’s census tracts by their reported poverty level as it pertains to the
reported minority population within the tracts. It shows that the tracts directly west of I-15 have some of the
highest concentrations of minorities who are also living below the poverty level.
FIGURE 2
173
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2013-2017 ACS 5-Year Estimates
Racial and ethnic segregation in Salt Lake City developed due to a multitude of factors, including the housing
market, neighborhood preferences, land use policies including zoning, demographics, and economic
conditions.
Action to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment:
I. Expand affordable housing opportunities throughout the City to increase housing
choice for protected classes. Housing opportunities should include rental and
homeownership, with a focus on housing to accommodate large families. Salt Lake
City will support mixed-income opportunities through the following efforts:
a. Utilize funding resources, including HOME Investment Partnership Program
funding, Housing Trust Fund, and other funding sources to provide financial
assistance for the development of housing that economically diversifies
neighborhoods.
b. Support zoning and land use policies that allow and/or incentivize affordable
housing development in areas with high opportunity.
c. Build public-private partnerships to leverage public resources with private
capital to support housing development in areas with high opportunity.
174
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Impediment: Access to Opportunity
As Figure 3 demonstrates, the opportunity index is considerably higher on the east side of Salt Lake City as
compared to the west side of the City and the area surrounding I-15.
FIGURE 3
High opportunity areas are geographical locations within the city that provide conditions that expand a
person’s likelihood for social mobility. These areas have been identified through an analysis of quality-of life
indicators, homeownership rate, poverty, cost-burdened households, educational proficiency, unemployment
rate, and labor force participation. With these multiple indicators, a single composite, or
standardized, score is calculated for each census tract. Scores may range from 1 to 10, with 1 indicating
low opportunity and 10 indicating high opportunity. A census tract with a standardized score above that of the
citywide average shall be designated as an Area of Opportunity. Salt Lake City contracted with the University of
Utah’s Kem C. Gardner Institute to develop and annually update the city’s Areas of Opportunity data.
FIGURE 4
175
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Action to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment:
I. Expand access to opportunity in RDA project areas by demographically and
geographically targeting CDBG funding to support economic development,
transportation improvements, anti-displacement strategies, and other anti-poverty
programs.
II. Improve housing stability in RDA Project Areas by increasing outreach and education
regarding the availability and use of CDBG and HOME funding for housing
rehabilitation.
III. Utilize federal and local funding in distressed and at-risk neighborhoods for strategic
housing development to catalyze private investment, improve housing quality, and
promote occupancy at a range of household incomes.
176
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
3. AVAILABILITY OF AFFORDABLE AND SUITABLE HOUSING
A regional lack of affordable housing disproportionately impacts protected classes. Protected classes are
especially impacted by a lack of rental housing affordable to households at 50% AMI and below, large family
households, and disabled person households. Housing stock impediments are as follows:
Impediment: Rental housing affordable to households at 50% of AMI and below
A housing gap analysis found a citywide shortage of 6,177 affordable rental units for households earning less
than $20,000 per year. About 37 percent of the City’s renter households earned less than $20,000 in 2018, with
only 11 percent of the rentals in the city in their affordability range. The limited availability of housing
affordable to households at 50% AMI and below have disproportionally impacted racial and ethnic minorities,
persons with disabilities, and large families.
Action to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment:
I. Promote development of housing units, including permanent supportive housing
units, affordable to households earning 50% AMI and below by leveraging public and
private investments. City-owned land can be used to leverage private investment for
affordable and supportive housing development.
II. Utilize the Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund/Housing Trust Development Fund, and
HOME Development Fund to develop housing affordable to households targeted to
households at 50% AMI or below. The Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund was created
by the Mayor and City Council in 2000 to provide financial assistance to support the
development and preservation of affordable and special needs housing in Salt Lake
City. Eligible activities include acquisition, new construction, and rehabilitation of both
multi-family rental properties and single-family homeownership. Additional assistance
relating to housing for eligible households may include project or tenant-based rental
assistance, down payment assistance and technical assistance. The HOME
Development Fund was created as a reaction to the increasing housing costs and
difficulty in deploying HOME funds. It’s uses align with federal regulations and are
targeted to acquisition, new construction, rehabilitation, and homeownership
opportunities. The funds may be used for single family units as well as multi-family
units.
III. Strengthen incentives for the development of affordable housing. Incentives might
include inclusionary zoning, density bonuses, fee reductions, fee waivers, land
subsidies, and limited property tax exemptions. Strategies may also include
disposition of city-owned land for the use of affordable housing development,
interest rate discounts, and below market sales.
IV. Salt Lake City has several affordable housing projects currently planned which are
expected to add 476 affordable units in the near future. These projects are listed in
the table below.
TABLE 1: FUTURE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS
Project Address Affordable Units AMI Expected
Completion
Exchange A 340 East 400 South 104 50% 2020
Centro Civico, Casa Milagro 145 South 600 West 49 50% 2020
Bookcliffs Lodge 1159 South West Temple 43 50% TBD
First Step House, Phase II / 5th
East Apts. 434 South 500 East 75 30% 2020
177
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Impediment: Rental housing for large families
With an increasing share of minorities, particularly Hispanic and refugee/New American families who on
average have larger household sizes, there is a higher demand for the low supply of rental options with enough
bedrooms to accommodate large families. However, the supply of rental units with 4 or more bedrooms has
been diminishing, while the supply of units with 2-3 bedrooms has been increasing.
TABLE 2: PERCENT OF RENTAL UNITS BY SIZE
Unit Size 2013 2018
No Bedroom 5% 8%
1 Bedroom 38% 36%
2 or 3 Bedrooms 36% 50%
4 or More Bedrooms 21% 6%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2014-2018 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Physical Housing Characteristics for Occupied Housing Units
Actions to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment:
I. Utilize Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund, Housing Trust Development Fund, CDBG,
and HOME funding to prioritize the development and preservation of affordable large
units (three or more bedrooms).
II. Encourage the geographical dispersal of affordable large bedroom units throughout
the City to expand housing choice. Prioritize affordable housing development for
families in neighborhoods that provide access to opportunities, including jobs, public
transportation, education, and public amenities.
Impediment: Housing for Disabled Persons
More long-term, stable housing is necessary to address the needs of disabled populations. Disabled
populations can experience several barriers in accessing housing and supportive services, including housing
discrimination, cognitive abilities, lack of documentation, coordination of resources, substance abuse, and
instability. As such, accessibility modifications, behavioral and medical services, and other supportive services
are necessary to address the needs of disabled populations. In addition, more residential and transitional
housing opportunities are required to address the needs of extremely low-income persons with chronic alcohol
and substance addictions.
Actions to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment:
I. Prioritize CDBG funding for housing programs that provide accessibility modifications
to low-income homeowners.
Pamela’s Place / Ribbon
Properties 525 South 500 West 100 30% 2020
First Step House, Phase III / 426
Apts. 426 South 500 East 40 30% 2021
Magnolia 175 South 300 East 65 30% TBD
Total 476
178
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
II. Prioritize the development and preservation of affordable housing units that meet fair
housing accessibility guidelines, with focus on rental housing affordable to
households at 50% AMI and below.
II. Prioritize CDBG funding for supportive housing programs targeted to disabled
populations.
4. ZONING, LAND USE REGULATIONS, AND REDEVELOPMENT POLICIES
Land use regulations can prevent the development of affordable housing and an equitable distribution of
housing types throughout all areas of the City.
Impediment: Zoning and land use regulations can restrict possibilities for affordable housing, thereby
limiting housing choice for protected classes.
As a large rental city, Salt Lake City has a considerable amount of multifamily zoning. As such, Salt Lake City
provides a broad range of housing types for households with a wide range of incomes. However, many of the
City’s neighborhoods are zoned for single-family use and prohibit multi-family housing. These neighborhoods
are often considered to be high opportunity by offering quality schools, low crime rates, public amenities, and
economic opportunities.
As housing affordability continues to decline in Salt Lake City, the inadequate supply of affordable housing will
increasingly impact protected classes. Such disparities will compound if zoning limits affordable housing
development through the following:
Limitations on the siting of group homes
Limitations on the siting of accessory dwelling units
Minimum single-family lot sizes
A lack of multifamily zoning in census tracts with low poverty rates
Actions to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment:
I. Provide zoning incentives to encourage affordable housing development throughout
the City;
II. Revise zoning to more broadly allow mixed-income, multi-family, and affordable
residential uses;
III. Broaden the range of explicitly permitted residential uses for vulnerable populations,
especially for supportive housing, group homes, and others;
5. FAIR HOUSING COORDINATION AND KNOWLEDGE
Salt Lake City is committed to promoting fair housing through education and coordination. Producers,
consumers, and providers of housing need to have adequate fair housing knowledge to promote best practices.
In addition, coordination needs to occur between local municipalities to effectively ameliorate fair housing
impediments at the regional level.
Impediment: Lack of reginal fair housing coordination between municipalities, service providers, and
other fair housing stakeholders.
Several impediments to fair housing choice are shared across municipalities in Salt Lake County. The most
effective mitigation to these common impediments is a coordinated approach by all of the jurisdictions in the
region.
Action to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment:
179
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
I. Salt Lake City will continue to participate in the Utah Fair Housing forum which
includes representatives from HUD’s Regional Office of Fair Housing and Equal
Opportunity, the Disability Law Center, the Utah Antidiscrimination and Labor
division, representatives from various Utah entitlement cities, and fair housing
advocacy groups.
II. Salt Lake City will participate and promote with community partners all regional Fair
Housing training, conferences, and Fair Housing Design and Construction training.
Impediment: Fair housing knowledge does not reach all producers, consumers, and providers of
housing, which results in a lack of understanding, misconceptions, and violations of fair housing laws.
Fair housing cannot become a high priority for our community without increased awareness on fair housing
rights and responsibilities. Increased awareness needs to occur for all fair housing stakeholders, from producers
to consumers of housing.
Actions to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment:
I. Promote fair housing rights and responsibilities through Salt Lake city’s annual
workshop for CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA subgrantees.
II. Distribute fair housing literature in multiple languages through various outreach
events and through the City’s website.
III. Utilize the good Landlord program to educate landlords and property managers on
fair housing laws and requirements.
IV. In partnership with the Utah Antidiscrimination and Labor Division and the Disability
Law Center, utilize the Mayor’s Office of Diversity and Human Rights to provide
educational programming on tenant rights and fair housing.
V. Collaborate with community partners, including community development
organizations, religious institutions, employment centers and housing counseling
agencies to support education programs on bank products and services, financial
management, and homebuyer counseling. Programs should be offered in English and
Spanish, as well as other languages as applicable.
Impediment: Language barriers faced by recent immigrants, refugees, New Americans, deaf, hard-of-
hearing, deaf-blind, or speech disabled individuals create a challenge to access available housing
opportunities and obtain fair housing knowledge and resources.
Persons with limited English proficiency (LEP) are those whose proficiency in speaking, reading, writing, or
understanding English is such that it denies or limits their ability to have meaningful access to programs and
services if language assistance is not provided. According to the 2014-2018 American Community Survey (ACS),
over 16.4 percent of Salt Lake City’s population is foreign-born. Salt Lake City is committed to providing
language assistance for LEP persons to ensure equal access to all programs, resources, and opportunities for
public engagement.
Actions to Eliminate or Ameliorate Impediment:
I. Salt Lake City and its subgrantees will identify populations served that have limited
English proficiency (LEP) and develop reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access
180
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
to LEP persons. Each agency/program will develop and implement a language access
plan (LAP) to prevent discrimination and foster an environment of inclusiveness.
II. Salt Lake City will continue to make its Housing Rehabilitation and Low and
Moderate-Income Homebuyer programs available to all eligible individuals including
those for whom English is not their primary language and who have a limited ability
to read, write, speak or understand English. The Division of Housing and
Neighborhood Development’s LAP outlines steps to ensure meaningful access to its
housing programs and activities by LEP persons.
III. Salt Lake City will utilize and advertise communication resources and options for deaf,
hard-of-hearing, deaf-blind, or speech disabled individuals who can use a Text
Telephone (TTY) service. The City will also coordinate with the Mayor’s Americans with
Disability Act (ADA) community liaison for additional communication resources and
options.
IMPLEMENTATION
Salt Lake City is taking a comprehensive approach to affirmatively furthering fair housing by promoting fair
housing enforcement and education, as well as expanding housing choice and availability. The City intends to
further develop the action steps included in this plan and report on progress through the City’s annual Action
Plan and Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports (CAPERs). Implementation of these actions
will require coordination of efforts from multiple stakeholders inside and outside of City government, including
subgrantees, housing, and community development partners, various committees, and City staff.
181
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENT AND CITIZEN
PARTICIPATION
Citizen participation is key to ensure goals and priorities in the Consolidated plan are defined in the context of
community needs and preferences. It also provides an opportunity to educate the community about the City’s
federal grant programs. To this end, Salt Lake City solicited involvement from a diverse group of stake holders
and community members during the development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. Public engagement
efforts included a citywide survey, public hearings, public meetings, stakeholder committee meetings, internal
technical committee meetings, and a public comment period.
The City received input and buy-in from residents, homeless service providers, low-income service providers,
food banks, housing advocates, housing developers, housing authorities, anti-poverty advocates, healthcare
providers, transit authority planners, City divisions and departments, among others.
Citizen participation opportunities included the following:
Housing and Neighborhood Development Needs Survey
Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meetings
Consolidated Plan Interdepartmental Technical
Consolidated Plan Public Hearing
Consolidated Plan Comment Period
General Needs Hearing
Various Community Fairs
Salt Lake County Needs Survey
Input from Various State & Public Agencies
Salt Lake City Planning Commission Presentation
Salt Lake City Planning Open House
Email blasts, Website postings
INTERDEPARTMENTAL TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP MEETING #1
On July 29, 2019, the Interdepartmental Technical Advisory Group (ITAG) conducted their first meeting. The
ITAG members responded to real-time interactive polling using the same questions as the resident survey to
ensure consistency and compare results. The top priorities were housing and transportation with an emphasis
on insufficient housing stock to meet the needs of a growing population. This concern about stock and growth
was focused mostly on low-income individual and families, seniors, and persons with disabilities. Another key
takeaway from the meeting was that ITAG members felt that their role in relates to the Consolidated Plan was
to assist the City Council with implementation and to be a liaison to the public and City officials.
STAKEHOLDER MEETING #1
On July 30, 2019, the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division of Salt Lake City held a public meeting
with nonprofit providers of housing and supportive services. The purpose of the meeting was to gain input and
discuss which needs of low- and moderate-income residents were the greatest. This input helped form the
Consolidated Plan’s goals and priorities.
The meeting agenda was as follows:
10:30 a.m. - 10:40 a.m. – Introductions
182
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
10:40 a.m. - 10:50 a.m. – What is the Consolidated Plan?
o Importance of the meeting
o Citizen Participation Timeline/Process
10:50 a.m. - 11:00 a.m. – Existing Conditions & Trends
11:00 a.m. - 11:15 a.m. – Survey
10:15 a.m. - 12:15 p.m. – Stakeholder Priorities
12:15 p.m. - 12:30 p.m. – Wrap-up
As outlined in the agenda, the meeting set aside time to help the attendees understand the importance of their
feedback in the Consolidated Plan’s goal-setting process and then immediately consulted with them to gain
insight into their perception of existing conditions and trends. This was followed by a survey which helped the
attendees specify priorities moving forward. The survey results indicated housing services were the highest
priority. Homeless services, mental health services, healthcare services, and childhood education programs were
the next top priorities respectively.
183
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
CONSOLIDATED PLAN SURVEY - (AUG – SEPT. 2019)
The survey fielding began in mid-August and ran through September with 2,068 total respondents. The survey’s
purpose was to collect feedback from residents regarding their priorities for the provision of housing, public
services, and economic development. The survey was available in both English and Spanish versions with
additional translation services available upon request.
Respondents ranked homeless and transportation services as their top priorities for City services. Street
improvements, job creation, and rental assistance were the top priorities for community, economic
development, and housing investments respectively.
184
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
185
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
186
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
187
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
188
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
189
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
190
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
191
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
192
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
193
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
194
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
195
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
SALT LAKE COUNTY 2019 COMMUNITY NEEDS SURVEY
Salt Lake County also conducted a survey to collect public input on community needs in regard to economic
development, as well as housing and community development. 243 respondents reported living in Salt Lake
City and indicated that air quality, housing affordability, and homeless services. The survey results also showed
that over78% of respondents either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the notion that Salt Lake County’s
available housing units meet the need of the growing population.
Survey results were as follows:
196
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
197
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
198
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
199
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
200
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
201
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
202
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
203
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
204
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
205
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
206
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
207
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
208
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 26, 2019
Contact: Jennifer Schumann
801-535-7276
City Now Accepting Applications for CDBG, ESG, HOME and HOPWA Federal Grant
Programs
SALT LAKE CITY – Applications are currently being accepted for the following U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
The CDBG program’s primary objective is to promote the development of viable urban
communities by providing affordable housing, suitable living environments, and
economic opportunities for persons of low and moderate income.
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
The ESG program’s primary objective is to assist individuals and families regain housing
stability after experiencing a housing or homelessness crisis.
HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
The HOME program’s primary objective is to create affordable housing opportunities for
low-income households.
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
The HOPWA program’s primary objective is to provide housing assistance and related
supportive services to persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families.
Interested entities are invited to submit applications for activities that support local and national program
requirements.
An application resource guide is available online at www.slc.gov/hand. Optional training sessions will be
held on October 17, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. and October 24, 2019 at 2:00 p.m. for potential applicants in Room
126 of the City and County Building at 451 South State Street. Applications must be submitted by
11:59 p.m. on Sunday, November 3, 2019. Late applications will not be accepted.
For questions about Salt Lake City’s federal grant programs, contact Jennifer Schumann at 801-535-7276
or email jennifer.schumann@slcgov.com
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM
Reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities or those in need of language interpretation
services can be provided if four working days’ notice is given by calling 801-535-7777. Hearing impaired
who wish to attend these meetings should contact our TDD service number, 801-535-6021,four days in
advance so an interpreter can be provided. Physical access entrance and parking are located on the east
side of the building.
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
P.O. BOX 145474, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-
5474 WWW.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7704 FAX 801-535-6331
209
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
JACQUELINE M. BISKUPSKI DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD
DEVELOPMENT
NOTICE of 2020-2021 GRANT APPLICATIONS
CDBG, ESG, HOME AND HOPWA PROGRAMS
Salt Lake City will make available applications for the following U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) programs:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
HOME Investment Partnership (HOME)
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
Applications will be available Monday, October 7, 2019 with a closing date of Sunday, November
3, 2019 at 11:59 pm. Applications will be accepted via ZoomGrants™, an online grant
management system. Please go to www.slc.gov/hand for directions on how to apply.
To assist applicants, Salt Lake City will be hosting two in-person training sessions and will make
available training session materials at www.slc.gov/hand. Participation in a training session is
highly encouraged. They are as follows:
In-person trainings: October 17, 2019 at 9:00 a.m.
October 24, 2019 at 2:00 p.m.
In-person training sessions will be held at the City and County Building in Room 126. Potential
applicants must RSVP to Baylee White at Baylee.White@slcgov.com.
To assist potential applicants, resources have been made available at Salt Lake City’s Division of
Housing and Neighborhood Development website at www.slc.gov/hand.
Completed applications must be submitted via ZoomGrants by 11:59 p.m. on
Sunday, November 3, 2019.
Late applications will not be accepted.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM
Reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities or those in need of language interpretation
services can be provided if four working days’ notice is given by calling 801-535-7777. Hearing impaired
who wish to attend these meetings should contact our TDD service number, 801-535-6021,four days in
advance so an interpreter can be provided. Physical access entrance and parking are located on the east
side of the building.
210
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
INTERDEPARTMENTAL TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP MEETING #2
On September 23, 2019, a second ITAG meeting was held to ensure feedback from City staff would be
meaningfully considered in the development of Consolidated Plan goals, the City asked ITAG members to
prioritize the unmet, unfunded/underfunded needs that they had identified at the initial ITAG meeting in July.
Housing, transportation and the provision of needed services ranked as the highest priorities.
STAKEHOLDER MEETING #2
On September 24, 2019, the Housing and Neighborhood Development Division of Salt Lake City held a public
meeting with nonprofit providers of housing and supportive services. The purpose of the meeting was to gain
input and discuss which strategies that would help achieve the priorities identified in the first stakeholder
meeting on July 30, 2019. This input helped form the Consolidated Plan’s strategies which would ultimately aid
in achieving the overall goals of the plan.
The meeting began with a review of the survey results from the stakeholder meeting held on July 30, 2019 and
reaffirmed that the main priorities which had been outlined were housing services and transportation. There
was then a review of the data analysis which had been conducted so far with key demographic data points
highlighted such as population, housing costs increases, cost burdened households by area, homeless statistics,
and others.
The stakeholders then worked together to outline a number of suggested funding strategies that the City and
nonprofit service providers might consider employing. These strategies included, but are not limited to:
Provide ‘aging in place’ programs
Offer affordable housing voucher programs
Provide client centered community-based case management
Eliminate housing barriers
Integrate transportation and land use considerations to facilitate affordable housing along transit
corridors
Improve regional collaboration with public and private-sector partners to improve efficiencies in the
allocation of resources and to reduce redundancies
Leverage innovative technologies to improve access to information regarding affordable housing
demand and supply
Offer free fare or reduced transit options
Expand transit service in underserved communities
Subsidize rideshare options
211
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
GENRAL NEEDS HEARING
PRESS RELEASE
OFFICE of the MAYOR | JACQUELINE BISKUPSKI
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 21, 2019
Contact: Elaine Wiseman
801-535-6035
GENERAL NEEDS HEARING - Residents Invited to Submit Comments on Community
Development Needs
SALT LAKE CITY – The Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (HAND) invites
residents to participate in a General Needs Hearing to gather public comments on overall housing and
community development needs as they relate to low and moderate-income Salt Lake City residents .
Each year Salt Lake City receives Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions
Grant (ESG), HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) and Housing Opportunities for Persons
with AIDS (HOPWA) grant funds. For the 2020-21 program year HAND anticipates receiving
approximately $6 million that may be used to support programs and projects throughout the city.
Information gathered at this public hearing and other community engagement events will be used to
prioritize funding to address eligible community needs during the 2020-21 program year.
Community needs may include projects such as:
Homeless Services Health Services
Youth Services Adult Services
Infrastructure Economic Development
Housing – Rental Services Housing – Owner Occupied
Hearing from you is vital to ensuring that we are able to prioritize these funds in a way that supports the
needs of our community and creates lasting impact. We invite you to participate in the upcoming public
hearing or submit comments via email.
Public hearing details are as follows:
DATE: Thursday, October 24, 2019
TIME: 5:30 – 6:30 p.m.
LOCATION: Salt Lake City and County Building
451 South State Street, Room 126
212
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
If you are unable to attend the public hearing, written comments may be submitted to Dillon Hase,
Housing and Neighborhood Development, 451 South State Street, P.O. Box 145488, Salt Lake City, Utah,
84114, or emailed to dillon.hase@slcgov.com. Comments must be received by November 1, 2019. Please
limit your comments to the benefit of the general needs of our citizens/neighborhoods.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in
advance in order to attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats,
interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. Salt Lake City’s TDD number is 535-6220.
In order to access Salt Lake City’s TDD line you must be calling from a TDD line. To request ADA
accommodations contact Joshua Rebollo by email at joshua.rebollo@slcgov.com or by phone at
801.535.7976. Please provide 48 hours advanced notice. ADA accommodations can including alternate
formats, interpreters and other auxiliary aids.
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
P.O. BOX 145474, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-
5474 WWW.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7704 FAX 801-535-6331
213
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS
HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
GENERAL NEEDS HEARING on FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS
Community Feedback Needed!
WHAT: The Salt Lake City Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development seeks public
comment on community need for the development of 5 year Consolidated Plan
WHEN: Thursday, October 24, from 5:30 - 6:30 PM
WHERE: Room 126, Salt Lake City & County Building,
451 South State Street, Salt Lake City
Come let Salt Lake City know what issues are important to your neighborhoods and communities! We want to
hear from residents about what issues they are facing and hear suggestions on how we can improve things. We
want to hear from you!
Community needs may include projects such as:
Homeless Services Health Services
Youth Services Adult Services
Infrastructure Economic Development
Housing – Rental Services Housing – Owner Occupied
The Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development considers community need in the development of the
new 5 year Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan helps determine funding decisions for our federal grant
projects. Community feedback is vital to this process!
Written comments will be accepted by Dillon Hase, Housing and Neighborhood Development, 451 South State
Street, P.O. Box 145488, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84114, or emailed to dillon.hase@slcgov.com until November 1,
2019.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in
order to attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other
auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. Salt Lake City’s TDD number is 535-6220. In order to access Salt Lake
City’s TDD line you must be calling from a TDD line. To request ADA accommodations contact Joshua Rebollo by
email at joshua.rebollo @slcgov.com or by phone at 801.535.7976. Please provide 48 hours advanced notice. ADA
accommodations can including alternate formats, interpreters and other auxiliary aids
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS
HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
214
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS
HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
AUDIENCIA DE NECESIDADES GENERALES SOBRE PROYECTOS FINANCIADOS CON
FONDOS FEDERALES
Se Necesitan Comentarios de la Comunidad
Que: El ayuntamiento de la ciudad de Salt Lake busca comentarios del publico acerca de las
necesidades de la comunidad para el desarrollo del Plan Consolidado a 5 anos.
Cuándo: Jueves, 24 de octubre de 5:30 a 6:30.
Donde: Sala 126, Edificio del municipio y Condado,
451 S State Street, Salt Lake City
Venga y deje saber a la Cuidad de Salt Lake que problemas son importantes en sus vecindarios y comunidades!
Queremos escuchar a los residentes sobre los problemas que enfrentan y escuchar sugerencias sobre como
podemos mejorar las cosas. Queremos escuchar de ti!
Las necesidades de la comunidad pueden incluir proyectos como:
Servicios Para Personas sin Hogar Servicios de Salud
Servicios Juveniles Servicios para Adultos
Infraestrctura Desarrollo Economico
Vivienda – Servicios de Alquiler Vivienda – Ocupada por el
Propietario
La Oficina de Vivienda y Desarrollo de Vecindarios considera las necesidades de la comunidad en el desarrollo
del nuevo Plan Consolidado de 5 anos. El Plan Consolidado ayuda determinar decisiones de financiamiento
para nuestros proyectos que serán financiados con dólares federales. Los comentarios de la comunidad son
vitales para este proceso.
Los comentarios por escrito serán aceptados por la Oficina de Vivienda y Desarrollo de Vecindarios en 451
South State Street, Sala 445, PO Box 145488, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 o por correo electrónico a
dillon.hase@slcgov.com hasta el 1 de noviembre de 2019.
Programa de igualdad de oportunidades
Las personas con discapacidades pueden solicitar un ajuste razonable con 48 horas de anticipación para asistir a esta
reunión pública. Las adaptaciones pueden incluir formatos alternativos, intérpretes y otras ayudas auxiliares. Esta es
una facilidad accesible. El número de Salt Lake City’s TDD es 801 535-6220. Para acceder a la línea TDD de Salt Lake
City, debe llamar desde una línea TDD. Para solicitar alojamiento de ADA, comuníquese con Joshua Rebollo por
correo electrónico a joshua.rebollo@slcgov.com o por teléfono al 801.535.7976. Las adaptaciones de ADA pueden
incluir formatos alternativos, intérpretes y otras ayudas auxiliares.
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS
HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
215
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
General Needs Hearing NextDoor Invitation
Come let Salt Lake City know what issues are important to your neighborhoods and communities! We want to
hear from residents about what issues they are facing and hear suggestions on how we can improve things. We
want to hear from you!
Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development will be hosting a General Needs Hearing on Thursday,
October 24, from 5:30 to 6:30pm in Room 126 of the City and County Building at 451 South State Street.
We hope you can join us! If you are not able to attend the public hearing, written comments may be emailed
to dillon.hase@slcgov.com. Comments can be sent now through November 1, 2019.
216
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
2019 General Needs Hearing: Public Comment Summary
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 10/22/19
Contacted Through: NextDoor
Key Points: Streets/Police
Thanks for asking about what are issues are.
Think the city should concentrate on the things the city is supposed to accomplish.
These things, as I see it, are the main responsibilities of the city
Police and Fire protection
Courts
Water and sewer, trash pickup, street lighting, flood control
Streets (repair, traffic flow)
Parks, including golf courses and disc golf courses
I think that the city does a pretty good job on most of these items but, we probably could get better on
streets and police.
On the west side the streets are in disrepair and have been for what seems like a long time. The main
east/west streets, 10th north, 6th north and North temple all have some problems. 10th and 6th are
beat to death and North Temple has poor semaphore usage. I think you are working on a plan for 6th
north. If not, you should be. The same needs to be done for 10th North.
On North temple, the Tracks line mid block cross walks (sometimes not at mid block) need to activate
only one half of the road at a time. Pedestrians should have to push a button to get from side A to the
train island and then push a button to get from the island to side B since most of the people are crossing
just to get on the train. Secondly those lights should all be of the new type for pedestrians where
passing the button stops traffic and then after a few seconds flashes to make traffic stop, look and go.
As far as police go, I think they do a great job but are somewhat undermanned. I hear and see people
speeding or racing on Redwood road far too often. I think if police pull people over once in a while, at
random intervals, it would act as a traffic calming action.
217
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Shooting occurs too often. Perhaps a “seen” police presence would help eliminated that. I actually feel
safe in my area but I see more city employees on Segways checking the garbage for contraband than I
see police in the area. That doesn’t seem right. I also see FAR TOO MANY people texting while driving. I
think that if we shower our texters with tickets the streets would be safer. I don’t think that the media
campaign is useless but there would be more impact if more people got ticketed.
That’s my 2 cents for now. If I think of anything else, I will add it. If you have any questions or need
clarification, please contact me.
Thanks for reading,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 10/24/19
Contacted Through: NextDoor
Key Points: Air BnB, Private Streets, Community Garden
Dear Dillon,
I have some general concerns to share with you.
1) Short term rentals in residential neighborhoods. I live on the 400 South block of Elizabeth Street,
84102. It's a tiny, private street, and yet there are TWO people operating AirBNB on our block. We have
contacted Civil Enforcement often and there is reluctance to do anything. Why isn't the City interested
in enforcing existing codes?
2) Private streets are another concern. There are many of these in our city, holdovers, from
developments many years ago. Now it is a situation where it is no longer clear that anyone is in charge.
Our block of Elizabeth Street is one such example. If you look at the plat map, the street doesn't look
like it belongs to anyone. It is in disrepair, but there is no clear way for it to be fixed.
3) The LDS church is apparently planning to change the space that has been a community garden behind
the 33rd Ward (453 S 1100E, 84102) into a parking lot. This is of great concern to me, both as a member
of the garden and a neighbor of the plot. It is in a historic district, and based on the zoning it seems
inappropriate.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
Happy to follow up with you
218
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
COMMUNITY EVENTS
Beginning in May and running through November of 2019, the City performed a grassroots citizen participation
effort where City staff attended community events to gather public input through existing forums where
opportunities existed to reach hundreds of people at a single event. Some of the events included:
The Rose Park Festival
The Sorenson CommUNITY Fair
Partners in the Park
Groove in the Grove
The Monster Block Party
And dozens more
City staff managed information booths and solicited input from residents in the form of interactive materials. It
is estimated that over 1,322 residents participated resulting in the following outcome:
219
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
STAKEHOLDER AND ITAG COMBINED #3
On December 11, 2019, the final stakeholder meeting was held in collaboration with members if the City’s (ITAG
to ensure collaboration between nonprofit service providers and City departments. The meeting focused on the
following objectives:
Homeless Services
Housing Services
Transportation
Economic Development
Behavioral Health: Mental Health & Substance Abuse
Stakeholders and City staff voted on strategies which could be used to directly address the objectives of the
Consolidated Plan. It was indicated that client centered community-based case management, treatment
services for mental health and substance abuse, as well as the provision of housing, transit passes, and job
training to income-eligible residents were their top priorities to meet these five objectives.
220
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISION MEETING
221
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Recognized Organization Input Notification
US Department of Housing & Urban Development: Salt Lake City’s
2020-2024 Consolidated Plan
TO: Registered Recognized Community Organizations
FROM: Jennifer Schumann, Deputy Director, Salt Lake City Housing & Neighborhood Development
(jennifer.schumann@slcgov.com or 801-535-7276);
John Anderson, Planning Manager, Salt Lake City Planning Division
(john.anderson@slcgov.com or 801-535-7214)
DATE: February 7, 2020
RE: Proposed Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
Since May of 2019, Salt Lake City’s Housing & Neighborhood Development Division has been working on
creating the City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, as required by the US Department of Housing & Urban
Development. Part of the Plan’s development has included engaging over 4,000 interested parties at
community events, focus groups, and an online survey. A draft of the plan is now ready for review and
consideration by the Planning Commission. We are formally requesting input from the Recognized Community
Councils within the City on the draft before we preset it to the Planning Commission.
Request Description:
The 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan is the City’s guiding document for expenditure of the following U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) entitlement funds: Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME), and Housing
Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA). These funds are intended to address disparities that exist in our
community impacting low income residents and/or low-income areas of the City. Through an extensive process,
the City has collaborated with over 4,000 interested parties in the development of the draft Plan. This includes
constituents, community partners, city experts, elected officials, state departments, and local municipalities.
Together, we have identified highest priority needs; service and funding gaps; actionable goals and strategies;
performance measurements and desired outcomes; and specific geographic areas of the city to focus
infrastructure improvements.
Over the US Department of Housing & Urban Development Program years of 2020 through 2024, Salt Lake City
Housing & Neighborhood Development will accept applications from non-profit partners, city divisions, and
other agencies that address the specific goals and strategies outlined in the plan. All projects/programs must
adhere to the applicable grant regulations, the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, and city policies.
Those interested in learning more about the Plan may visit https://www.slc.gov/hand/consolidated-plan/.
Housing & Neighborhood Development respectfully requests that all comments be submitted via the following
email address: consolidatedplan@slcgov.com.
Request for Input from Your Recognized Organization
As part of this process, the applicant is required to solicit comments from Recognized Organizations. The
purpose of the Recognized Organization review is to inform the community of the project and solicit
comments/concerns they have with the project. The Recognized Organization may also take a vote to
determine whether there is support for the project, but this is not required.
222
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
In general, the plan details specific ways in which CDBG, ESG, HOME, & HOPWA funding may be used to
address a wide variety of community needs. This includes goals and strategies around Affordable housing,
Transportation, Economic Development, Homeless Services, and Behavioral Health.
Per City Code 2.60.050 - The recognized community organization chair(s) have forty five (45) days to provide
comments, from the date the notice was sent. A public hearing will not be held, nor will a final decision be
made about the project within the forty five (45) day notice period. This notice period ends on the following
day:
March 23, 2020
Open House
The Planning Division will be holding an Open House to solicit comments on this project. Housing &
Neighborhood Development Division staff will be on hand to review and discuss the draft plan.
The Open House will be held on Thursday, February 20, 2020 from 5:00-7:00 PM in the 4th floor conference
room of the SLC Main Library located at 210 E. 400 S.
Comment Guidance
Public comments will be received up to the date of the Planning Commission public hearing. However, you
should submit your organization’s comments within 45 days of receiving this notice in order for those
comments to be included in the staff report.
Questions and issues that you might want to consider:
For your reference, the following are topics that the Planning Commission may want to hear about.
1. What are the community development and social service needs in your neighborhood that could be
addressed with the listed, eligible federal funded priorities & activities?
2. What are the community development and social service needs in your neighborhood that are not
addressed in this plan? Note that any needs must be eligible for CDBG, ESG, HOME, and/or HOPWA
funding, and must rise to a community highest priority need.
Comment Submission Address
You may submit your written comments via e-mail to consolidatedplan@slcgov.com or mail them to:
ATTN Jennifer Schumann
Salt Lake City Housing & Neighborhood Development Division
451 S State St Rm 445
PO Box 145487
Salt Lake City UT 84114-5487
If you have any questions, please call me at (801) 535-7276 or contact me via e-mail at
Jennifer.schumann@slcgov.com.
223
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
CONSTANT CONTACT
224
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
PUBLIC HEARING #1
SALT LAKE CITY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
March 24, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVENT THAT ON Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. a public hearing will be
held in Room 315, Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State, Salt Lake City, Utah, before
the Salt Lake City Council to accept public comment on proposed projects and activities to be undertaken
with 2020-2021 federal funds under the following U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) programs:
- Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
CDBG funds may be used for the development of viable urban communities by providing
decent housing and suitable living environments for persons of low and moderate-income.
- Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
ESG funds may be used to assist individuals and families regain housing stability after
experiencing a housing or homelessness crisis.
- HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
HOME funds may be used to create affordable housing opportunities for low-income
households.
- Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
HOPWA funds may be used to provide housing assistance and related supportive services to
persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families.
Prior to making funding decisions on the 2020-2021 program year, the Salt Lake City Council will
consider and review all public comments, as well as funding recommendations provided by Mayor
Mendenhall and resident advisory boards. Information about funding recommendations can be found on
Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) website at www.slcgov.com/HAND.
If you are unable to attend the hearing and want your voice to be heard, written comments may be
submitted to Tony.Milner@slcgov.com. Comments will also be accepted by the Salt Lake City Council
office at 451 South State Street, Room 304, PO Box 145476, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, or emailed to
council.comments@slcgov.com. Additionally, messages may be left on the Council comment telephone
number; 801-535-7654. Comments must be submitted by April 7, 2020.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later
than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public meeting. Accommodations
may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an
accessible facility. Salt Lake City Corporation is committed to ensuring we are
accessible to all members of the public. To request ADA accommodations contact
Sarah Benj by email at sarah.benj@slcgov.com or by phone at 801.535.7697.
225
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
PUBLIC HEARING on FEDERALLY FUNDED PROJECTS
CDBG, ESG, HOME AND HOPWA PROGRAMS
WHAT: The Salt Lake City Council seeks public comment on proposed 2020-2021
projects to be funded with federal dollars
WHEN: Tuesday, March 24th, 2020 at 7:00 PM
WHERE: City Council Chambers, Room 315, Salt Lake City & County Building,
451 South State Street
A public hearing will be held before the Salt Lake City Council to accept comment on proposed projects
and activities to be undertaken with 2020-2021 federal funds under the following U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs:
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA)
Prior to making funding decisions on the 2020-2021 program year, the Salt Lake City Council will
consider and review all public comments, as well as funding recommendations provided by Mayor
Mendenhall and resident advisory boards. Information about funding recommendations can be found
on Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) website at www.slcgov.com/HAND.
If you are unable to attend the hearing and want your voice to be heard, written comments may be
submitted to Tony.Milner@slcgov.com. Comments will also be accepted by the Salt Lake City Council
office at 451 South State Street, Room 304, PO Box 145476, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, or emailed to
council.comments@slcgov.com. Additionally, messages may be left on the Council comment telephone
number; 801-535-7654. Comments must be submitted by April 7, 2020.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48
hours in advance in order to attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include
alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an accessible facility. Salt
Lake City Corporation is committed to ensuring we are accessible to all members of the public.
To request ADA accommodations contact Sarah Benj by email at sarah.benj@slcgov.com or
by phone at 801.535.7697.
226
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
COMMUNITY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
Audiencia Pública sobre proyectos con fondos federales
Programas CDBG, ESG, HOME AND HOPWA
Que: El Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Salt Lake requiere el comentario público acerca de
proyectos propuestos para el 2020-2021 que serán financiados con dólares federales
Cuándo: Martes, 24 de marzo 2020 a las 7:00 de la noche
Donde: Cámara de Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad, Cuarto 315, Edificio del Condado y Municipal, 451
South State Street
Se llevara a cabo una audiencia pública ante el Ayuntamiento de Salt Lake en búsqueda de comentarios en
proyectos y actividades propuestos que se realizaran con fondos federales en el 2020-2021 bajo los siguientes
programas del Departamento de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano de los EE.UU. (HUD).
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
El Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Salt Lake examinará y revisará todos los comentarios recibidos durante la
audiencia pública, así como recomendaciones de financiamiento previstas por el Alcalde Mendenhall y los asesora
de residentes. Información sobre la financiación de recomendaciones se puede encontrar en el sitio web la
Desarrollo de Viviendas y Vecindarios (Housing and Neighborhood Development) de Salt Lake City a
www.slcgov.com/HAND.
Si no puede asistir a la audiencia y quiere que su voz sea escuchada, comentarios por escrito
podrán ser presentadas a Tony.Milner@slcgov.com. Comentarios en referencia a la propuesta de financiamiento
serán aceptadas por las oficinas del ayuntamiento de Salt Lake City en la 451 South State Street, Room 304, PO Box
145476, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, o por correo electrónico a council.comments@slcgov.com. También puede
dejar mensajes en el teléfono de comentarios del ayuntamiento marcando el número, 801.535.7654. Comentarios
deben ser presentadas antes de abril 7, 2020.
Programa de Igualdad de Oportunidades
Las personas con discapacidades pueden solicita acomodación razonable a más tardar con 48 horas de anticipación
para asistir a esta reunión pública. Las adaptaciones pueden incluir formatos alternativos, intérpretes y otras
ayudas auxiliares. Esta es una instalación accesible. Salt Lake City Corporation se compromete a garantizar que
todos los miembros del público puedan acceder la. Para solicitar alojamiento de ADA, comuníquese con Sarah Benj
por correo electrónico a sarah.benj@slcgov.com o por teléfono al 801.535.7697.
227
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
PUBLIC HEARING #2
SALT LAKE CITY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
April 7, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVENT THAT ON Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. a remote public hearing will
be held before the Salt Lake City Council to accept public comment on proposed projects and activities to
be undertaken with 2020-2021 federal funds under the following U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) programs:
- Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
CDBG funds may be used for the development of viable urban communities by providing
decent housing and suitable living environments for persons of low and moderate-income.
- Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
ESG funds may be used to assist individuals and families regain housing stability after
experiencing a housing or homelessness crisis.
- HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
HOME funds may be used to create affordable housing opportunities for low-income
households.
- Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA)
HOPWA funds may be used to provide housing assistance and related supportive services to
persons living With HIV/AIDS and their families.
This Council Meeting will NOT have a physical location. All participants will connect remotely.
(This public hearing is an additional public hearing opportunity in addition to the public hearing held
March 24, 2020.)
Prior to making funding decisions on the 2020-2021 program year, the Salt Lake City Council will
consider and review all public comments, as well as funding recommendations provided by Mayor
Mendenhall and resident advisory boards. Information about funding recommendations can be found on
Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) website at www.slcgov.com/HAND.
To send comments directly to the Council, email council.comments@slcgov.com, leave a message on the
24-hour comment line 801-535-7654, mail comments to the Salt Lake City Council office at 451 South
State Street, Room 304, PO Box 145476, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, or see Webex Instructions to learn
how to participate live, https://www.slc.gov/council/news/featured-news/virtually-attend-city-council-
meetings/. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public
record. Written comments may also be submitted to HAND, tony.milner@slcgov.com, which will be
provided to the Council.
228
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later
than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public meeting. Accommodations
may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is an
accessible facility. Salt Lake City Corporation is committed to ensuring we are
accessible to all members of the public. To request ADA accommodations contact
Sarah Benj by email at sarah.benj@slcgov.com or by phone at 801-535-7697.
229
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
SALT LAKE CITY
AVISO DE AUDIENCIA
PÚBLICA
abril 7, 2020 at 7:00 p.m.
POR MEDIO DE LA PRESENTE SE NOTIFICA QUE EL martes 7 de abril de 2020 a las 7:00 p.m.
se llevará a cabo una audiencia pública remota ante el Consejo de la Ciudad de Salt Lake para aceptar
comentarios públicos sobre los proyectos y actividades propuestas que se llevarán a cabo con 2020-2021
fondos federales bajo los siguientes programas del Departamento de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano de los
Estados Unidos (HUD):
- Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Los fondos CDBG pueden utilizarse para el desarrollo de comunidades urbanas viables al
proporcionar viviendas dignas y entornos de vida adecuados para personas de ingresos
bajos y moderados.
- Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
Los fondos ESG pueden usarse para ayudar a las personas y familias a recuperar la
estabilidad de la vivienda después de experimentar una crisis de vivienda o falta de
vivienda.
- HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
Los fondos de HOME pueden utilizarse para crear oportunidades de vivienda asequible
para nucleos familiares de bajos ingresos.
- Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
Los fondos de HOPWA se pueden utilizarse para proporcionar asistencia de vivienda y
servicios de apoyo relacionados a personas que viven con VIH / SIDA y sus familias.
Esta reunión del consejo NO se efectuara físicamente. Todos los participantes se conectarán de forma
remota. (Esta audiencia pública es una oportunidad de audiencia pública adicional además de la
audiencia pública celebrada el 24 de marzo de 2020).
El Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de Salt Lake examinará y revisará todos los comentarios recibidos
durante la audiencia pública, así como recomendaciones de financiamiento previstas por el Alcalde
Mendenhall y los asesora de residentes. Información sobre la financiación de recomendaciones se puede
encontrar en el sitio web la Desarrollo de Viviendas y Vecindarios (Housing and Neighborhood
Development) de Salt Lake City a www.slcgov.com/HAND.
Para enviar comentarios directamente al Consejo, envíe un correo electrónico a
council.comments@slcgov.com, deje un mensaje en la línea de comentarios de 24 horas 801-535-
7654, envíe comentarios a la oficina del Consejo de Salt Lake City en 451 South State Street, Room 304 ,
PO Box 145476, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, o vea las Instrucciones de Webex para aprender cómo
participar en vivo, https://www.slc.gov/council/news/featured-news/virtually-attend-city-council-
meetings/. Todos los comentarios recibidos a través de cualquier fuente se comparten con el Consejo y se
agregan al registro público. Los comentarios por escrito también se pueden enviar a HAND,
tony.milner@slcgov.com, que se proporcionará al Consejo.
230
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Programa de Igualdad de Oportunidades
Las personas con discapacidades pueden solicitar acomodación razonable a más tardar con 48
horas de anticipación para asistir a esta reunión pública. Las adaptaciones pueden incluir
formatos alternativos, intérpretes y otras ayudas auxiliares. Esta es una instalación accesible.
Salt Lake City Corporation se compromete a garantizar que todos los miembros del público
puedan acceder la. Para solicitar alojamiento de ADA, comuníquese con Sarah Benj por correo
electrónico a sarah.benj@slcgov.com o por teléfono al 801-535-7697.
231
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM PUBLIC HEARING #1 AND #2
Salt Lake City Council. Public Hearing, March 24, 2020, 7pm, via WebEx, Facebook, and YouTube.
Public Comments.
Source: WebEx Digital Service
Date Submitted: 3/24/20
7:12 pm
Executive Director of Journey of Hope.
CDBG – Public Services Applicant. Agency: Journey of Hope. Project: Advocacy and Case Management Services.
Comments: Retired from law enforcement after 20 years of services. She set up programs for women getting
out of jail and prison, did as much work inside the system as she could. She started Journey of Hope, and
they’ve served 2,000 women in five years, with only 17% recidivism. Overall, their services have saved millions of
dollars to the State. Their second try for SLC CDBG funds for case management services to expand services to
girls who are aging out of the juvenile justice system. These girls have been sexually exploited and trafficked.
These girls turning to the Youth Resource Center as they have no family, where there are boys and gang
members who traffic girls. Had one young lady who was drugged and woke up in Las Vegas. One of the few
non-profits standing in the gap for girls/women leaving the justice system. They were not chosen for CDBG,
they’re the “little guys” and are new, they would like to be re-considered for CDBG funding.
Source: WebEx Digital Service
Date Submitted: 3/24/20
7:24pm. He worked with International Rescue Commission. He recommended how great the agency is and how
hard they work. He wants funding for digital equity, as not everyone has internet or access to computers.
Source: WebEx Digital Service
Date Submitted: 3/24/20
7:26pm. She Executive Director of The INN Between. Applied for CDBG – Public Services, wasn’t recommended
by the CDCIP Board or the Mayor for funding. Hospice and Medical Respite for-Homeless.
Comments: Asked the Council to reconsider the non-recommendation for funding. Strong partnership with the
City. Before the agency existed, many homeless individuals were dying on the street without access to hospice
care, that cannot be delivered in shelters, campsites, or motels. They offer wrap around services and save the
area money. The Inn Between serves 40 individuals a night and is projected serve 30 more. They serve homeless
and non-homeless, those near medical bankruptcy. End of life care without having to go into shelter or hospital.
The Inn Between is a critical part of homeless services. They have the infrastructure, licensing and professional
staff in place. The new Homeless Resource Centers don’t have medical beds, and they’re able to fill that need.
The homeless resource centers are also at capacity. The Homeless Resource Center’s don’t have the ability to
care for people getting cancer treatment. Asking for only one half of 1% of total budget to serve the homeless,
60% of the clients come from Salt Lake City.
Source: WebEx Digital Service
Date Submitted: 3/24/20
7:34pm. Executive Director of the International Rescue Committee Applied for CDBG – Public Services. Program:
International Rescue Committee Getting Up to Speed: Expanding Digital Services for Refugees and Asylees in
232
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Salt Lake City. Not recommended for funding.
Comments: Appreciates the consideration of their digital inclusion application. She identified how the program
serves those vulnerable in the community.
Source: WebEx Digital Service
Date Submitted: 3/24/20
7:37 pm. Grants Manager, International Rescue Committee. CDBG – Public Services. Getting Up to Speed:
Expanding Digital Services for Refugees and Asylees in Salt Lake City. Not recommended for funding.
Comments: Thank you to the Mayor and City council and Housing and Neighborhood Staff for continued
support for CDBG funding, and for past funding.
Highlights the connection for digital inclusion and refugees. Aligned to digital connection to Housing Plan,
stabilizing renters and increasing self-sufficient, employment and financial stability. A renewal would help
increase refugee household overall stability who are hampered by language and cultural skills. Project
complimented through cross agency interaction. Digital inclusion program is integral for clients accessing
employment when they enter the U.S. She identified that the program stabilizes low income renters by helping
them obtain employment, which in turn helps with stable housing.
Emails Regrading Federal Funds Between City Council Meetings
Source: Email to City Council Staff
Date Submitted: 3/27/20
Salt Lake City Council Members,
Volunteers of America, Utah is grateful for the partnership we have had with the City
government over many years. We appreciate the time that the CDCIP Board, Mayor
Mendenhall and her staff have spent reviewing all applications that were submitted.
Volunteers of America, Utah has submitted three applications for funding for next
fiscal year 2020-2021.
Community Development Block Grant – CDBG Public Services
Program Request CDCIP Board
Recommendation
Mayors
Recommendation
Geraldine E. King
Women’s Resource
Center
$105,797 $89,000 100,281
We are grateful for both recommendations and encourage the support of Mayor Mendenhall’s
recommendation of $100,281.
Emergency Solutions Grant – Shelter Operations
Program Request CDCIP Board
Recommendation
Mayors
Recommendation
Geraldine E. King
Women’s Resource
Center
$40,000 $38,000 $38,000
233
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Youth Resource
Center
$60,000 $46,000 $46,000
We appreciate the CDCIP Board and the Mayors funding recommendation for both emergency solutions grant
applications.
We value the support of our programs that provide shelter and services for both homeless youth and homeless
women. We thank you for the opportunity to submit a written document at this time given the Stay Home. Stay
Safe. Order endorsed by the Mayor to decrease public gatherings.
Comments Received by Email regarding Federal Grant Dollars
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between.
Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. This is not the time to cut support
services for the homeless. They are, along with the undocumented, the ones least likely to get adequate
medical care during this pandemic.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Hello,
I am a Salt Lake City resident and a neighbor of The Inn Between. I am writing to urge you to reconsider your
CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their
program. The Inn Between plays a key role to our homeless and their need for hospice care, and we need to
support them so they can continue to serve our community.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Dear Council Members:
I just got word that the Mayor and Salt Lake City Council will be cutting off funding for The Inn Between – this is
being sent as my plea that you carefully reconsider this decision.
The Inn Between is a wonderful organization that provides much needed, and otherwise lacking, services to the
homeless community. Its funding is limited, and this decision by the City Council and Mayor will have a
significantly detrimental impact on its ability to provide these services – which will in turn only contribute to our
homeless challenges. I plead with you to reconsider and continue the funding that is so needed to help
sustain this important organization. In these challenging times, it is even more important that organizations
like The Inn Between – and the mission it serves – receive our support.
Thank you.
234
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Regards,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Hello,
I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between.
Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program.
During a crisis like the one we are in, cutting funding to organizations like the INN Between seems shortsighted
and unnecessary.
Thanks
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Dear Council member,
The Inn Between has provided a place for terminally ill homeless patients to receive comfort care in their final
days. It is a much need service provider in this community. They have previously received $46,000 in Block
Grant Funds to help them provide their services. Please reconsider your funding discussions and allow them the
money to continue their important work.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Dear Salt Lake City Council Members,
I am a Salt Lake City resident and actually a neighbor of the Inn Between. I am also a member of The Inn
Between Board of Directors. Every month at our board meetings we hear a “mission moment” when a member
of the staff shares a story of an event at The Inn Between since we last met. Sometime it is about a reunification
with a resident and their extended family, sometimes it is about a residents last days and passing, always the
stories reflect the mission of The Inn Between to enhance the dignity of each resident wherever they are in their
life journey.
In this time of uncertainty, anxiety and fear, and human and economic crises, there are hard choices to be
made. While previous levels of funding may not be possible, I urge you to reconsider your funding decision
regarding the CDBG dollars. Any amount you can fund would be of great assistance in sustaining the vital work
of The Inn Between. The efforts of the staff of The Inn Between have been nothing less than heroic in protecting
the residents from contracting Covid-19. Continuing some level of funding assures them their efforts are not in
vain and that you too understand the importance of not forcing our residents to have to access services from
already overwhelmed medical services in our community or even worse, die in the streets.
Your consideration of this plea is much appreciated.
Source: Email
235
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Dear Council Members,
I have been a volunteer with the Inn Between for 4 years and have seen first hand the good this nonprofit has
done for the vulnerable homeless in our city.
PLEASE, please reconsider giving any amount possible to this facility.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
To whom it may concern,
I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between.
Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program.
"I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between.
Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program."
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Dear Council members,
I am the Volunteer Coordinator at The INN Between and have been since the beginning. I have watched our
resident population expand from 16 to 40 with the move to our new location.
I am asking that you please reconsider your CDBG funding decision for the support of our residents. Our
historical amount of about $46,000 represents only 3% of our annual budget, and yet about 80% of the people
we serve are from salt Lake City.
The need is great among homeless service providers and funding is understandably limited. However, TIB will
be significantly impacted by this funding cut. We would appreciate your funding at any level.
Please consider your CDBG funding decision. Which of our 40 residents would you deny?
Thank you and my best to you all.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Greetings,
I understand that The Inn Between is not being recommended for CDBG Funding at this time. I would like to
strongly encourage you to restore CDBG funding to this important asset in our community. As some of you
may know, I work to support students experiencing homelessness within the educational system. I have
become more acutely aware of the needs of all individuals experiencing homelessness. Compound that with a
terminal illness, or a need to be in a rehabilitation program for a long term condition, and the odds are not
good. As a community, we need to do better by our homeless friends. The Inn between provides a vital service
to our entire community. It allows those with no limited options, a place to die with dignity.
236
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
I was fortunate to become acquainted with The Inn Between when it was across the street from my house. I
volunteered to be part of the Neighborhood Advisory Committee, and heled address concerns neighbors had
with the program. I found the staff to be willing to work with community members to address concerns, and
make sure they were being good neighbors. I am sure that is still the same today in their new neighborhood.
Please restore the funding request to the Inn Between, so they can continue the work on behalf of our truly less
fortunate community members in Salt Lake City.
Sincerely,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
PLEASE - As a Salt Lake City resident, and I implore you to reconsider decision to cut CDBG funding for The INN
Between. I realize this is a difficult time but this is a group that has done so much with so little as it is and this
is a great humanitarian need. Please continue to help them with any amount that you can to sustain their
program. Thank you.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Dear Council Members,
I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between for 2020-2021. They provide critical
medical respite housing services for medically frail and terminally ill clients, and are an integral part of the
homeless services continuum in Salt Lake City. However, they do not receive adequate funding from the state
or other sources because they are not designated as a "shelter," which means that they must raise funding from
other sources to provide this medical housing service to the community. Any amount of funding that you grant
will help the sustainability of the program.
Sincerely,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between.
Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program.
It is shameful for you to cut their funding.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Dear SLC Council,
237
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
As an Avenues resident of Salt Lake City, I am writing to urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for
The INN Between. This facility provides a desperately-needed service, providing hospice care for the homeless
of SLC.
Any amount that you can fund will help them provide dignity at the end of life.
Thanks for your consideration.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Dear City Council,
I am a Salt Lake City resident and I urge you to reconsider your funding for the Inn Between. I understand that
there is an urgent need to help the homeless in Salt Lake City, but the Inn Between needs funding to remain
open and provide their care for the very ill and dying among the homeless. We must care for the poor, sick
and/or dying members of our community. It is not only a moral and humane obligation but a public health
issue as well.
Before the Inn Between existed, my husband and I stood in the the cold in winter with fellow church members
holding a candles to protest the fact that we had Salt Lake City residents dying in our streets. Please don't let us
go back to those dark days. The Inn Between has my support and I hope you will make sure they have the
funding to help them maintain their service.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
I am very concerned about the proposal to reduce funding for the homeless in Salt Lake - in particular the
federal HUD funds distributed by the SLC Community Development Block Grant program for the INN Between.
They - and the homeless - especially need these funds now during this exceptional crisis. I ask you to please
reconsider this decision.
Thank you for your attention,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Hello Salt Lake City Council,
I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between.
Your funding is invaluable to the sustainability of this wonderful program.
Thank you,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
238
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
As a resident of Salt Lake City, I believe The INN Between is an appropriate expenditure for CDBG funding.
Please do not cut that appropriation at this precipitous time for the most vulnerable.
Sincerely,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Dear Salt Lake City Council Members:
As a resident of Salt Lake City and a board member of The Inn Between, I write to urge your reconsideration of
The INN Between’s request for CDBG funds to help insure our homeless population receives hospice, respite
care and shelter.
I am sure that requests for funding far outweigh what is available, but I would be grateful for any support you
could provide.
Thank you for your service and consideration.
Kind regards,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Dear City Council Members:
I am a Salt Lake City resident, as well as a volunteer at The Inn Between. I am aware of how tight budgets are
this year. However, I urge you to consider funding The INN Between at any level possible. This facility is of vital
importance to our community.
Thank you.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Dear Council:
I am a resident of Salt Lake City, and an advocate for the ethical treatment of vulnerable populations, the
homeless being one. I ask that you reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount
that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program, and give the population they serve a safe place
to live the remainder of their lives, and access to the treatment they deserve.
Thank you,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
239
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
I am reaching out and asking that you consider helping with any funding possible for the folks at the Inn
Between I know these are crazy times but please help these folks provide some little bit of help to the dying
Thank you Mike Evans SLC Resident
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Dear Salt Lake City Council Members,
I am a resident of Salt Lake City and am very concerned that The INN Between receive proper funding from the
city.
Please reconsider the funding for The INN Between. The services they provide are critical to those at the end of
life and ultimately, to our community at large. We simply cannot turn our back on such a vulnerable population.
At the least, we should fund at previous levels if not beyond, given the difficult time that we’re in. Logic would
lead one to anticipate the population served by The INN Between is going to be more vulnerable to COVID19
and thus in need of their services. And, God forbid, should the infection result in more people dying before they
need to be admitted to The INN Between, there will still be people who will be in need of hospice care for other
reasons. This facility is desperately needed by the community much less by those whom it serves. The dignity
conveyed upon the dying is shared by those who exhibit such compassion. The city funds a small but critical
amount of the facility’s needs, but it’s probably that many corporate and personal contributions will be less this
year than in the past.
Thank you for your consideration of this. I could argue that this facility is needed even more than Allen Park.
Please prove to me that my community cares more for people than for birds. (I love birds and agree that we
deserve to have them in our midst, but not at the expense of caring for a human being as they die).
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
I understand that funds from the Community Development Block Grant will not be allocated to The Inn
Between. These are difficult times for the city I know, but this is an excellent organization deserving of a second
look at funding. The Inn Between fulfills a very heartbreaking mission.
We hear much now about patients dying in hospitals due to Covid-19, separated from loved ones. Imagine
dying alone, homeless, without friends or family.
Any amount of funding would help The Inn Between achieve its mission.
Sincerely,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
240
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will
help the sustainability of their program. I have seen the good that this facility does. Please do not cut fubding,
ESPECIALLY now.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Dear Council members,
I know the city is dealing with major shortfalls, but just want to plead for maintaining funding for the INN
Between - this program provides an incredibly valuable service to hospice patients who do not have a home.
Please re-consider and try to maintain their funding.
Sincerely,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between.
Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program.
I feel this is especially important in this time of COVID-19.
Thank you,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between.
Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program.
Best,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Dear City Council Members,
I have recently learned that the latest budget effort does not include funding for the homeless hospice, and I
ask you to reconsider. I know that you care and that all the choices you must make are hard. However, their
funding is only in the tens of thousands and every dollar is well spent to keep homeless people from dying by
emergency room visits. We will wind up having to pay for their medical expenses anyway, and the Inn Between
is a MUCH more efficient use of those relatively modest funds.
241
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Also, in addition to the obvious need for care these people experience, the rest of us are affected by seeing
them uncared for on the streets, which affects morale at this difficult time.
Please reconsider, and fund the Inn Between for our most desperate and voiceless citizens.
Sincerely,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Salt Lake City Council
As a resident of Salt Lake City, I am asking you to please reconsider the much needed funding for the Inn
Between.
The important part they play in giving a safe place for those that would otherwise die on the streets is so
valuable, and allows them to at least die with dignity in a safe place.
When my late husband passed away in 2015 we were among the lucky ones, as the job he had held for only 6
months placed him on long term disability which gave us an income which allowed is to continue living in a
safe place, with the care he needed. Otherwise we would probably have landed on the street somewhere and
he wouldn't have had the care he received up until the end.
I do what little I can to support the Inn Between, and I am reaching out to you and asking that you do your part
to help them keep helping those that need it the most.
Thank you
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
To whom it may concern,
"I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between.
Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their valuable program.
Thank you very much,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Dear Ladies & Gentlemen,
I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I ask you to please reconsider funding the CDBG (in any amount) for The Inn
Between. Thank you so much.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
242
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Please continue funding the Inn Between they do wonderful work..
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Dear Salt Lake City Council Members –
Everyone seems to talk a lot about what they’ll do for the homeless, but actions speak so much louder than
those words.
I just discovered that CDBG funding for The INN Between is at risk. The funding received by The INN Between in
the past is a small fraction of available CDBG funding and makes a tremendous difference in the sustainability
of its program.
This is all about dignity and compassion for dying homeless people. If the funding is going to be eliminated,
please provide me and the rest of the community with your reasoning.
I know there are a lot of competing claims for CDBG funding. For the eight years I served as Mayor, I went
through the grueling process of considering all requests and making the tough decisions for CDBG funding
recommendations. I was also aware that the priorities of City government were reflected in the funding
decisions recommended by the Mayor and ultimately made by the City Council.
Please count dying with dignity as a value supported by the City Council.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
City Council:
As a Salt Lake City resident and supporter of The INN Between I am writing to ask you to please reconsider
your CDBG funding decision you made in regards to this important organization. I believe that they provide a
vital and compassionate service for the least among us.
Thank you for your service and reconsideration.
Sincerely,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
To whom it may concern: I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding
decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. I
have volunteered for years with the group and they do amazing things for the homeless and critically ill
patients.
Thank you,
243
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Council Members, I am the resident of township but familiar with the INN and their mission. They provide a
major social return for a very small amount of public funding. It is not easy to put a price on death with dignity
but in this health crisis death on the streets should be a public concern. Thank you for your consideration in
renewing their funding.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Dear City Council Members,
I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between.
Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
I live in Salt Lake City and I volunteer at the Inn Between. It provides needed medical service for our citizens
who have limited access to medical care. I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN
Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/6/2020
Hello, City Council
I'm a neighbor of The Inn Between, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN
Between, especially during this time of crisis.
The Inn Between performs a vital service on behalf our community's most vulnerable people, and they need
your help.
Thank You and Kind Regards,
Source: Email
244
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Council,
I am writing this to urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. This money is
critical for the sustainability of their program. As a volunteer for the Inn, a resident of Salt Lake City, and a
Firefighter I see the the incredible work that the INN Between does for our most vulnerable population. Please
don't turn your back on this fine organization.
Thank you,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Dear Council Members,
Please Support the CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the
sustainability of their program. I support The INN Between, by being a good neighbor 1 block south, by small
personal donations of money, food, and clothes, and through supporting the efforts of my wife Mary Beth
Vogel-Ferguson Ph. D, who is on the board of directors. As a former RN I've had experience in hospice
settings, witnessed death with dignity, and I know the positive impact The Inn Between has on our people in
need. Please support their request for the CABG funding. We must ensure that The INN Between can continue
to serve the poor and afflicted members of our community as they face a medical crisis or the end of life.
Sincerely,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
I am pleading to have continued funding for The Inn Between in this upcoming year; I speak as a family
member of Patricia Rice who died there Nov. 7, 2019. She was diagnosed with cirrhosis from Hepatitis C in
2007, continued to work at a SLC company until her disability prevented her from doing acceptable work, @
2013 when she went to full time disability through her employer and applied for Medicaid. She received a
waiver through Salt Lake County Aging Services and was able to live pretty independently that way at Wasatch
Manor with HUD funds until Sept. 2019 when too many falls made it impossible for her to live alone. Her
hospice agency and SLCounty Aging services expedited her move to The Inn Between the first week of Sept
2019 and she was able to live there with some level of dignity and safety until her death. She was care for very
tenderly and I have the greatest respect for all the staff and volunteers whose efforts let her die in dignity and
peace.
The population of poor and ill are the most voiceless in our community and I know we must speak for them
when their care and protection are threatened. They are not receiving luxuries, they are offered a clean place to
live in their dying days; some have shared rooms, there are clothes available from donations, arts/crafts
supplies are donated, classes are given by volunteers. This is a remarkable example of public/private/volunteer
collaboration to support these least of us in their times of need.
If anyone would like me to speak directly to the time my sister spent at The Inn Between, I am sheltering at
home (I live in the Liberty Wells section of SLCity) during this time of Coved19.
My telephone number is 801-674-0721, this is my email and I can use ZOOM. I can’t imagine the impact of
Coved 19 on the poor and homeless population of SLCity and that The Inn Between may be the last option for
more people next year than this year. This is not the time to cut their funds. Please reconsider.
Very truly,
245
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Dear Council members, I'm writing to advocate for the INN-between. This is a first class organization that is
taking a huge burden off of the city of Salt Lake. Over three-quarters of the hospice patients taken in by the
INN are from Salt Lake City..
I run a Resort property on North Temple and we've been supporting the INN with dollars as well as supplies, for
years. Their work deserves to be encouraged and supported.
I hope you will put a line item in the budget equivalent to the $46,000 from last year or at least very very close
to that. They're doing the work for us all and taking the financial burden of those folks away from Salt Lake City
government!
Proven track record spanning years ~
Regards,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Hello,
I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between.
Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program.
Sincerely,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Dear Members of the City Council,
I am a resident of Salt Lake City and a supporter of the Inn Between. I am asking you to reconsider your CDBG
funding decision for The INN Between. The INN Between provides an important service as a medical respite
facility for homeless individuals, 80% of whom are from Salt Lake City. I understand that there are many, many
competing needs for funding at this time. However, having a safe place for medically-fragile people to recover
is still important, even more important, during this challenging time. Please consider restoring their funding for
this year. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
246
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
I am a volunteer hairdresser for The Inbetween as well as a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider
your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of
their program. I first hand, have seen the impact of this program for the staff, patients and community. These
beautiful people would be lost or have died a lonely death without this service. As a community we must look
out for each other, provide a better future for each other and build each other up. This is how you can help. As
in life you meet the good the bad and the ugly. These people are good that want good, want a chance and
want comfort in their final days or the support to make a new future. In all the conversations I have had with
people at the Innbetween I have realized, this could be you, your mentors, your family members, your
neighbors or your friends. What would you do if they needed your help in their final days?
I hope you continue the support for such a great cause.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
I am a palliative and hospice care social worker. The InnBetween is vital. We cannot return to the homeless
dying on our streets. We are better than this.
I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will
help the sustainability of their program!
We vote!
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Hello,
I am sincerely asking you to not cut funding for the INN Between. This organization performs such important
work in serving the dying within the homeless population.
Sincerely,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Dear Council Members:
I am writing this letter on behalf of the Inn Between. I was shocked and surprised that the funding was cut for
support of this very important and necessary service to provide a place for homeless citizens to die with dignity.
I was a volunteer in the very beginning of the Inn Between and have been an advocate ever since. I have been
so impressed with the loving care that is provided for the very sick and the end of life care that is provided for
the homeless and less privileged in our city. Please continue your support. Salt Lake City has been a model for
other states to provide the same kind of service.
Thank you for reconsidering your decisions and I pray for your continued support.
Best Regards,
247
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Please DO NOT cut funding for The Inn Between
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Dear Council members,
I will keep this note short, as I realize this is and intense time for the world and our community.
I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between.
Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Council Members:
I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I am writing this to urge you to reconsider your Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the
sustainability of this program. I am aware that our city and the country are facing more than difficult times, but
this program is so important for our homeless who require hospice or respite care.
Yours,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Dear city council members,
Please reconsider your position on funding the Inn Between. This organization is the only one of its kind serving
the clients they help: homeless individuals who are dying and others who cannot get hospice or respite care
any other way. They desperately need funding support, so please reconsider the cut and fund them fully.
Thank you,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
248
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
SLC shelters the homeless who are living.
The Inn Between shelters the homeless who are dying. Please do not massively cut their funding.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Dear Members of the SLC council,
I will keep this note brief as I realize this is and incredibly intense and scary time in our community and our
world.
As a resident of Salt Lake City and the Sugarhouse/Yalecrest neighborhood, I am asking you to please, please
reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. The Inn provides a critical service in our
community and any amount that you can fund will help sustain this very important program.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
The Inn Between has emailed their supporters and asked them to send letters of support for funding.
As many of you know, I do not support funding The Inn Between. If the genesis/funding/operations of
organizations like this is typical, - then it will not stand out for you. Incompetence and grift should never be the
norm and I will speak out against it at every opportunity. I have already been attacked and opined upon by SLT
and Gehrke so I have nothing to hide from.
I don't have to tell you that the decision being made, based on models of a virus, are going to have devastating
effects on the economy as a whole. Places like The Inn Between will now stand out as the repellent example of
waste that they are.
1. The State granted them a license as an assisted living (AL). In order to be legal in zoning. They have
between 5-10 on the AL side.
2. The City granted them a license under eleemosynary and then housed the chronically homeless with NO
criteria for entry.
3. This is not a hospice and never has been! They have since rebranded and covered most of the signage that
indicates they are a hospice.
4. The appropriations committee gave them 1M dollars to buy a building that was sound and needed no work.
The attached pictures shows the current work taking place which includes a new roof/electrical/elevator/HVAC
to just name a few! This was possible from a federal grand that someone in this state gave them. I will be
researching more on that.
5. Within 5 months of opening they were over budget by $700,000.
6. They were over budget because they did not hire the required medical staff per AL licensing. They were
operating for 5 months without MA's. And guess what? Everyone was just fine. They operated for several
years at Goshen street without MA's. Why? Because they were not needed. So basically we are paying for
medical staff so that they can be legal in zoning they should not be in.
7. Drug deals, residents sneaking out at night, assaults, suicides all go on within this facility.
8. 911 calls from WITHIN this facility are significant and consistent.
9. Our City Council, Erin Mendenhall told us at a town hall that she would hold TIB accountable. Many on the
street, as well as myself, reached out to her with our concerns and proof of misdeeds. We never got a response.
249
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
The only way any improvements have been made at TIB is because myself and several others have held them
accountable.
This is the project of those that want to put homeless shelters in neighborhoods because somehow it will fix the
ills of these people. Senator Escamilla made that exact claim. While I am glad that people have a roof over
their head, it should not be at the expense of what was once a functioning street. The residents of Sherman
Ave. who could and understood the implications of housing the mentally ill and addicted, sold or moved and
got out of the neighborhood.
Stop rewarding incompetence.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Dear council members and Mayor
Mendenhall,
I am writing to request that you reinstate funding for the hospice center The Inn Between. Without this service,
the most vulnerable among us the homeless who are facing death will again die on our streets. Certainly we can
find the funds to provide hospice care to our brothers and sisters in need.
I trust that you will find it in your hearts to continue helping those who help others.
Sincerely,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Dear Council Members:
I am a volunteer with the Inn Between and live in District 7. I understand that you are cutting the CBDG funds
allotted to the program.
I urge you to reconsider directing those funds to support the facility. They operate under a bare-bones budget
and do whatever they can to minimize costs yet maintain the quality of service they provide to this most needy
population. Through my observations at the facility I can assure you that the funds are well spent.
I appreciate your time and hope you will reconsider funding this most needed program.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
I am a Salt Lake City resident, and have been for 20 years. My house is one block from the INN Between. I urge
you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help
the sustainability of their program.
This is not the time to reduce funding for the critical programs provided by this important institution. If it puts
the homeless terminally ill back on the streets, you will be responsible for having made our current health care
250
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
crisis worse. More city residents will die, and not just those at the INN Between. I ask that you reconsider this
decision.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
I can’t believe you red lined the whole budget for the INN Between. It’s a treasure for those who need it most.
The people who are the most vulnerable are the ones we need to tend too. As a society, we are judged by the
thoughts and actions of those who can give, and the homeless are the ones who need a voice, they need the
kind and giving support of people who are fortunate to have the means to give back. You, as a City Council
have those means of giving dignity, and relief to people that have no where else to turn. Please, I beg, return
the funding to a project that truly helps people who are suffering.
Kim has worked so hard, put in so many hours to bring this idea to life. Don’t bring it down now.
Sincerely,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
It has come to our attention that the City Council has cut funding to The INN Between.
We are Salt Lake City residents and believe that this facility provides an invaluable service to members of our
community who are otherwise unable to care for themselves. I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding
decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will benefit the sustainability of their program.
The people who are served there are primarily from Salt Lake City, and, we believe, deserve to have end of life
services provided when they have nowhere else to turn. Please do reconsider your decision.
We live in the general neighborhood (1900 E & 900 S), an area filled with medical care facilities. This one is
providing a service like no other. Please do not let such a facility fold for lack of funds or for lack of
consideration by those who may indeed have a say in its viability!
Sincerely,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
To whom ever it may concern and City Counsel Members,
I am a Salt Lake City resident who has volunteered for years at The Inn Between and I urge you to reconsider
your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of
their program.
Though it is only 3% is a small percentage of our absolutely necessary funding to keep the INN functioning for
the many Salt Lake Residence that we provide safe, clean residence for. Most of our residence are, in fact, from
Salt Lake City.
We are able to supply a caring and supportive environment for our residence from a deeply committed staff
and volunteers.
251
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
This is an underserved community and your support deeply matters. Please come by and visit us at you
convenience.
Thank you warmly,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
To whom it may concern:
I am a Salt Lake County resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN
Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. It is clear that the
homeless will be disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 crisis. Cutting any funding to their care at this
point could be especially catastrophic to them, as well as our community as a whole!
Respectfully,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Hi, I'm a SLC resident, and I heard that that the Council has cut all CDBG funding to The INN Between, which
continues to serve our local homeless population at a time of great need.
Can you explain why this was done? Where are those funds being redirected?
I hope you will reconsider your decision, and perhaps find additional resources that can help The INN Between
continue their important mission.
My heart aches when I try to imagine the suffering to come for those who have nothing. I beg you to feel the
same compassion.
Thank you for you work, as well. I hope that you'll reply to this email.
Sincerely,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Greetings Salt Lake City Council,
I just found out that tomorrow (April 7th) is the last time to send in a comment on the next city budget. I would
like to personally advocate for restoring funding to The INN Between (TIB). I know you have very difficult
decisions to make as to allocation of the CDBG money, and there is not enough to spread as far as desired.
However, I have been following TIB closely (live near them) and am so impressed with their mission and the
compassion and professionalism they bring to fulfilling it. Any amount of restoration of funding will be very
252
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
much appreciated and frugally utilized. I stand with my friends experiencing homelessness in our community,
particularly as they face end of life and medical rehab needs. I know you care as well and thank you for your
consideration of this matter.
Thanks,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
I am employed by Rocky Mountain Community Reinvestment Corporation (RMCRC). In 2019 RMCRC provided
most of the financing for the acquisition and rehab of the current Inn Between facility.
Through its involvement RMCRC became uniquely aware of the cost savings to the City of Salt Lake and
emergency services and local hospital emergency rooms because of the Inn Between. RMCRC has since been
rapaid on its loan and funding of the INN Between will have no impact on it financially. The relatively few
dollars allocated to the Inn Between if withdrawn will substantially impact the City of Salt Lake’s expenditures
for emergency care and transit for this vulnerable and costly segment of the homeless population in the City.
We strongly urge you to support the INN Between by continuing your funding. It is pennies on the dollar
savings to the City of Salt Lake.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Hi,
As someone who has volunteered at INN Between and lived at the Young Men’s Transition Home, I have seen
first hand the benefit that these programs provide for people. I have consistently seen young men make it out
of homelessness thanks to this transition home program; and countless old folks have died with a smile on their
face instead of a grieving frown. Let us value this as highly as it deserves to be. And let us know that our
community’s tax dollars are going to a good cause thanks to these programs. We would all rather fund these
programs with our tax dollars than something else.
Sincerely,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Dear Members of the Salt Lake City Council,
We are volunteers and financial supporters of The INN Between and witness the impact which this non profit
clinic has on many Salt Lake City residents in need. We're asking you to reconsider the decision to cut CDBG
funding for this facility. This grant is vital in ensuring that the clinic can continue to serve the poorest and most
distressed members of our community. Please remember that The INN Between provides shelter to homeless
individuals facing medical crisis as well as safety and comfort to those at the end of life.
If you'd like to contact us, we'd be happy to provide you with more information about the mission of The INN
Between and their success stories.
Sincerely,
253
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
To whom it may concern,
Please accept this letter of support for The INN Between. The INN Between is a wonderful organization that we
have worked with several times in the past as a private foundation. They make such an important impact in our
community and I would urge that you reconsider your CDBG funding decision. Any amount funded can help
this program remain sustainable.
Kind regards,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Greetings Salt Lake City Councel Members,
I am a Salt Lake City resident and volunteer at the Inn Between, and I strongly urge you to reconsider your
CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of the
program. 80% of the people we serve are from Salt Lake City and they would take the hit if we stop receiving
this grant.
Thank you,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Council Members,
I would urge you to reconsider cutting funding for one of the most vulnerable populations in Utah. The INN
Between is a wonderful place that brings homeless patients comfort and hospice care during their last days on
earth. Every human deserves palliative care and to be surrounded by those who show them love. I know that
they have taken multiple patients from the Fourth Street Clinic before they became terminally ill.
I appreciate you all working towards a solution towards the housing and healthcare crises and for fighting the
idea that humanity is conditional.
Sincerely,
254
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Hello,
I've been a Salt Lake City resident for almost 3 years now and one of the things that impressed me the most
was your care for the less fortunate. Having a hospice for the homeless demonstrates that care. My parents and
two siblings, indeed, my whole family, benefited from the care they received through hospice at the end of their
lives. I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund
will help the sustainability of their program.
Thank you for your reconsideration,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
I am a Salt Lake City resident and I am writing this email today to plead that you reconsider cutting the funding
for this. Especially in the current situation we are in as a nation. We need to band together and help those in
need as much as possible. Our homeless population are still people and deserve to have a place to go and die
with some dignity and care. Life is hard enough for everyone, we need to show some basic human compassion
and not have them suffering and miserable in their last bit of life left to die on the streets. Again, I ask to please
reconsider cutting funding this would be such a sad shame. Any type of funding you can allot for this
organization would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this email,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Dear Council Members,
I am concerned about the proposed complete cut to funding for The INN Between from Salt Lake City's Community
Development Block Grant program.
I am a Salt Lake City resident who cares deeply about this compassionate resource that does so much with so little,
receives significant volunteer support, and is surely deserving of ongoing recognition and support from our city.
Please reconsider your decision and return funding to The INN Between at any amount, to show the city’s support of this
vital, meaningful service in our community.
Sincerely,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
I just found out that the funding has been stop for places like the Inn Between. This place is essential for a lot of
people waiting for surgery or getting treatment for Cancer and other medical needs. Hospice for the homeless
for those who would having a worse time at a bad time in their life. I hope that you reconsider what you’re
doing. I am a registered voter and my voice counts!
255
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between.
Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. I understand that funding will be
tight with everything going on but this program has minimal funding to begin with. Please reconsider.
Thank you!
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Hello,
I received an email from a friend with concerns about SLC cutting their funding for the Inn Between. While it represents
a low percentage of the Inn’s funding, any more cuts at this time would appear rather devastating because of funding
cuts from other private groups. Is there any rationale for cuts to those who would appear to be in dire need of medical
and hospice care? I assume patients at the Inn are sheltered in place and there must be restrictions on who may come
and go. If not, there should be enforcement of appropriate safe guards. I lost my husband to terminal cancer 2.5 yrs ago
after enduring 4.5 yrs of a lot of pain and suffering through treatments and the devastation of this disease. I can’t
imagine what lack of care and home comforts would be like for those at the end of their lives no matter the illness. That
goes for those who would need skilled nursing and medical care as well. We were so fortunate to have excellent care
and medical insurance.
I live withint 4-5 miles S of the Inn and am a SLCo resident. Certainly homelessness affects anyone in this area. A shelter
was already closed. The homeless disperse throughout the valley and areas near the City and end up in homes or on
other streets. It affects many areas and I applaud city and county efforts to address homelessness issues. I’m merely
expressing my concerns and have questions.
Thank you, and stay healthy.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
I urge you to reconsider funding for the INN Between. They offer vital services to the homeless population that
no other provider offers. We have been supporting The INN Between for many years and urge the county to
do the same.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any
amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE HELP THEM!!!! They’re doing some of the greatest work!!!! Homeless that are dying need a place
to die with dignity, love, care and compassion. We need someone to FIGHT for them!!!!!! They need us!!!!!!!!!!!! HELP
THEM!!!!!! Thank you!!!!!!!!
Source: Email
256
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Please do not cut funding for the Inn Between. Other than people who are on ventilators in hospitals right now, I can’t
think of any group of people more in need of support than those who are both homeless and ill, some of the terminally.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
A critical component in this community of so many homeless. The INN Between is
a functioning resource and will continue with active funding from Salt City and other
organizations. The need for funding is now...now. Please.
Kim Correa and other staff members are dedicated of course, and the hours and
commitment they provide is...well...unreal.
A perfect time for CDBG ) funding.
Thank you .
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
To whom it may concern:
I’m reaching out to you as a Service Provider in this community who has benefited from having had a wonderful
organization like the Inn Between available to take in and care for Sick Homeless clients. They have been cut enormously
over this last few years and I am very much afraid especially having 255 fewer Shelter beds still than we logistically need.
I really feel like cutting funding and not increasing it during the Covid-19 crisis would be a bad look. Our Homeless and
unsheltered community bear the brunt of our lack of investment in vital community programs when we invest in a
continually over-developed city and we don’t even have enough shelter beds even with the Sugarhouse shelter, it feels
uncaring and that is not who we are as a community. Please reconsider your decision to cut the CDBG Grant Please
consider offering more help to an agency that shows up for our very sick, and dying homeless population.
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Thank You,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Dear City Council-
I know there are a lot of competing priorities out there right now. As a 40 year resident of Utah (the Avenues)
I’ve supported many organizations. The Inn Between fulfills a unique niche within our community and their
public funding is essential to them fulfilling their mission. I hope you will consider funding them to the extent
that you can and know the people they support need it now more than ever.
Thank you,
257
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between.
Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program. I am a hospice music therapist and
have had the privilege of serving patients at this facility, and know how valuable it is to the wellbeing of those it
serves.
Thank you for your consideration.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
I am a resident of SLC and ask they you consider the continuation of funding for the Innbetween, this is a much needed
organization and we as the people should help in whatever manner we can. CDBG funding is necessary please
reconsider. Thank you,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Seems like a bad time to cut funding to a homeless shelter that serves unhoused persons with serious health issues!
Janine Sheldon
Neighbor
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Hello council members,
I’m a resident of SLC and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision regarding The Inn Between (TIB). TIB
provides an essential service to those experiencing homelessness and significant and/or terminal illnesses. Any amount
of money that could be allocated to TIB would we put important use.
Thank you,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Dear Salt Lake County Council Members:
I am writing on behalf of the organization Inn Between which provides much needed hospice care for homeless
individuals that have nowhere to go. Please do not cut funding which would mean the individuals being helped
would have no other means for services. I know you have to budget funding. I know you have to make hard
258
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
decisions. At a time when everyone has so much to lose, this loss would seem astronomical to the individuals
receiving care. Every life is valuable and worthy of dignity facing end of life. We as a people have to do a
better job of helping people feel their self -worth.
Thank you,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Dear Salt Lake City Council,
I sincerely hope you and your loved ones are safe and healthy during these uncertain times.
I am a Salt Lake City resident, living a couple blocks away from The INN Between. What they do for those
underserved in our community is remarkable. This organization is doing the work no one else wants to
do. We should be honoring them, thanking them, and funding them with whatever we can. Any amount makes
a difference to them - please do not cut their funding. You must reconsider your CDBG funding decision for
their facility.
Do the right thing.
Thank you,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
We , as a community need to support the marvelous work done by In Between. Please reconsider your decision for
funding this fine organization.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Please continue your support for The Inn Between!!
It plays such a vital role in this community and is a model of
compassion.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Dear Council Members.
I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN
Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
259
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Mayor Mendenhall and Salt Lake City Council Members,
I am a Salt Lake City resident. I’ve watched the various ‘assistance programs’ that have existed for individuals
experiencing homelessness over the last 12 years that I’ve lived here. Every administration, and even different council
members, has had a different impact on the population of individuals that need help.
Has all the help had the intended outcome? No. Are we getting there? Perhaps.
I realize that there is a lot going on right now. I find myself disappointed to hear with everything that is going on, that
you have cut CBDG funding to The Inn Between. I am writing to urge you to reconsider. Any amount that you can fund
will help the sustainability of their unique program.
Thank you,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Dear City Council Members,
I am the founder and current Nurse Supervisor of The INN Between and am really grateful for
all of the support you have provided for this vital agency in the past. Historically we have
received about $46,000 from the Community Development Block Grant program. This
represents only about 3% of our annual budget yet about 80% of our residents come from the
Salt Lake City community. The need is great for all homeless service providers, however, even
the small percentage of a cut in our budget represents a significant impact on what we can do
to serve this community.
I would urge you to reconsider the elimination of funding for The INN Between and know that
we will appreciate funding at any level.
Sincerely,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
To SL City Council Members,
I am a resident of salt lake city. In the past you have supported the INN Between. Pleas, please help again by granting
money to the INN Between via the block grant program.
Thank You!
Source: Email
260
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Hello Council Members,
I'm writing you to plead with you to continue supporting The Inn Between. The services they provide are truly
nonexistent anywhere else. Our low-income, homeless, and formerly homeless neighbors NEED this service. To
deprive this population of the option of having a place to die with dignity would be so cruel. As both a social
worker and a resident of Ssalt Lake City, I urge you to continue your support. The alternative for many of these
folks is to die alone and without the proper care that you or I would be able to receive. Any help you can
continue to give them would be truly appreciated. These people are among our most vulnerable.
Thanks so much for your consideration,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
To whom it may concern, I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding
decision for The INN Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program.
Please have empathy and compassion for our homeless community. They have a right to pass away with dignity
and as comfortably as possible.
Thank you,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Dear Council members,
We have been Salt Lake City residents for more than three decades. For the past two years we have been
weekly volunteers at The Inn Between, which, as you know, is the nation's first hospice for terminally-ill
homeless people, something SLC can be most proud of. It's likely that the COVID pandemic will increase the
number of such people, yet the City plans to actually eliminate its financial support for The Inn Between.
We can well imagine the financial constraints the City must be laboring under during this economic/healthcare
crisis. Still, if you have any discretionary funds available, we hope you will continue supporting The Inn
Between.
Sincerely,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Hi,
I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I live just 2 blocks from the Inn Between and support the work they are
engaged with. I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount that
you can fund will help the sustainability of their program.
Respectfully,
261
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
I am a resident of Salt Lake City, residing at 923 S 1500 E writing to urge you to reconsider CDBG for the Inn
Between.
Thank you,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Hello Council:
I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN
Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program.
As a former volunteer and public relations coordinator for the INN Between, I witnessed the achievement of this
small group of people firsthand. I count as friends the residents who passed through those doors. Their
colorful and tragic way of living left an indelible imprint that remains as part of the very fiber of my being. The
thought of a funding loss for such a worthy program is painfully disheartening and for want of a better word,
ludicrous.
Given the COVID outbreak, so many homeless are helplessly forced into death even earlier. Denied services by
hospitals all across the united states, they face horrendous conditions without help. The INN Between is one of
only TWO such facilities in the entire United States able to provide services to those who are terminally ill and
homeless. In and of itself, this is shameful. I am at a loss trying to fathom why you would cut funding.
Kim Correa and her incredible staff are tirelessly devoted to ensuring quality care for each and every patient in
this facility. For so many of us navigating the waters of COVID and staying alive is actually an ever-present
goal. Up to three months ago, it wasn't even a thought. For the residents of the INN Between and all the
homeless struggling to stay alive, this is the ever-present reality of daily living. Why would you want to
participate in any effort to undermine this herculean effort and support for the downtrodden?
Thank you for funding the INN Between, please keep doing so. Save lives instead of taking them away.
Truly,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Dear members of the City Council,
I am a Salt Lake City resident who also serves as a volunteer (board member) at The Inn Between. I write to
strongly encourage continued City assistance to The Inn Between, particularly at this critical time for the
homeless in our City.
Respectfully,
262
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
I am a constituent of SLC and I support funding for the Inn Between.
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
I am a Salt Lake City resident, and I urge you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN
Between. Any amount that you can fund will help the sustainability of their program.
Thanks,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
As a Salt Lake City resident who is concerned about the welfare of people experiencing homelessness, I
respectfully ask you to reconsider your CDBG funding decision for The INN Between. Any amount you can fund
will help the sustainability of their program, particularly at a time when public health is a concern for all, with
vulnerable populations at even greater risk.
Thank you for your consideration,
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Dear Salt Lake City Council,
My name is ___________, a student at the University of Utah and proud resident of Salt Lake City. I am writing to
you at this time as an advocate for The INN Between, a remarkable organization that I also volunteer for. The
INN Between is an incredibly charitable organization that provides invaluable services to many marginalized
residents of Salt Lake City. The INN Between provides a beacon of hope for numerous individuals suffering from
homelessness and provides an opportunity for them to get back on their feet and become valuable members of
the community. In my volunteer efforts, I have seen firsthand the benevolent services that are provided to the
occupants at The INN Between who deeply appreciate the care that they receive. I would ask that you please
consider renewing the public funds that are granted to the The INN Between via Salt Lake City's Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) program as this will drastically assist in helping provide vital services for some
of the most vulnerable populations of this great city.
Thank you for your great leadership for the residents of Salt Lake City during these extraordinary times.
Best,
263
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Dear Council and Mayor -
I urge you to please find a way to fund the CDBG request for The INN Between. They do so much with so little,
and I can’t imagine a better use of a small portion of my taxes than toward this essential service.
The INN Between provides critical care to individuals who are homeless, largely due to terminal health
conditions. Please support allowing them to live out their remaining days in dignity, and for those few who
recover in their care, be a part of working miracles.
Yours in hope and gratitude -
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 6:02 PM
To: Council Comments <Comments.Council@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Bridge to Backman
Greeting City Council-
Thank you for considering the additional funding for the Bridge to Backman. I want to echo James Rodgers’
comments regarding the importance to funding the whole project. If not funded or only partially funded, this
would still leave a big empty eyesore in the Westside community. The empty lot we are wanting to improve
serves as a message to our community about the investment the city is willing to make in us. 900 South, on the
Eastside, gets ANOTHER facelift and Rose Park fails to be properly invested in. With the 600N/700N plan
underway, this is a great way to beautify and enhance the corridor. Please consider the importance of the
project on a school and community and needs and deserves beautiful spaces to enjoy.
Best,
Salt Lake City Council. Public Hearing, April 7th, 2020, 7pm, via WebEx, Facebook, and YouTube.
Public Comments.
Source: WebEx
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Comments:
She felt she could help women better outside of the criminal justice system than inside, wanted to address
women through a trauma informed lens. Journey of Hope offers services to women with high ACE scores,
institutionalized, homeless, evicted, victims of sexual violence and/or trafficking. They have served over 2,000
women in their program. Most will not recidivate if they have supportive services. 17% of their clients do not
return to incarceration. They offer mentorship for up to 18 months, and most don’t return to homelessness
after their treatment. 200 of their clients haven’t returned to homeless, after receiving their services. Their
agency needs the funding to serve people, please reconsider, there are many women and girls aging-out of
foster care/Juvenile Justice Services or slated to go to homeless shelters who are getting out of jail. She fears
those girls/women going to shelter will be exposed to trafficking or drugs.
264
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Source: WebEx
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Comments: Survivor of sexual and physical abuse, she got her first job out of incarceration at Journey of Hope.
Journey of Hope could do so much more in the state, they could flip the recidivism rate, which Utah is the
highest in the country. It’s difficult to pull people out of poverty if they don’t’ have enough staff support.
They’re the only agency that will go into all settings to serve women in the criminal justice system. Their
Executive Director understands the issues these girls/women face. Journey of Hope hires survivors to serve
other survivors. Please reconsider funding recommendations.
Source: WebEx
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
Comments: SVS is a domestic violence shelter that serves people affected by physical or sexual violence,
located in West Jordan. Though they serve residents of Salt Lake City through the Salt Lake City Library and the
Geraldine King Women’s Resource Center. This allows flexibility to meet survivors at places they’re at instead of
their agency. They serve over 400 domestic violence survivors a year. This improves their quality of life. Thank
you for recommendation for funding to provide case management in various SLC locations and the support for
South Valley Services.
Source: WebEx
Date Submitted: 4/7/2020
7:43 pm. With Journey of Hope. Wants to inform you of how her experience working with Journey of Hope has
improved her life. With the agency she’s had the opportunity to work with women like her, who are getting out
of prison, to get sober and get custody of their children. She’s had the chance to work with domestic violence
and rape survivors and women coming out homelessness. She’s been able to turn her adverse childhood
experiences and turn it into hope for other women. Journey of Hope has empowered her to move forward and
help others find their voice and hope. She hopes the Council will consider them for their funding. Without the
funding they cannot help as many women. She wants to thank them for hearing her, and for all that they do.
Additional Comments Received After the Public Meeting
Source: Email
Date Submitted: 4/8/2020
Sent: Wednesday, April 8, 2020 12:16 AM
To: Council Comments <Comments.Council@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) CDBG Funding Recommendations
Dear Council Members,
I am the Executive Director of Utah Health and Human Rights. We have provided wrap-
around services for refugee, immigrant, and asylee survivors of torture for 17 years. I
recognize that all the recommended CDBG projects focus on homeless services. I
attended all the consolidated plan stakeholder meetings and am disheartened to see that
programs that work tirelessly to prevent homelessness have been overlooked such as
265
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
ours. 99% of our clients have income less than 50% of the MFI. Our clients have
overcome the unimaginable in their home countries and continue to face obstacles with
mental health, poverty, language and cultural barriers, physical health, and ongoing
trauma. We are the only refugee service provider in Utah who provides services without
time limits. Survivors can access our services no matter how long that have been in the
U.S. and they can actively receive services for as long as they need, whether that is 8
months, or 8 years. Without our services many of our clients would face homelessness,
generational poverty and trauma, and chronic physical health needs. I hope that you will
consider funding our program as an essential service keeping Salt Lake City families
from entering homelessness.
Thank you,
266
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL and
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY
and
LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY of SALT LAKE CITY
FORMAL MEETING AGENDA
April 21, 2020 Tuesday 7:00 PM
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake
City Emergency Proclamation.
SLCCouncil.com
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Chris Wharton, Chair
District 3
Andrew Johnston, Vice Chair
District 2
James Rogers
District 1
Ana Valdemoros
District 4
Darin Mano
District 5
Dan Dugan
District 6
Amy Fowler
District 7
Generated: 4/21/2020 4:33:58 PM
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City
Emergency Proclamation. This Council Meeting will not have a physical location at
the City and County Building for this meeting. All attendees will connect remotely.
Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings. We want to make sure
everyone interested in the City Council meetings can still access the meetings how they
feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the City Council meetings, they
are available on the following platforms:
Facebook Live: www.facebook.com/slcCouncil/
YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
Web Agenda: www.slc.gov/council/agendas/
SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
267
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
If you are interested in participating during the Formal Meeting for the Public
Hearings or general comment period, please visit our website or call us at 801-
535-7600 to learn how you can share your comments live during the meetings.
As always, if you would like to provide feedback or comment, please call us or
send us an email:
24-Hour comment line: 801-535-7654
council.comments@slcgov.com
More info and resources can be found at: www.slc.gov/council/contact-us/
Upcoming meetings and meeting information can be found
here: www.slc.gov/council/agendas/
We welcome and encourage your comments! We have Council staff monitoring inboxes
and voicemail, as always, to receive and share your comments with Council
Members. All agenda related comments received through any source are
shared with the Council and added to the public meeting record. View
comments submitted during the virtual Council meetings.
The standard order of the Formal Meeting Agenda will be adjusted to accommodate
the electronic meeting. General Comment and Public Hearings will be heard as one
item. Speakers may speak for up to two minutes per public hearing item or for a two-
minute public comment. We ask speakers to conclude their comment prior to beginning
to speak to the next.
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not
applicable or not yet determined.
WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES
A. OPENING CEREMONY:
1.
Council Member Chris Wharton will conduct the meeting.
2.
Pledge of Allegiance.
3.
Welcome and Public Meeting Rules.
268
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
4.
The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of Tuesday, March 17, 2020
and Tuesday, March 24, 2020 as well as formal meeting minutes of Tuesday, March 24,
2020.
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Public Hearings and General Comments will be heard as one item.
1. Resolution: Update and Timeline for the City’s 2020-24 Consolidated Plan
Guiding Use of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Funds
The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution
that would update and approve the timeline for the City’s 2020-24 Consolidated Plan as
required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The
Consolidated Plan details the City’s goals and objectives to build healthy and sustainable
communities through four federal grants: Community Development Block Grants
(CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), Home Investment Partnerships, and
Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA).
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 8, 2019; Tuesday, February 4, 2020; Tuesday, April 7, 2020;
Tuesday, April 14, 2020; and Tuesday, April 21, 2020
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 3, 2020
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2020 and Tuesday April 7,
2020 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 21, 2020
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
2. Grant Application: U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) COPS Office Fiscal
Year 2020 Hiring Grant
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request that would
fund the salary and benefits of ten (10) new police officer positions. The new officers
would be assigned to the Patrol Division, and the Police Department would assign ten
experienced officers to newly created Intelligence-led policing squads which would focus
on addressing emerging violent crime issues and repeat violent crime offenders in Salt
Lake City.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
269
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
3. Grant Application: 2020 Grants to Improving Criminal Justice Responses
to Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, and Stalking
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request that would fund
the salary and benefits for one full-time Victim Advocate position at the YWCA Utah. This
new position would replace a current part-time, grant-funded advocate position. This
advocate will be co-located at the YWCA Family Justice Center (FJC) and will serve as a
liaison to support victims, ensure they receive appropriate services, and are informed
about the criminal justice process. If awarded, the grant would also fund police overtime
efforts to increase arrests for protection order violation warrants and warrants in
domestic violence cases.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
4. Grant Application: Assistance to Firefighters Grant
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request that would
fund eight battery-powered ventilation fans to replace old gas-powered fans for the Salt
Lake City Fire Department. The new fans are more compact, can be safely carried by one
firefighter, and do not emit fumes. In addition, the grant funding would be used to
purchase eight battery-operated, vehicle-mounted extrication units which will replace
older equipment to ensure successful heavy rescue extrication on metals used in newer
vehicles.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 7 p.m.
270
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
TENTATIVE Council Action -
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
5. Grant Application: 2020 Parks as Community Nutrition Hubs: Expanding
Access to Healthy Foods
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request that would be
used to construct a 1,000 square foot outdoor classroom at the Sorenson Unity Center.
The classroom will become a community nutrition hub for hosting nutrition and
gardening education events, a farmers market, and health and wellness activities for
Glendale and Poplar Grove residents.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
6. Grant Application: U.S. Department of Justice Department (DOJ) COPS
Office Fiscal Year 2020 Community Police Development Grant
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request that would fund
the salary and benefits of three new part-time Gang Outreach Advocate positions to ass ist
with the Promising Youth Project, a gang intervention and prevention program.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent
agenda.
271
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
C. COMMENTS:
1. Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a
public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two
minutes.)
2. Questions to the Mayor from the City Council.
D. POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:
1. One-year Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant & Other
Federal Grants for Fiscal Year 2020-21
The Council will consider a resolution adopting the Mayor’s funding recommendations
and an appropriations resolution adopting the One-Year Annual Action Plan that
includes Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding, HOME Investment
Partnership Program funding, Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funding, Housing
Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funding, for Fiscal Year 2020-21 and
approving an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 7, 2020; Tuesday, April 14, 2020; and Tuesday, April 21, 2020
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 3, 2020
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2020 and Tuesday, April 7,
2020 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, April 21, 2020
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
272
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL and
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY
and
LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY of SALT LAKE CITY
FORMAL MEETING AGENDAS
May 5, 2020 Tuesday 7:00 PM
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City
Emergency Proclamation.
SLCCouncil.com
CITY COUNCIL/BOARD MEMBERS:
Chris Wharton, Chair
District 3 Andrew Johnston, Vice Chair
District 2
James Rogers
District 1
Ana Valdemoros
District 4
Darin Mano
District 5
Dan Dugan
District 6 Amy Fowler
District 7
Generated: 5/4/2020 5:11:05 PM
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City
Emergency Proclamation. This Council Meeting will not have a physical location at
the City and County Building for this meeting. All attendees will connect remotely.
Members of the public are encouraged to participate in meetings. We want to make sure
everyone interested in the City Council meetings can still access the meetings how they
feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the City Council meetings, they
are available on the following platforms:
Facebook Live: www.facebook.com/slcCouncil/
YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
Web Agenda: www.slc.gov/council/agendas/
SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
273
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
If you are interested in participating during the Formal Meeting for the Public Hearings
or general comment period, please visit our website or call us at 801-535-7600 to learn
how you can share your comments live during the meetings.
As always, if you would like to provide feedback or comment, please call us or send us an
email:
24-Hour comment line: 801-535-7654
council.comments@slcgov.com
More info and resources can be found at: www.slc.gov/council/contact-us/
Upcoming meetings and meeting information can be found
here: www.slc.gov/council/agendas/
We welcome and encourage your comments! We have Council staff monitoring inboxes
and voicemail, as always, to receive and share your comments with Council
Members. All agenda related comments received through any source are
shared with the Council and added to the public meeting record. View
comments submitted during the virtual Council meetings.
The standard order of the Formal Meeting Agenda will be adjusted to accommodate
the electronic meeting. General Comment and Public Hearings will be heard as one
item. Speakers may speak for up to two minutes per public hearing item or for a two-
minute public comment. We ask speakers to conclude their comment prior to beginning
to speak to the next.
LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY of
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH MEETING
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not
applicable or not yet determined.
WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES
A. OPENING CEREMONY:
1.
Council/Board Member Chris Wharton will conduct the formal meetings.
2.
Pledge of Allegiance.
3.
Welcome and Public Meeting Rules.
274
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
B. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
1. Resolution: Tentative Budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority for
Fiscal Year 2020-21
The Board will consider approving a resolution adopting the tentative budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the
Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2020-21.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 21, 2020
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 19, 2020 and Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 9, 2020
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
C. CONSENT:
1. Resolution: Budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority for Fiscal
Year 2020-21
The Board will confirm the dates of Tuesday, May 19, 2020 and Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 7 p.m. to accept public
comment and consider approving a resolution adopting the final budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the
Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2020-21.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 21, 2019 and Tuesday, June 4, 2019 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -
Staff Recommendation - Confirm the Public Hearing dates
D. ADJOURNMENT:
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH MEETING
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet
determined.
E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
275
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
1. Resolution: Tentative Budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year
2020-21
The Board will consider approving a resolution adopting the tentative budget for the Redevelopment Agency of
Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2020-21.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 14, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 19, 2020 and Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 9, 2020
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
F. CONSENT:
1. Resolution: Budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City for Fiscal Year 2020-21
The Board will confirm the dates of Tuesday, May 19, 2020 and Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 7 p.m. to accept public
comment and consider approving a resolution adopting the final budget for the Redevelopment Agency of Salt
Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2020-21.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 21, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 19, 2020 and Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, June 9, 2020
Staff Recommendation - Confirm the Public Hearing dates
G. ADJOURNMENT:
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet
determined. H. OPENING CEREMONY:
1.
The Council will approve the formal meeting minutes of Tuesday, April 14, 2020.
2.
Mayor Mendenhall will present the proposed Salt Lake City budget, including the Library Fund, for Fiscal Year
2020-21.
I. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Public Hearings and General Comments will be heard as one item.
276
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
1. Ordinance: 1172 East Chandler Drive Rezone
The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would rezone a parcel at
approximately 1172 East Chandler Drive from Open Space District (OS) to Foothills Residential District (FR-
3/12,000). The intent of the rezone is to match the zoning of the property to the east, which is under the same
ownership, to allow residential accessory uses on the property after the two lots are combined. Consideration
may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No.:
PLNPCM2019-00795
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, April 14, 2020
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 7, 2020
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 19, 2020
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
2. Ordinance: 2064 North and 2066 North 2200 West Zoning Map Amendment
The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would rezone
property at 2064 North and 2066 North 2200 West from AG-2 (Agricultural) to M-1 (Light Manufacturing).
The applicant is requesting the rezone to accommodate future development of the property and implement the
area master plan zoning. No site development proposal has been submitted at this time. Although the applicant
has requested that the property be rezoned to M-1, consideration may be given to rezoning the property to
another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No. PLNPCM-2019-00431.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 3, 2020
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 3, 2020 and Tuesday, April 21, 2020
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 7, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 5, 2020
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
3. Ordinance: Washington Street Alley Vacation
The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would close a
City-owned alley located at approximately 1040 South Washington Street. The alley is 15 feet wide and
approximately 253 feet long. It runs west of Washington Street toward an abandoned Utah Transit Authority
(UTA) railroad line, where it becomes a dead end before reaching 300 West Street. The proposal would allow
the petitioner to incorporate it into the seven of eight adjacent properties they own.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 3, 2020
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 3, 2020
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 7, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 5, 2020
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
4. Ordinance: Cleveland Court Master Plan Amendment and Rezone (1430 South 400 East)
The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the
Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map and the zoning map pertaining to a property at 1430
South 400 East. The rezone and amendments would allow the applicant to build a seven-unit development. The
proposal would change the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential and rezone the property from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-
Family Residential District) to FB-UN1 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District). Although the applicant has
277
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
requested that the property be rezoned to the FB-UN1 district, consideration may be given to rezoning the
property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition Nos.: PLNPCM2019-00189 &
PLNPCM2019-00190
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, March 17, 2020
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 24, 2020
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, April 7, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 5, 2020
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
5. Ordinance: RECM Investments, LLC Zoning Map Amendment at 347, 353 and 359 North 700
West
The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the
zoning map pertaining to three parcels of property located at 347, 353 and 359 North 700 West to rezone the
parcels from SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential to RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-family
Residential. The request is in anticipation of a multi-family project being constructed at the site. Consideration
may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No.
PLNPCM2019-00638.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, February 18, 2020
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 18, 2020
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday,May 5, 2020
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
6. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment 480 E 6th Avenue
The Council will continue to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the
zoning map for the property at 480 East 6th Avenue from Special Development Pattern Residential District
(SR-1A) to Small Neighborhood Business District (SNB). The proposed rezone is to make the current legal
nonconforming commercial use in the 6th Avenue structure conforming and allow for a commercial use in the
historically residential structure facing G Street. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to
another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No. PLNPCM2018-00813.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, February 18, 2020
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, February 18, 2020
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2020 and Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 5, 2020
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
7. Grant Application: 2021 Distracted Driving Prevention Program Grant
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Salt Lake City Police
Department that would fund enforcement/education overtime shifts for the Distracted Driving Prevention
program.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -
278
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda.
8. Grant Application: 2021 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Program Grant
The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Salt Lake City Police
Department that would fund crosswalk enforcement/education overtime as well as youth bicycle rodeo
overtime.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -
Set Public Hearing Date -
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -
Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda.
J. COMMENTS:
1. Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as
well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.)
2. Questions to the Mayor from the City Council.
K. POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:
1. Resolution: Update and Timeline for the City’s 2020-24 Consolidated Plan Guiding Use of U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Funds
The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would update and approve the timeline for the City’s 2020-
24 Consolidated Plan as required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The
Consolidated Plan details the City’s goals and objectives to build healthy and sustainable communities through
four federal grants: Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG), Home
Investment Partnerships, and Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA).
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, October 8, 2019; Tuesday, February 4, 2020; Tuesday, April 7, 2020; Tuesday, April 14,
2020; and Tuesday, April 21, 2020
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 3, 2020
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2020; Tuesday April 7, 2020; and Tuesday April
21, 2020 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 5, 2020
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
2. One-year Action Plan for Community Development Block Grant & Other Federal Grants for
Fiscal Year 2020-21
The Council will consider a resolution adopting the Mayor’s funding recommendations and an appropriations
resolution adopting the One-Year Annual Action Plan that includes Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funding, HOME Investment Partnership Program funding, Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funding,
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) funding, for Fiscal Year 2020-21 and approving an
Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD).
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
279
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Briefing - Tuesday, April 7, 2020; Tuesday, April 14, 2020; and Tuesday, April 21, 2020
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, March 3, 2020
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, March 24, 2020 and Tuesday, April 7, 2020 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 5, 2020
Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).
280
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
281
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
APPENDIX C: 2020 – 2024 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
INTRODUCTION
The Citizen Participation Plan specifies the policies and procedures that encourage participation by Salt Lake City
residents in the planning, implementation, and ongoing evaluation of the City’s Consolidated Plan as required by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Citizen Participation Plan encourages participation from
citizens in neighborhoods that receive significant federal funding and from citizens living throughout the City. The
Consolidated Plan articulates how HUD funding will be used for the following programs:
● Community Development Block Grant (CDBG);
● Emergency Solutions Grant Program (ESG);
● Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME); and
● Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA).
Citizen participation in planning and implementing housing, public services, infrastructure, and economic development
activities is an essential step in creating vibrant, livable and sustainable cities that are responsive to resident’s needs. A
robust citizen participation process provides residents with an opportunity to improve their environment and equips local
elected officials with information regarding their constituent’s desires and priorities. If residents are involved in designing
programs that will improve their communities, it is more likely that projects and strategies will meet their needs.
Interested groups and individuals are encouraged to provide input into all aspects of the City’s consolidated planning
activities, including but not limited to assessing needs, setting priorities, and evaluating performance. This Citizen
Participation Plan offers numerous opportunities for citizens to contribute feedback regarding ways to provide decent
housing, establish and maintain a suitable living environment, invest in infrastructure, and expand economic opportunities,
particularly for low-and moderate-income (LMI) persons.
Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (HAND) will be responsible for overseeing the
development and implementation of the applicable plans. The Citizen Participation Plan applies to the following:
● The five-year Consolidated Plan;
● The Annual Action Plan (AAP);
● The Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER);
● Any substantial amendments to the five-year Consolidated Plan and/or annual Action Plan; and
● Amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan.
The City’s fiscal year begins July 1 of each year and ends June 30 of the following year. Each area of planning has its own
schedule and must be maintained to ensure compliance with HUD regulations and eligibility for future funding.
In all areas, the City will look to include the use of electronic communication, meetings, training, noticing, outreach, etc.
where appropriate so long as it is clearly communicated for participation by the general public.
HUD PROGRAMS
Salt Lake City receives four entitlement grants from HUD to help address th e City’s affordable housing, community, and
economic development needs. The four grant programs are described below:
1. Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG): Title I of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 created the CDBG program. It was reauthorized in 1990 as part of the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act. The primary objective of the CDBG program is to develop viable urban communities
by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and by expanding economic development
opportunities for persons of low and moderate income. The City develops locally defined programs and funding
priorities for CDBG, but activities must address one or more of the national objectives of the CDBG program.
The three national objectives are: (1) to benefit low- and moderate- income persons; (2) to aid in the prevention
or elimination of slums or blight; and/or (3) to meet other urgent community development needs. The City’s
CDBG program emphasizes activities that directly benef it low and moderate-income persons.
282
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
2. Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG): The ESG Program is authorized by the Steward B. McKinney Homeless
Assistance Act of 1987 and was amended by the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to
Housing (HEARTH) Act of 2009. The ESG Interim Rule took effect on January 4, 2012. The change in the
program’s name, from Emergency Shelter Grants to Emergency Solutions Grants, reflects the change in the
program’s focus from addressing the needs of homeless people in emergency or transitional shelters to assisting
people to quickly regain stability in permanent housing after experiencing a housing crisis and/or homelessness.
The ESG program provides funding to address five program components: street outreach, emergency shelt er,
homelessness prevention, rapid re-housing assistance, and HMIS; as well as administrative activities.
3. HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME): HOME was introduced in the Cranston-Gonzalez National
Affordable Housing Act of 1990 and provides funding for housing rehabilitation, new housing construction,
acquisition of affordable housing, and tenant -based rental assistance. A portion of the funds (15 percent) must be
set aside for Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDO) certified by t he City.
4. Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA): HOPWA funds may be used to assist housing
designed to meet the needs of persons with HIV/AIDS, including the prevention of homelessness. Supportive
services may also be included. HOPWA grants are allocated to Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Areas (EMSAs)
with a high incidence of HIV/AIDS. The City receives HOPWA funds that can be utilized in Salt Lake County,
Tooele County and Summit County.
CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARDS
The City uses advisory boards to assist in the recommendation of funding for these grant programs. CDBG & ESG
applications are reviewed by the Community Development and Capital Improvements Program Advisory Board (CDCIP).
The HOME & HOPWA applications are reviewed by the Housing Tru st Fund Advisory Board (HTFAB). These advisory
boards are made up of a diverse resident base that allows for additional community input. The recommendation of the
board is used by the Mayor and City Council as final funding allocations are determined.
If a member of the public is interested in serving on the CDCIP or HTF Advisory Boards, please contact Housing and
Neighborhood Development to learn how you can help direct the efforts of the city at www.slcgov.com/hand. The City
encourages diversity among its boards and encourage constituents from a wide variety of backgrounds, and experiences to
apply for volunteerism on this and other city boards.
During the development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, the City consulted with businesses, developers, and
nonprofit organizations, as well as philanthropic, community, and faith -based organizations. Representatives from these
various entities served on a Stakeholder Advisory Committee and provided valuable input r egarding suggested priorities
for unmet, unfunded needs. In addition, these stakeholders provided direction regarding the strategies the City could
employ to help address those needs with the federal funding available through the Consolidated Plan. This in put is
reflected in the Consolidated Plan and will help to guide how the funding is used over the five-year period.
Salt Lake City will continue to use advisory boards as a way to receive community input and encourage citizens to play an
active role in decision making processes. The advisory boards will provide recommendation for funding to the Mayor &
City Council for consideration. The Mayor may elect to change which advisory board(s) responsible for review and
recommendation of these grant sources, wit hout further impact to this Plan or associated Plans.
PUBLIC HOUSING AGENC Y (PHA)
The City will provide information about consolidated plan activities to the Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (HASLC)
and the Salt Lake County Housing Authority, “Housing Connect.” This will allow HASLC and Housing Connect to make
this information available at the annual public hearing required for the Public Housing Authority (PHA) Plan.
MEASURING SUCCESS
The City will explore alternative public involvement techniques and quantitative approaches to measuring the success of
efforts related to the Consolidated Plan. These techniques could include various online engagement tools such as online
surveys, discussion forums, GIS-based interactive maps with public comment layers, social media analytics, and/or other
quantitative approaches.
283
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
DISPLACEMENT OF PERS ONS
SLC will adhere to and uphold all requirements under the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance Real P roperty
Acquisition Act of 1970. The City will continue to explore other methods to ensure that displacement is minimized where
applicable.
PUBLIC NOTICE
The City will provide advanced public notice once when a planning activity subject to the Citizen Pa rticipation Plan
occurs. When appropriate, public notices, announcements, draft documents, and final documents may be provided as
follows:
1. Press Releases issued by the Office of the Mayor;
2. Written Public Notices, provided in both English and Spanish;
3. Post ing of written Public Notices on the State’s Public Notice website;
4. Email to HAND’s comprehensive contact list consisting of residents, past and present grant applicants,
government officials, Council liaisons, interested parties, Community Councils, local neighborhood groups, and
City departments;
5. Post announcements, information, and documents to the City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development
website;
6. Information released via the City’s social media accounts;
7. Follow the City’s Public Engagement Guide;
8. The City will use electronic means wherever applicable to reduce the requirement for in person noticing or
engagement.
To be added to HAND’s email/mailing lists for the purpose of automatically being informed about the federal grant
activities and processes, please contact Housing and Neighborhood Development at www.slcgov.com/hand.
SALT LAKE CITY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT GUIDE
In September 2019, Salt Lake City updated the Salt Lake City Public Engagement Guide. The document has been
accepted by the legislative body (though not officially adopted by the City Council), and serves as a framework for use by
all Departments, Divisions, and employees as they engage the public in City decisions. The Salt Lake City Public
Engagement Guide was developed in conjunction with the Open Government Initiative and principles of the International
Association for Public Participation (IAP2). The Salt Lake City Public Engagement Guide is a tool designed to assist city
employees in determining the scope and appropriate level of public engagement necessary for a successful process.
Issues of culture, language, income and protected classes come into play when the specific and/or unique stakeholders are
identified, based on the characteris tics and intent of a particular plan, program or process being discussed. This guide will
be used in the programming and implementation of gaining the greatest level of meaningful participation with the citizens
of Salt Lake City.
PLANNING ACTIVITIES SUBJ ECT TO THE CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
General Needs Hearing
Each year, during the grant application period, the City will host a General Needs Hearing. The public is invited to attend
the hearing and provide input on the general needs within their communit y. This may include gaps in services, housing
opportunities, neighborhood improvements, the provision of public service, and other needs. Information gathered at the
General Needs Hearing will be used to prioritize funding to address community needs.
To reach a wide variety of residents, Housing and Neighborhood Development may outreach to the public using the
following forums:
1. Public Notice that meets State public noticing requirements in advance to HAND’s comprehensive email/mailing
list in both English and Spanish;
2. Press Release, released through the Mayor’s Office
3. Details will be posted on Housing and Neighborhood Development’s website;
284
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
4. Request that non-profit organizations and business partners post the English and Spanish notice in a public space
in their place of business;
5. Post details of the hearing on the State’s Public Notice website;
6. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other applicable forms of
electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticin g.
Grant Application Availability
The City will attempt to alert eligible applicants of the application process, training opportunities, and application
deadlines when grant applications are available. Outreach may be repeated as often as necessary to ensure outreach is
successful. To reach current and potential partners, HAND will provide outreach as follows:
1. Public Notice to HAND’s comprehensive email/mailing list;
2. Press Release, released through the Mayor’s Office;
3. Details will be posted on Housing and Neighborhood Development’s website;
4. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other applicable forms of
electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticing.
Advisory Board Meetings
The public is invited to attend and observe all Advisory Board meetings. Per State requirements, all CDCIP & HTF
Advisory Board meetings are posted on the State’s Public Notice website. These public meetings may occur in person or
electronically, following the State of Utah Open Meetings Act requirements. This includes and is not limited to hosting
remote meetings as necessary.
During time of emergency declaration, these meetings will continue to follow the State of Utah Open Meetings Act
requirements as advised by and under the input of the City Attorney. This includes and is not limited to hosting remote
meetings as necessary.
Community Input/Public Engagement
On an annual basis before the Advisory Boards make funding recommendations for the CDBG, ESG, HOME, or HOPWA
funding, the City will conduct a widespread effort to ensure that a wide variety of community members have the ability to
provide input into funding priorities. The method of this effort may change from year to year, however, it is always the
goal of the City to s pecifically outreach to community members that are more likely to use the services and programs
supported by these funding sources. Each year the efforts will enhance and improve the outreach to vulnerable
populations, communities of color, disadvantaged p opulations, and will always include outreach within CDBG eligible
areas and/or areas of high poverty.
Consolidated Plan
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requirements dictate that the City must have a Consolidated Plan.
This is a five-year strategic plan that identifies community development and housing needs within the community. This
document must specify short -term and long-term objectives that provide for decent housing, a suitable living environment,
and expanded economic opportunity primarily for persons of low and moderate income.
Salt Lake City's 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan is a strategic plan focused on increasing opportunity in neighborhoods with
concentrated poverty and supporting the City's most vulnerable populations. The five-y ear plan provides a strategy for
maximizing and leveraging the City's block grant allocations to build healthy and sustainable communities that connect
and expand opportunities for residents.
Many steps were taken to determine the community needs and solicit feedback from the community, interested parties,
stakeholders and government partners. Below is a list of events, activities and reports that were completed:
The public was invited to comment on the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan draft document before adoption by the City
Council. Printed copies of the Consolidated Plan Executive Summary were made available for public review and
comment for 30 calendar days. The copies were located at Salt Lake City Corporation, 451 South State Street, in the
Office of Community Affairs (Room 345), Housing and Neighborhood Development (Room 445), the Salt Lake City
Public Library, Main Branch, located at 210 East 400 South in Salt Lake City. An electronic version of the draft
285
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
Consolidated Plan was posted on the City’s official website during the same period. The final adopted Consolidated Plan
will be made available on the City’s official website.
Any comments made by the public were reviewed and analyzed by Housing and Neighborhood Development. Comments
and may be incorporated into the final Plan document.
Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan
The Citizen Participation Plan defines a substantial amendment as:
1. A proposed use of funds that does not address a goal or underlying strategy identified in the governing
Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan; or
2. Increasing funding levels for a given project by 100% or more of the previously adopted amount; or
3. Decreasing funding levels for a given project by 100% AND pivoting impacted funds to another approved u se
during an action plan period; or
4. A change to a regulatory requirement or additional allocated funding from the US Department of Housing &
Urban Development that defines that a substantial amendment must be completed.
The above list represents the City’s criteria for determining what constitutes a substantial amendment and are subject to
the City’s citizen participation process.
The public is invited to comment on any Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan before adoption by City
Council. Announcements of a Substantial Amendment may be communicated by the following way(s):
1. Public Notice to HAND’s comprehensive email/mailing list; or
2. Press Release, released through the Mayor’s Office; or
3. Details will be posted on Housing and Neighborhood Development’s website; or
4. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other applicable forms of
electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticing.
Printed and electronic draft documents of Substantial Amendmen ts to the Consolidated Plan will be made available for
public review and comment. Where allowable, the City will follow the required noticing of 30 calendar days, except for
when US Department of Housing & Urban Development allows for a lesser amount of no ticing days.
If accessible, printed copies will be located at Salt Lake City Corporation, 451 South State Street, in the Office of
Community Affairs (Room 345), Housing and Neighborhood Development (Room 445), and the Salt Lake City Public
Library, Main Branch, located at 210 East 400 South in Salt Lake City. An electronic version of any Substantial
Amendments to the Consolidated Plan will be posted on the City’s official web site during the same period.
Any comments made by the public will be reviewed and analyzed by Housing and Neighborhood Development.
Comments may be incorporated into the final Consolidated Plan document. A summary of these comments or views, and a
summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons therefor, shall be attached to the substantial amendment
of the consolidated plan.
Annual Action Plan City Council Public Hearing
Each year, the Salt Lake City Council will host a public hearing to allow public input on projects proposed for funding.
This is one of the two public hearings during the planning process as noted in the General Requirements section of the
Citizen Participation Plan. To engage citizens, outreach will be conducted as follows:
1. Public Notice, provided at least 14 calendar days in advance to HAND’s compr ehensive email/mailing list in
both English and Spanish;
2. Press Release, released through the Mayor’s Office.
3. Details will be posted on Housing and Neighborhood Development’s website.
4. Request that non-profit organizations and business partners post the English and Spanish notice in a public space
in their place of business;
5. Post details of the hearing on the State’s Public Notice website;
6. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other applicable forms of
electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticing.
286
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
The City Council will accept public input from those who attended the public hearing to express their views, either by
verbally addressing the Council or providing written comments. Written comments are also allowed by those unable to
attend in person, but who wanted to provide their input on the projects requesting funding. The draft AAP will be
available for public comment for 14 calendar days. Any comments made by the public will be reviewed and analyzed by
Housing and Neighborhood Development. Comments may be incorporated into the final Plan document.
Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER)
Every year, the City must submit to HUD the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) within
90 calendar days of the close of the program year. The CAPER describes how funds were spent and the extent to which
funds were used for activities that benefit low - and moderate- income residents.
The City will provide reasonable not ice that the draft CAPER is available so that residents will have an opportunity to
review and comment. The draft CAPER will be available for public comment for 15 calendar days. To engage citizens,
outreach will be as follows:
1. Public Notice to HAND’s comprehensive email/mailing list;
2. Details will be posted on Housing and Neighborhood Development’s website;
3. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other applicable forms of
electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticing.
Any comments made by the public will be reviewed by Housing and Neighborhood Development. The City will consider
any comments or views of citizens received in writing, in preparing the performance report. A summary of these
comments or views shall be attached to the performance report.
Amendments to the Citizen Participation Plan
An “Amendment” to the Citizen Participation Plan is defined as:
If HUD has new citizen participation plan requirements, that will be considered amendment. I f the City finds that this
Citizen Participation Plan no longer meets the needs of the community and decision makers, an adjustment to this Plan
will be considered an amendment. This Citizen Participation Plan can be amended only after the public has been notified
of the City’s intent to modify it, and only after the public has had a reasonable chance to review and comment on proposed
substantial changes. The draft Amendment to the Citizen Participation Plan will be available for public comment for 15
calendar days. To engage citizens, outreach will be as follows:
1. Public Notice to HAND’s comprehensive email/mailing list;
2. Details will be posted on Housing and Neighborhood Development’s website;
3. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other applicable forms of
electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticing.
Any comments made by the public will be reviewed and analyzed by Housing and Neighborhood Development.
Comments may be reflected in the final amendment to the Citizen Participation Plan. A summary of these comments or
views, and a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons therefor, shall be attached to the substantial
amendment of the consolidated plan.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Public Hearings
There will be a minimum of two public hearings during the planning stages of any formal Plan required by HUD. Notices
of all Public Hearings will be communicated within 14 calendar days of the Hearing. Public Hearings will also be
identified on Ut ah’s Public Notice website.
Public hearings may occur in person, electronically, or by written comment.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to
attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is
287
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
an accessible facility. Salt Lake City Corporation is committed to ensuring we are accessible to all members of the public.
To request ADA accommodations contact Sarah Benj by email at sarah.benj@slcgov.com or by phone at 801.535.7697.
Please provide 48 hours advanced notice. ADA accommodations can including alternate formats, interpreters and other
auxiliary aids.
Public Meetings
Public meetings may occur throughout the grant application and administration process. Any public meeting that is being
held to discuss a matter of the federal grants discussed herein, will be communicated at a minimum of 2 calendar days in
ad vance of said meeting. Notices of all public meetings will also be identified on Utah’s Public Notice website.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to
attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is
an accessible facility. Salt Lake City Corporation is committed to ensuring we are accessible to all members of the public.
To request ADA accommodations contact Sarah Benj by email at sarah.benj@slcgov.com or by phone at 801.535.7697.
Please provide 48 hours advanced notice. ADA accommodations can including alternate formats, interpreters and other
auxiliary aids.
Non-English speaking
In the case of public hearings where a significant number of non-English speaking residents can reasonably be expected to
participate, the City will meet the needs of non-English speaking residents by providing translation services and
interpreters, upon request.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to
attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxilia ry aids. This is
an accessible facility. Salt Lake City Corporation is committed to ensuring we are accessible to all members of the public.
To request ADA accommodations contact Sarah Benj by email at sarah.benj@slcgov.com or by phone at 801.535.7697.
Please provide 48 hours advanced notice. ADA accommodations can including alternate formats, interpreters and other
auxiliary aids.
Individuals with Disabilities
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance in order to
attend this public meeting. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. This is
an accessible facility. Salt Lake City Corporation is committed to ensuring we are accessible to all members of the public.
To request ADA accommodations contact Sarah Benj by email at sarah.benj@slcgov.com or by phone at 801.535.7697.
Please provide 48 hours advanced notice. ADA accommodations can including alternate formats, interpreters and other
auxiliary aids.
Document Access
Copies of all final planning documents including the following federal reports will be made available on the City’s
website:
● Citizen Participation Plan
● Five Year Consolidated Plan
● Annual Action Plan Funding Allocations
● Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report
Printed copies of these documents are available to the public upon request. Additional reasonable accommodations will be
made for individuals with disabilities, upon request.
Access to Records
The City will provide citizens, public agencies, and other in terested parties reasonable and timely access to information
and records relating to the Citizen Participation Plan, Five Year Consolidated Plan, annual Action Plan, and CAPER, and
the City’s use of assistance under the four entitlement grant programs.
Technical Assistance
The City will provide technical assistance upon request and to the extent resources are available to groups or individuals
that need assistance in preparing funding proposals, provided that the level of technical assistance does not cons titute a
violation of federal or local rules or regulations. The provision of technical assistance does not involve reassignment of
288
Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan
2020-2024
City staff to the proposed project or group, or the use of City equipment, nor does technical assistance guarantee an award
of funds. Contact information for City staff is as follows:
Salt Lake City
Housing & Neighborhood Development
451 South State Street
PO BOX 145488
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5488
801-535-7712
www.slcgov.com/hand
CITIZENS’ COMPLAINTS
Written complaints related to Salt Lake City’s programs and activities funded through entitlement grant funding may be
directed to SLC’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (HAND). A timely, written and substantive response
to the complainant will be prepared within 15 calendar days of receipt of the complaint by HAND. Salt Lake City Housing
& Neighborhood Development will work to determine the appropriate course of action, including but not limited to,
involving other City divisions, any State or Federal community level resources to help address the complaint to the fullest
extent reasonably possible based upon the nature of the complaint. Written complaints must include the complainant’s
name, address, and zip code and must be signed by the perso n(s) filing the formal complaint. A daytime telephone number
and/or email address should also be included in the event further information or clarification is needed. Complaints should
be addressed as follows:
Salt Lake City
Housing & Neighborhood Develop ment
Attn: Director
451 South State Street
PO BOX 145488
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5488
Exhibit 2
2020-2021 Action Plan Final
SALT LAKE CITY
2020-2021 ACTION PLAN
MAYOR
ERIN MENDENHALL
CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT 1: JAMES ROGERS
DISTRICT 2 & VICE CHAIR: ANDREW JOHNSTON
DISTRICT 3 & CHAIR: CHRIS WHARTON
DISTRICT 4: ANALIA VALDEMOROS
DISTRICT 5: DARIN MANO
DISTRICT 6: DAN DUGAN
DISTRICT 7: AMY FOWLER
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
2 | P a g e
Prepared by
S A L T L A K E C I T Y
HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. FIRST YEAR ACTION PLAN
AP-05 E XECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................04
AP-05 LEAD & RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES ................................................................................12
AP-10 CONSULTATION ...........................................................................................................13
AP-12 PARTICIPATION ............................................................................................................27
AP-15 EXPECTED RESOURCES.................................................................................................33
AP-20 ANNUAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ..............................................................................38
AP-35 PROJECTS ......................................................................................................................41
AP-38 PROJECT SUMMARY.....................................................................................................44
AP-50 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION...................................................................................53
AP-55 AFF ORDABLE HOUSING ...............................................................................................56
AP-60 PUBLIC HOUSING .........................................................................................................57
AP-65 HOMELESS AND OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS ACTIVITIES .................................................59
AP-70 HOPWA GOALS ............................................................................................................64
AP-75 BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING ........................................................................64
AP-85 OTHER ACTIONS ...........................................................................................................68
AP-90 PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS..........................................................................74
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
3 | P a g e
FIRST YEAR ACTION PLAN
The First Year Action Plan outlines the activities and funding priorities for the first year
of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, covering July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
4 | P a g e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AP-05 Executive Summary 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b)
1. Introduction
Salt Lake City’s 2020-2021 Action Plan is the product of a collaborative, strategic process that spans community
partners, service providers, non-profit/for-profit housing developers, housing authorities, internal
divisions/departments, and the in put of our citizens. Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) has
worked extensively to identify community development needs and establish goals that align funding streams,
community priorities and city initiatives. This plan highlights many of the effo rts to maximize and leverage the
City’s block grant allocations with other resources to build healthy and sustainable communities.
The 2020-2021 Action Plan identifies how the City intends to leverage the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME), and Housing
Opportunities for Persons With Aids (HOPWA) funding. These four resources will provide for over $5.4 million in
support for low to moderate income households or areas of the city.
Similar to cities across the country, Salt Lake City is faced with growing income inequality, increasing poverty
levels, decreasing housing affordability and diminishing federal resources. We are also grappling with the
immediate, mid-term and long-term impacts of the Coronavirus, wh ich is sure to have lasting impacts on our
community. This Action Plan works to address concerns within each of these needs by continuing to develop
and refine new and collaborative strategies. The following highlights a few of the initiatives and efforts that the
City is excited about:
Salt Lake City has gone through a robust community engagement process in the development of the
2020-2024 Consolidated Plan (Con Plan) and the 2020-2021 Action Plan. These planning efforts have
provided the City with a clear vision of the needs in the community and a framework for strategic and
targeted deployment of funding. The Con solidated Plan will serve as the foundation and guide as the
City implements block grant funding over the next five years. Each program identified in the 2020-2021
Action Plan meets one of the five goals as outlined in the Con solidated Plan and below. Additionally,
the programs will serve as the catalyst to implement the strategies tied to each of the five goals.
o Housing – Provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of
Salt Lake City’s population will diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
5 | P a g e
o Transportation – Promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transport ation options.
o Build Community Resiliency – Build resiliency by providing tools to increase economic and/or
housing stability.
o Homeless Services – Expand access to supportive programs that help ensure that
homelessness is rare, brief, and non -recurring.
o Behavioral Health – Provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing
behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges.
In January 2020 Erin Mendenhall was sworn in as the 36th Mayor of Salt Lake City. Mayor Mendenhall’s
Administration is focused on breaking down equity barriers within Salt Lake City and providing
opportunities for upward mobility for residents regardless of race, income, age or ability. Ensuring a
diverse and equitable community is at the foundation of the City’s guiding principles. The City strives
to understand the needs of underrepresented residents and will be embarking on a gentrification and
equity study in the coming year to help shape future policy and program decisio ns.
Salt Lake City in partnership with Salt Lake County, the State, and community -based organizations is
working to rapidly respond to the community impact from the Coronavirus (aka COVID-19) and a 5.7
magnitude earthquake that occurred on March 18, 2020. These tragic events have further emphasized
the need for affordable housing in our community and the need for resources has never been greater.
The City has applied for PY 19/20 waivers for service providers to provide flexibility and deployment of
resources. Additionally, the City is working on a substantial amendment to the PY 19/20 Action Plan,
Consolidated Plan, and Citizen Participation Plan in anticipation of the CARES Act funding award. Salt
Lake City will have an accelerated, but competitive appli cation process for our community partners to
address the immediate and pressing needs as they are responding to the COVID-19 crisis.
Salt Lake City conducted a survey in which 37 community partners responded to help the City
understand how community and organization needs have shifted during the pandemic. These survey
results have helped to identify the need in the community and organizational capacity to implement
programs in response to COVID-19. Additionally, the City hosted an “Ask Me Anything” on Fa cebook
that provided residents with an opportunity to ask housing related questions. Additionally, numerous
outreach materials have been created and distributed to guide residents to services.
The City has been a constant leader in the Salt Lake Valley C oalition to End Homelessness (Coalition)
which is a coordinated coalition of stakeholders working collaboratively to end homelessness in Salt
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
6 | P a g e
Lake County. In the fall of 2019, the Coalition transitioned homeless shelters to a Homeless Resource
Center (HRC) model. The HRC’s provide residents housing stability and case management services to
assist clients in overcoming barriers to self -sufficiency. The HRC’s provide a multitude of services
include housing navigation, job training, employment services, life s kills, and connection to community
resources. The HRC’s will continue to be an important and critical service in our community and will lift
our most vulnerable residents out of homelessness.
Salt Lake City supports the Housing First model , that housing is a right not a privilege. This view shapes
housing policy and program implementation. Salt Lake City is working closely with community partners
to provide opportunities for permanent supportive housing. This model provides the City’s vulnerable
residents with critical services to find stability, self -sufficiency, and upward mobility.
Small community businesses serve as the life blood of Salt Lake City. They not only provide
opportunities for employment but also build the fabric of diversity within the C ity. Salt Lake City will
continue to support our small, locally owned businesses by providing economic development loan
funding through City resources. The COVID-19 crisis has impacted small, local businesses at a
devastating level. The City is committed t o ensuring that small, local businesses are able to open safely,
and survive this economic crisis.
While this is just a sampling of many of the exciting efforts the city is undertaking to address the needs in our
community, it is fair to say that while f ederal funding plays an important role in our ability to leverage and
maximize long term impact, it is – and will continue to be a struggle as funding continues to be constantly
challenged. As a city we look to other communities, best practices, etc. to fi nd the most effective methods of
deploying these limited resources.
In an effort to engage and leverage best practices across the nation, HAND participates in training
opportunities, attends national conferences, contributes to regional planning conversat ions, and looks for
opportunities to advocate not only for affordable housing, but also for addressing the gaps of funding or
services that exist in our community.
2. Summarize the Goals and Strategies identified in the Plan
This Year-1 Action Plan establishes and addressed several Goals and Strategies as outlined in the 2020-2024
Consolidated Plan. These goals are briefly outlined below. Greater detail is provided in section AP -20.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
7 | P a g e
1) Housing: Provide expanded housing options for all economic and demograph ic segments of
Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods.
Strategies:
Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing stock through
targeting rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods
Expand housing support for aging residents that ensure access to continued stable
housing
Support affordable housing development that increases the number and types of units
available for income eligible residents
Support programs that provide access to home ownership via down payment assistance,
and/or housing subsidy, and/or financing
Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to
prevent and end homelessness
Support programs that provide connection to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral
health programs. Support may include, but is not limited to supporting obtaining housing
via deposit and rent assistance and barrier elimination to the extent allowable to
regulation
Provide housing and essential services for persons with HIV/AIDS
2) Transportation: Promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation
options.
Strategies:
Improve bus stop amenities as a way to encourage the accessibility of public transit and
enhance the experience of public transit in target areas
Support access to transportation prioritizing very low -income and vulnerable populations
Expand and support the installation of bike racks, stations, and amenities as a way to
encourage use of alternative modes of transportation in target areas
3) Build Community Resiliency: Build resiliency by providing tools to increase economic and/or
housing stability.
Strategies:
Provide job training/vocational training programs targeting low -income and vulnerable
populations including, but not limited to; chronically homeless; those exiting treatment
centers/programs and/or institutions; and persons with disabilities
Economic Development efforts via supporting the improvement and visibility of small
businesses through façade improvement programs
Provide economic development support for microenterprise businesses
Direct financial assistance to for-profit businesses
Expand access to early childhood education to set the stage for academic achievement,
social development, and change the cycle of poverty
Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication technologies and the
internet
Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population s
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
8 | P a g e
4) Homeless Services: Expand access to supportive programs that help ensure that
homelessness is rare, brief, and non-recurring.
Strategies:
Expand support for medical and dental care options for those experiencing homelessness
Provide support for homeless services including Homeless Resource Center Opera tions and
Emergency overflow operations
Provide support for programs providing outreach services to address the needs of those living
an unsheltered life
Expand case management support as a way to connect those experiencing homelessness with
permanent housing and supportive services
5) Behavioral Health: Provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing
behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges.
Strategies:
Expand treatment options, counseli ng support, and case management for those experiencing
behavioral health crisis
6) Administration -- To support the administration, coordination, and management of Salt Lake
City’s CDBG, ESG HOME, and HOPWA programs.
Salt Lake City's strategy for most-effec tively utilizing HUD funding is heavily influenced by the City's housing
market study, the City’s Five Year Housing Plan , the annual Utah Comprehensive Report on Homelessness, and
the adopted Salt Lake City Master Plans that highlight strategic neighborhoo d investment opportunities.
3. Evaluation of past performance
Salt Lake City deliberately monitors the process of advancing the strategic goals outlined in the newly adopted
2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. This plan , like the previous 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan was developed with
input from many stakeholders, and it is our responsibility to report back to US Department of Housing & Urban
Development (HUD), the residents, community and decision makers the impact of these funds. As we complete
the time period associated with the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan, here is an evaluation of progress during that
time period
In preparation for development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2020-2021 Action Plan, Salt Lake City’s
Housing and Neighborhood Developmen t Division reviewed Consolidated Annual Performance Reports
(CAPERs) submitted to HUD under the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. The CAPERs provide an evaluation of past
performance and accomplishments in relation to established goals and priorities. The City’s previous Action
Plans and CAPERs can be viewed at www.hudexchange.info/programs/consolidated-plan/con-plans-aaps-
capers/.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
9 | P a g e
During the course of the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan, the City has been able to meet the vast majority of
established goals and priorities. In addition, the City was able to comply with statutes and regulations set by
HUD.
SALT LAKE CITY 2015-2019 CONSOLIDATED PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Goal Description Estimated Projected
1 Improve and Expand the Affordable Housing Stock 1,325 1,430
2 Expand Homeownership Opportunities 110 70
3 Provide Housing & Related Services to Persons with HIV/AIDS 725 925
4 Provide Housing for Homeless & At -Risk of Homel ess Individuals and Families 965 3,217
5 Provide Day-to-Day Services for Homeless Individuals & Families 15,000 7,380
6 Provide Public Services to Expand Opportunity & Self -Sufficiency for At -Risk
Populations 35,000 24,385
7 Revitalize Business Nodes in Target Areas 75 50
8 Improve the Quality of Public Facilities 1,093 1,344
9 Improve Infrastructure in Distressed Neighborhoods & Target Areas 100,000 139,112
All the goals surrounding homeownership continued to be a struggle as the city experiences a sustained, rapid
increase in housing prices and land values. This created challenges on two fronts, one being finding an eligible
household that can afford the housing units long term. The other is finding units available to purchase to utilize
for affordable housing. Often , single family homes are on the market mere moments before very competitive
offers come in. Unfortunately, municipalities are not set up to quickly react as housing becomes available. That
often means that the city ends up paying more fo r a unit that requires a lot of rehabilitation to bring it up to
city code. These increased costs must be carefully weighed as housing can easily out price available federal
subsidies and regulatory limitations.
In 2016, the City launched a new economic development program to address the façade of businesses within
the geographic target area of the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan. The reception of the program and impact has
been terrific, even though our initial projections proved to be overly optimistic for an entirely new program.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
10 | P a g e
Over the past several years, the City has taken a different approach to homeless services. This includes making a
city commitment of over $2 million from general fund sources. As homelessness continues to be an issue that
needs to be addressed, the city took the approach of shifting many of the service providers from this
competitive annual process to the general fund. Additionally, Salt Lake City has further invested general fund
dollars into homeless services through the Funding Our Future sales tax increase initiative. This shift allowed the
city to invest significantly more f unding, provide local direction, closely monitor performance measurements,
and provide flexibility that makes sense for the local challenges we face. It is important to reiterate that the city
continues to be committed to providing and expanding services for the homeless population. This also means
that federal resources are being diverted to address other Plan goals, while the city is taking the opportunity to
leverage local resources.
Providing public services to our community fell short. Over the past few years, the City modified its strategy for
spending in this category, providing more services to a smaller group of people that are in greatest need. Thi s
has been a successful strategy thus far, though it does mean the City is serving a smaller total number of
individuals.
Salt Lake City will soon be receivin g final reports regarding 19-20 funding. This data will drive future decisions
about funding allocation. This data will also be fully reflected in the upcoming Consolidated Annual
Performance Evaluation and Report (CAPER).
4. Summary of Citizen Participation Process and consultation process
Citizen participation is an integral part of the Consolidated Plan & Action Plan planning process, as it ensures
goals and priorities are defined in the context of the community needs and preferences. In addition, th e citizen
participation process provides a format to educate the community about the City’s federal grant programs. To
this end, Salt Lake City solicited involvement from a diverse group of stakeholders and community members
during the development of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and 2020-2021 Action Plan. A comprehensive
public engagement process included a citywide survey (including 2,000+ respondents), public hearings, public
meetings, one-on-one meetings, stakeholder committee meetings, task force meetings, Salt Lake City internal
technical committee meetings, and a public comment period. In total, over 4,000 residents participated in
providing input into this plan.
The City received input and buy -in from residents, homeless service providers. Low -income service providers,
anti-poverty advocates, healthcare providers, housing advocates, housing devel opers, housing authorities,
community development organizations, educational institutions, transit authority planners, City divisions and
departments, among others. For more information on the citizen participation efforts, refer to the AP-10
Consultation .
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
11 | P a g e
The City held three public hearings at different points in the process. The General Needs Hearing is an event
open to the public to comment on community needs. HAND accepts all comments and looks to understand
how federal funding can address these concer ns. The concerns that are not within the prevue of the federal
funding is passed along to the appropriate City Department. The City Council Public Hearing is an opportunity
for the public and non-profit partners to comment on how federal funding may impact their neighborhoods or
the services being provided. This year, City Council held-over the initial public hearing for a second public
hearing two weeks later. This is because the City had just entered into an electronic meeting space due to
COVID-19 and Council wanted to ensure that constituents had as much opportunity for input into the process.
More detail about these events is available in the AP-12 Participation section.
5. Summary of public comments
A summary of the public comments can be found in th e appendix of the finalized 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan.
All comments were received and considered while creating this 2020-2021 Action Plan. In general, the
comments submitted through both the General Needs Hearing and the City Council Public Hearing s were very
positive. The comments received during the City Council Hearing typically related to the support of funding a
specific agency. Topics included homelessness, housing, social service programs, youth advocacy, youth
protections, health services, and addressing the special needs of populations such as refugees, aging or
disabled residents. While most comments did advocate for a specific organization, many comments were
based on sound evidence to make a point about service delivery creating powerful nar ratives that advanced the
issue being addressed beyond a simple funding request.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
12 | P a g e
AP-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 91.200(b)
1. Agency/entity responsible for preparing/administering the Consolidated Plan
Describe the agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for
administration of each grant program and funding source.
Agency Role Name Department/Agency
CDBG Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Housing and Neighborhood Development
Division
HOPWA Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Housing and Neighborhood Development
Division
HOME Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Housing and Neighborhood Development
Division
ESG Administrator SALT LAKE CITY Housing and Neighborhood Development
Division
Narrative (optional)
Salt Lake City was the sole agency responsible for developing the Consolidated Plan and is solely responsible
for the subsequent Action Plans. Salt Lake City administers each of the HUD grant programs and the funding
sources.
Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information
- L ani Eggertsen-Goff, Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development, Lani.Eggertsen-
Goff@slcgov.com or 801-535-6240.
- Jennifer Schumann, Deputy Director, Jennifer.Schumann@slcgov.com or 801-535-7276.
- Tony Milner, Policy & Program Manager, Tony.Milner@slcgov.com or 801-535-6168.
Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development
451 South State Street, Room 445
P.O. Box 145488
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5488
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
13 | P a g e
AP-10 Consultation 91.100, 91.200(b), 91.215(l)
Introduction
The City engaged in an in -depth and collaborative effort to consult with City departments, representatives of low -income
neighborhoods, non -profit and for-profit housing developers, service providers, social service agencies, homeless sh elter
and service providers, supportive housing and service providers, community stakeholders, community partners, and
beneficiaries of entitlement programs to inform and develop the priorities and strategies contained within the
Consolidated Plan. Salt Lake City continues to engage these critical partners regularly as we look to maximize our potential
impact on an annual basis.
Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction's activities to enhance coordination between public and
assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies
(91.215(l))
The Salt Lake City Mayor and key staff worked this year with the State legislature on a bill that has increased access to
Medicaid for the most vulnerable members of our c ommunity. Proposition 3 and SB96 have expanded Medicaid access to
an estimated 70,000 – 90,000 people across the state. Recently, the City has also passed a city -wide sales tax increase
which has allotted over $5 million for housing programs across the cit y. This funding source has increased funding for
programs that provide housing for the chronically homeless, homeless, mentally ill, children, developers, and people on the
verge of becoming homeless, amongst others.
The City is also a key participant in Salt Lake County's Collective Impact process which is responsible for coordinating a
new homeless care model. This effort is driven by improving service delivery to all individuals who may enter homelessness
for any period of time.
Lastly, the City is v ery active in working with State Legislators at crafting legislation that can positively impact housing.
Recently this has include working on bills such as SB34, SB39, and SB3006. Each of these bills are critical at supporting
affordable housing in the State.
Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons
(particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and
unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homele ssness
Salt Lake City representatives actively participated in the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH), the
entity responsible for oversight of the Continuum of Care (CoC). SLVCEH’s primary goal is to end homelessness in Salt Lake
Valley through a system -wide commitment of resources, services, data collection, analysis and coordination among all
stakeholders. The Coalition gathers community consensus to create and fulfill established outcomes. Using these goals, the
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
14 | P a g e
Coalition partners with key stakeholders to fill the needs of the Salt Lake County Valley community. City representatives
served on the SLVCEH Steering Committee and actively participated in meetings and efforts.
Salt Lake City representatives participate in the local Continu um of Care's (CoC) executive board and its prioritization
committee specifically, so the Continuum of Care's priorities are considered during Emergency Solutions Grant allocations.
Also, the three local Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) funders meet regularl y to coordinate ESG and CoC activities to make
sure service are not being over or under funded and services being funded meet the community's needs and goals.
Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in deter mining how to
allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards for and evaluate outcomes of projects and activities
assisted by ESG funds, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the operation and administration of
HMIS
Allocate ESG Funds
Salt Lake City representatives participate in the local Continuum of Care's executive board and its prioritization committee
specifically, so the Continuum of Care's priorities are considered during Emergency Solutions Grant allocations. Also, the
three local ESG funders meet regularly to coordinate ESG and CoC activities to make sure service are not being over or
under funded and services being funded meet the community's needs and goals.
Develop Performance Standards and Evaluate Outcomes
The Salt Lake Continuu m of Care and the three ESG funders share common measures to evaluate service providers. The
three entities also share monitoring results of subrecipients.
Develop Funding, Policies and Procedures for the Administration of HMIS
The Salt Lake Continuum of Care contracts with the State of Utah to administer the Homeless Management Information
System (HMIS). All service agencies in the state are under a uniform data standard for HUD reporting and local ESG
funders. All ESG funded organizations participate in HMIS.
TABLE: CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PARTICIPANTS
STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY COMMITTEE
1 Agency/Group/Organization Refugee and Immigration Center - Asian Association of Utah Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Refugees What section o f the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Non -Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted i n identifying service
gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed
for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the
closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
15 | P a g e
was able to determine the overarching priorities an d goals of
the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where
funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide.
2 Agency/Group/Organization ASSIST Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Persons with Disabilities, Housing What secti on of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Housing Needs Assessment, Non -Homeless Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organi zation that assisted in identifying service
gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed
for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the
closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City
was able to determine the ove rarching priorities and goals of
the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where
funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide.
3 Agency/Group/Organization Columbus Community Center Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Employment, Persons with Disabilities What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Non -Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordinat ion?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service
gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed
for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the
closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City
was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of
the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where
funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide.
4 Agency/Group/Organization Community Development Corporation, Utah Agency/G roup/Organization Type Services - Housing What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Housing Needs Assessment
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service
gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed
for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the
closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City
was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of
the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where
funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide.
5 Agency/Group/Organization Community Health Center of Utah Agency/G roup/Organization Type Services - Health What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Non -Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service
gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed
for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
16 | P a g e
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City
was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of
the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where
funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide.
6 Agency/Group/Organization Disability Law Center Agency/Group/Orga nization Type Services - Law, Persons with Disabilities What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Non -Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or area s for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service
gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed
for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the
closest to those we are assisting. From the se efforts, the City
was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of
the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where
funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide.
7 Agency/Group/Organization Donated Dental Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Homeless Needs - Families with Children, Non -Homeless
Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service
gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed
for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the
closest to those w e are assisting. From these efforts, the City
was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of
the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where
funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide.
8 Agency/Group/Organization F irst Step House Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Persons with Disabilities, Homeless, Health What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Housing Need Assessment, Homeless Needs - Chronically
Homeless, Homeless Needs - Veterans, Homeless Strategy,
Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying ser vice
gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed
for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the
closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City
was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of
the Pl an, including specific public service focus areas where
funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide.
9 Agency/Group/Organization Habitat for Humanity Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing What section of the Plan was addressed b y
consultation?
Housing Need Assessment
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
17 | P a g e
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service
gaps wi thin the community. The collaborative effort allowed
for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the
closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City
was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of
the Plan, includin g specific public service focus areas where
funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide.
10 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake County Housing Authority DBA Housing Connect Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Housing Need Assessment, Homeless Strategy
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Orga nization that assisted in identifying service
gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed
for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the
closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City
was able to determine the o verarching priorities and goals of
the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where
funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide.
11 Agency/Group/Organization Intermountain Healthcare Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health, Impact Investment What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Non -Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service
gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed
for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the
closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City
was able to d etermine the overarching priorities and goals of
the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where
funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide.
12 Agency/Group/Organization Maliheh Free Clinic Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health, Refuge es What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Non -Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service
gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed
for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the
closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City
was able to d etermine the overarching priorities and goals of
the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where
funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide.
13 Agency/Group/Organization NeighborWorks Salt Lake Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
18 | P a g e
What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Housing Needs Assessment
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Servi ce Organization that assisted in identifying service
gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed
for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the
closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City
was able to determin e the overarching priorities and goals of
the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where
funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide.
14 Agency/Group/Organization Optum Health Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Health What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Non -Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization t hat assisted in identifying service
gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed
for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the
closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City
was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of
the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where
funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide.
15 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Housing Authority Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housin g, Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Strategy
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination ?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service
gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed
for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the
closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City
was ab le to determine the overarching priorities and goals of
the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where
funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide.
16 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake County Aging and Adult Services Agency/G roup/Organization Type Services - Seniors, Aging Services What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Non -Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or ar eas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service
gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed
for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the
closest to those we are assisting. From t hese efforts, the City
was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of
the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where
funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide.
17 Agency/Group/Organization Shelter the Homeless
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
19 | P a g e
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Homeless What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Strategy, Homeless
Needs - Chronically Homeless How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are t he anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service
gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed
for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the
closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City
was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of
the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where
funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide.
18 Agency/Group/Organization South Valley Services Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Domestic Violence What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Non -Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service
gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed
for discussion and feedback from the agencies th at are the
closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City
was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of
the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where
funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide.
19 Agency/Group/Organization Utah Community Action Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Food Bank, Early Education What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Strategy, Anti -Poverty
Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service
gaps within the community. The collaborative ef fort allowed
for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the
closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City
was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of
the Plan, including specific public service focus areas wh ere
funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide.
20 Agency/Group/Organization Utah Department of Workforce Services Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Medicaid, Food, Employment What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Homeless Strategy, Economic Development, Anti -Poverty
Strategy, Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organ ization that assisted in identifying service
gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed
for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the
closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City
was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of
the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where
funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
20 | P a g e
21 Agency/Group/Organization Utah Health and Human Rights Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Mental Health What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Non -Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service
gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed
for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the
closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City
was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of
the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where
funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide.
22 Agency/Group/Organization Utah Transit Authority Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Transit, Transportation What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Non -Homeless Special Needs
How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service
gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed
for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the
closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City
was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of
the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where
funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide.
23 Agency/Group/Organization Volunteers of America - Utah Agency/Group/Organization T ype Services - Housing, Persons with Disabilities, Homeless, Health What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Housing Needs Assessment, Homeless Needs - Chronically
Homeless, Homeless Needs - Families with Children, Homeless
Needs - Veteran s, Homeless Needs - Unaccompanied Youth,
Homeless Strategy, Anti -Poverty Strategy How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Public Service Organization th at assisted in identifying service
gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed
for discussion and feedback from the agencies that are the
closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City
was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of
the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where
funding will be targeted and leveraged community wide.
24 Agency/Group/Organization Young Women's Christian Association Agency/Group/Organization Type Services - Housing, Children, Victims of Domestic Violence,
Homeless, Victims What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Homeless Needs - Families with Children, Homeless Strategy,
Non -Homeless Special Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulte d and what are the anticipated
Public Service Organization that assisted in identifying service
gaps within the community. The collaborative effort allowed
for discussion and feedback from th e agencies that are the
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
21 | P a g e
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
closest to those we are assisting. From these efforts, the City
was able to determine the overarching priorities and goals of
the Plan, including specific public service focus areas where
funding will be targeted and leveraged commu nity wide.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
25 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Community and Neighborhoods Department Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan wa s addressed by
consultation?
City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety,
Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs
Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs,
Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Age ncy/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical
Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and
non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in
creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts
and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The
group committed to working collaboratively to maximize
resources. Collaborations will cont inue to occur on City
infrastructure, economic development, and transportation
efforts that are in a geographically focused area.
26 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Council Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
City Infrastructure, City Policy, Community Needs, Community
Safety, Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing
Needs Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special
Needs, Planni ng/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical
Committee to discuss the n ecessity of leveraging federal and
non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in
creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts
and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The
group committed to working collaboratively to maximize
resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City
infrastructure, economic development, and transportation
efforts that are in a geographically focused area.
27 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Division of Economic Develo pment Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety,
Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Nee ds
Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs,
Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
The City a ssembled an Interdepartmental Technical
Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
22 | P a g e
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in
creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts
and discuss other funding tool s that may be available. The
group committed to working collaboratively to maximize
resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City
infrastructure, economic development, and transportation
efforts that are in a geographically focused area.
28 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Engineering Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety,
Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs
Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs,
Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consu ltation or areas for
improved coordination?
The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical
Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and
non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in
creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts
and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The
group committed to working collaboratively to maximize
resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City
infrastructure, economic development, and transportation
effo rts that are in a geographically focused area.
29 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Parks & Public Lands Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety,
Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs
Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs,
Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical
Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and
non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in
creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts
and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The
group committed to working collaboratively to maximize
resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City
infrastructure, economic development, and transportation
efforts that are in a geographically focused area.
30 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organizati on What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety,
Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs
Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs,
Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical
Committee to discuss the necessity of leveragin g federal and
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
23 | P a g e
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in
creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts
and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The
group committed to working collaboratively to maximize
res ources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City
infrastructure, economic development, and transportation
efforts that are in a geographically focused area.
31 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Transportation Division Agency/Group/Organizat ion Type Other Governmental - Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety,
Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs
Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs,
Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The City assembled an Interdepartmental T echnical
Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and
non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in
creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts
and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The
group committed to working collaboratively to maximize
resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City
infrastructure, economic development, and transportation
efforts that are in a geographically focused area.
32 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Civic Engagement Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental – Local, Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety,
Economic Development, Homeless Ser vices, Housing Needs
Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs,
Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordi nation?
The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical
Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and
non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in
creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts
and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The
group committed to working collaboratively to maximize
resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City
infrastructure, economic development, and transportation
efforts that are in a geographically foc used area.
33 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Police Department Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
Community Safety, Homeless Services, Non -Homeless Special
Needs How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical
Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and
non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in
creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
24 | P a g e
and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The
group committed to working collaboratively to maximize
resources. Collab orations will continue to occur on City
infrastructure, economic development, and transportation
efforts that are in a geographically focused area.
34 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Sustainability Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental - Local Planning Organization What section of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety,
Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs
Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs,
Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical
Commit tee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and
non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in
creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts
and discuss other funding tools that may be available. The
group committed t o working collaboratively to maximize
resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City
infrastructure, economic development, and transportation
efforts that are in a geographically focused area.
35 Agency/Group/Organization Salt Lake City Planning Division Agency/Group/Organization Type Other Governmental – Local Planning Organization What sections of the Plan was addressed by
consultation?
City Infrastructure, Community Needs, Community Safety,
Economic Development, Homeless Services, Housing Needs
Assessment, Market Analysis, Non -Homeless Special Needs,
Planning/Zoning/Land Use, Public Services How was the Agency/Group/Organization
consulted and what are the anticipated
outcomes of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
The City assembled an Interdepartmental Technical
Committee to discuss the necessity of leveraging federal and
non -federal funding opportunities. The Committee assisted in
creating target areas to geographically focus city-wide efforts
and discuss other funding t ools that may be available. The
group committed to working collaboratively to maximize
resources. Collaborations will continue to occur on City
infrastructure, economic development, and transportation
efforts that are in a geographically focused area.
Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting:
All agency types were invited to participate in the process.
Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan
TABLE: PLAN CONSULTATION
COMMUNITY PLAN CONSULTATIONS
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
25 | P a g e
1 Name of Plan 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness
Lead Organization State of Utah
How do the goals of
your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals
of each plan?
Created in 2004, updated in 2013, this plan highlights i nitiatives centered on using the
Housing First Model to end chronic homelessness. This plan places minimal restriction
on persons to place them into safe housing. Housing goals include promoting the
construction of safe, decent, and affordable homes for al l income levels and to put
specific emphasis on housing homeless persons.
2 Name of Plan Annual Point-in -Time Count
Lead Organization State of Utah
How do the goals of
your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals
of each plan?
This plan highlights an in itiative to find homeless persons living on the streets and
gather information in order to connect them with available services. By doing so, this
will help policymakers and program administrators set benchmarks to measure
progress toward the goal of ending homelessness, help plan services and programs to
appropriately address local needs, identify strengths and gaps in a community’s current
homelessness assistance system, inform public opinion, increase public awareness,
attract resources, and create the most reliable estimate of people experiencing
homelessness throughout Utah.
3 Name of Plan Growing SLC
Lead Organization Salt Lake City
How do the goals of
your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals
of each plan?
Policy solutions over the five year per iod of this plan will focus on: 1) updates to zoning
code, 2) preservation of long -term affordable housing, 3) establishment of a significant
funding source, 4)stabilizing low -income tenants, 5) innovation in design, 6)
partnerships and collaboration in ho using, and 7) equitability and fair housing.
4 Name of Plan Salt Lake City Master Plans
Lead Organization Salt Lake City
How do the goals of
your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals
of each plan?
Salt Lake City's master plans provide vision and goal s for future development in the
City. The plans guide the development and use of land, as well as provide
recommendations for particular places within the City. HAND utilized the City's master
plans to align policies, goals, and priorities.
5 Name of Pla n Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness
Lead Organization Salt Lake County
How do the goals of
your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals
of each plan?
This plan emphasizes the promotion of a community‐wide commitment to the goal of
ending homelessness, provide funding for efforts to quickly re‐house individuals and
families who are homeless, which minimizes the trauma and dislocation caused by
homelessness, promote access to and effective use of mainstream programs, optimize
self‐sufficiency a mong individuals and families experiencing homelessness
6 Name of Plan State of Utah Strategic Plan on Homelessness
Lead Organization State of Utah
How do the goals of
your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals
of each plan?
The strategic plan establi shes statewide goals and benchmarks on which to measure
progress toward these goals. The plan recognizes that every community in Utah is
different in their challenges, resources available, and needs of those who experience
homelessness.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
26 | P a g e
7 Name of Plan Strategic Economic Development Plan
Lead Organization Salt Lake City Economic Development
How do the goals of
your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals
of each plan?
The Strategic Plan establishes an assessment of existing economic conditions of Salt
La ke City through analysis of quantitative and qualitative data. This information guided
a strategic framework that builds on existing strengths and seeks to overcome
identified challenges to ensure the City’s fiscal health, enhance its business climate, and
promote economic growth.
8 Name of Plan Housing Gap Coalition Report
Lead Organization Salt Lake Chamber
How do the goals of
your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals
of each plan?
Initiative that seeks to safeguard Utah's economic prosperity by ens uring home
ownership is attainable and housing affordability is a priority, protecting Utahns quality
of life and expanding opportunities for all.
9 Name of Plan Housing Affordability Crisis
Lead Organization Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute
How do the goals of
your Strategic Plan
overlap with the goals
of each plan?
Policy brief regarding the current and projected state of rising housing prices in Utah
and recommendations regarding what to do about it.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
27 | P a g e
AP-12 Participation 91.105, 91.200(c)
1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation
Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal-setting
The City seeks to develop and enhance livable, healthy, and sustainable neighborhoods through r obust
planning and actions that reflect the needs and values of the local community. The City has stayed true to its
values of inclusiveness and innovation by embracing opportunities to provide equitable services, offer funding,
and create housing opportun ities that improve lives for individuals and families in underserved and under -
resourced communities.
The City recognizes that citizen participation is critical for the development of a Consolidated Plan that reflects
the needs of affected persons and residents. In accordance with 24 CFR 91.105, the City solicited robust citizen
participation over the course of an entire year. Between May 2019 and May 2020, over 4,000 residents,
stakeholders, agency partners, and City officials participated through proacti ve, community-based outreach,
facilitated stakeholder engagement, and online surveys. The City involved affected persons and residents
through stakeholder consultation, a community survey, community events, public meetings, public hearings,
public comment periods, and one-on-one consultations. The following provides a synopsis of these efforts.
The City created a survey to solicit feedback from residents regarding their priorities for the provision of
housing, economic development, and public services in the most underserved and under-resourced areas of
the community. The survey and all accompanying materials were translated into Spanish, with additional
language translation services available upon request.
The survey was posted on the City website and so cial media platforms, third-party digital applications like
Nextdoor and was distributed to thousands of residents through the City’s email listserv. In addition, digital
flyers with Quick Response (QR) codes were created and distributed to stakeholder adv isory and
interdepartmental working group members. Members of these groups were asked to distribute the flyer to their
respective constituencies.
The survey fielding occurred from August 15 through September 30, 2019 with a total of 2,068 respondents
completing it. Respondents ranked homeless and transportation services as their top priorities for City services.
Street improvements, job creation and rental assistance were the top priorities for community, economic
development, and housing investments, resp ectively.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
28 | P a g e
Respondents identified Poplar Grove, Fairpark, and Ballpark as areas of the City with the most unmet needs for
underserved individuals and families. The overwhelming majority of residents did not feel that the current
housing stock was sufficien t to meet the needs of a growing City, particularly for low -income populations,
seniors, and individuals with disabilities.
Since the survey was open to anyone who wanted to take it, results may have included self -selection bias. To
supplement these results with a more representative understanding of resident sentiment, the City also
compared them with the recently completed annual resident survey results. Both surveys showed that residents
wanted more housing and transportation investments for underserved areas of the community.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
29 | P a g e
TABLE: CITIZEN PARTICIPATION OUTREACH SUMMARY CHART
Mode of Outreach Effort Target of
Outreach
Summary of
Response/Att
endance
Summary of
Comments
Received
Summary of
Comments
not Accepted
& Reasons
Internet Outreach Survey Minorities;
Non -English
Speaking;
Spanish;
Persons with
Disabilities;
Non -
Targeted/Broa
d community;
residents of
Public and
Assisted
Housing
2,068
Respondents
Respondents
ranked
homeless and
transportation
services as
their top
priorities for
City services.
Street
improvements,
job creation,
and rental
assistance
were the top
priorities for
community,
economic
development,
and housing
investments
respectively.
All comments
were accepted
and taken into
consideration
as the
Consolidated
Plan
developed.
O ther: City
Collaboration
Interdepartmental
Technical Advisory
Committee
Other: City
Departments/
Divisions
On average,
approximately
30-40 City staff
attended
multiple
meetings to
discuss
targeted
approach to
utilizing
federal
funding
sources.
Discussions
focused on
identifying
where the City
could
collaborate to
better leverage
federal
funding, city
priorities, and
local efforts.
Topics
included all
areas of City
infrastructure,
services, and
investment.
All comments
were accepted
and taken into
consideration
as the
Consolidated
Plan
developed.
Focus Group Stakeholder
Advisory Committee
Minorities;
Non -English
Speaking;
Spanish;
Persons with
Disabilities;
Non -
Targeted/Broa
d community;
residents of
On average,
approximately
40-50
representatives
from non -
profit service
providers and
government
entities
attended
Discussions
focused on
identifying
where the City
could
collaborate to
better leverage
federal
funding, city
priorities, and
All comments
were accepted
and taken into
consideration
as the
Consolidated
Plan
developed.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
30 | P a g e
Mode of Outreach Effort Target of
Outreach
Summary of
Response/Att
endance
Summary of
Comments
Received
Summary of
Comments
not Accepted
& Reasons
Public and
Assisted
Housing
multiple
meetings to
discuss
targeted
approach to
utilizing
federal
funding
sources.
local efforts.
Topics
included all
areas of City
infrastructure,
services, and
investment.
Public Meeting Presentation to City
Council
Minorities;
Non -English
Speaking;
Spanish;
Persons with
Disabilities;
Non -
Targeted/Broa
d community;
residents of
Public and
Assisted
Housing
Approximately
30 members of
the public
attended this
meeting.
Discussions
focused on
how the City
could better
leverage
federal
funding, city
priorities, and
local efforts.
Topics
included all
areas of City
infrastructure,
services, and
investment.
All comments
were accepted
and taken into
consideration
as the
Consolidated
Plan
developed.
Public Meeting Presentation to
Planning
Commission
Minorities;
Non -English
Speaking;
Spanish;
Persons with
Disabilities;
Non -
Targeted/Broa
d community;
residents of
Public and
Assisted
Housing
Approximately
30 members of
the public
attended this
meeting.
Discussions
focused on
how the City
could better
leverage
federal
funding, city
priorities, and
local efforts.
Topics
included all
areas of City
infrastructure,
services, and
investment.
All comments
were accepted
and taken into
consideration
as the
Consolidated
Pla n
developed.
Public Hearing General Needs
Hearing
Minorities;
Non -English
Speaking;
Spanish;
Persons with
Disabilities;
Non -
Targeted/Broa
d community;
residents of
1 resident
attended the
hearing and 2
residents
emailed public
comments
Discussions
focused on
how the City
could better
leverage
federal
funding, city
priorities, and
local efforts.
Topics
All comments
were accepted
and taken into
consideration
as the
Consolidated
Plan
developed.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
31 | P a g e
Mode of Outreach Effort Target of
Outreach
Summary of
Response/Att
endance
Summary of
Comments
Received
Summary of
Comments
not Accepted
& Reasons
Public and
Assisted
Housing
included all
areas of City
infrastructure,
services, and
investment.
Public Hearing Consolidated Plan &
Annual Action Plan
(AAP) Hearing
Planning
Commissioner
s, City staff,
Minorities;
Non -English
Speaking;
Spanish;
Persons with
Disabilities;
Non -
Targeted/Broa
d community;
residents of
Public and
Assisted
Housing
All comments
were accepted
and taken into
consideration
as the
Consolidated
Plan
developed.
Public Hearing Consolidated Plan
Hearing
City
Councilmembe
rs, City staff,
Minorities;
Non -English
Speaking;
Spanish;
Persons with
Disabilities;
Non -
Targeted/Broa
d community;
residents of
Public and
Assisted
Housing
All comments
were accepted
and taken into
consideration
as the
Consolidated
Plan
developed.
Other: Community
Events
Community Events Minorities;
Non -English
Speaking;
Spanish;
Persons with
Disabilities;
Non -
Targeted/Broa
d community;
residents of
Public and
Over 1,322
respondents
Staff attended
dozens of
community
events over
the course of
the
Consolidated
Plan
development
process.
Respondents
ranked
All comments
were accepted
and taken into
consideration
as the
Consolidated
Plan
developed.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
32 | P a g e
Mode of Outreach Effort Target of
Outreach
Summary of
Response/Att
endance
Summary of
Comments
Received
Summary of
Comments
not Accepted
& Reasons
Assisted
Housing
homeless ness,
substance
abuse &
mental health,
and
transportation
services as
their top
priorities for
the City.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
33 | P a g e
AP-15 EXPECTED RESOURCES - 91.220(c)(1,2)
Introduction
TABLE: EXPECTED RESOURCES
Uses of
Funding
Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected
Amount
Available –
Remainder
of Con
Plan
Description Annual
Allocation
Program
Income
Prior Year
Resources Total CDBG Acquisition
$3,509,164 $0 $35,000 $3,544,164 $13,600,000
Prior year
resources are
unspent
funds from
previous
years.
Administration
Economic
Development
Homebuyer
Assistance
Homeowner
Rehabilitation
Multifamily
Rental
Construction
Multifamily
Public
Improvements
Public Services
Rental
Rehabilitation
New
Construction for
Ownership
TBRA
Historic Rental
Rehabilitation
New
Construction HOME Acquisition
$957,501 $300,000 $0 $1,257,501 $4,600,000
Program
income is
typically
generated
from housing
loan
repayments
from
nonprofit
agencies.
Administration
Homebuyer
Assistance
Homeowner
Rehabilitation
Multifamily
Rental
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
34 | P a g e
Uses of
Funding
Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected
Amount
Available –
Remainder
of Con
Plan
Description Annual
Allocation
Program
Income
Prior Year
Resources Total
Construction
Multifamily
Rental
Rehabil itation
New
Construction for
Ownership
TBRA ESG Administration
$301,734 $0 $2,500 $304,234 $1,160,000
Prior year
resources are
unspent
funds from
previous
years.
Financial
Assistance
Overnight
Shelter
Rapid Re -
Housi ng (Rental
Assistance)
Rental
Assistance
Services
Transitional
Housing HOPWA Administration
$600,867 $0 $15,000 $615,876 $1,720,000
Prior year
resources are
unspent
funds from
previous
years.
Permanent
Housing in
Facilities
Permanent
Housing
Placement
STRMU
Short-Term or
Transitional
Housing
Facilities
Supportive
Services
TBRA OTHER: HOUSING – TRUST FUND Acquisitions $0 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 The Trust
Fund has a Administration
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
35 | P a g e
Uses of
Funding
Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected
Amount
Available –
Remainder
of Con
Plan
Description Annual
Allocation
Program
Income
Prior Year
Resources Total
Conversion and
Rehab for
Transitional
Housing
budget of
$2m and
expects to
receive a total
of
approximately
$3m in
revenue over
the next plan
period.
Homebuyer
Rehabilitation
Housing
Multifamily
Rental New
Construction
Multifamily
Rental Rehab
New
Construction for
Ownership
Permanent
Housing in
Facilities
Rapid Re -
Housing
Rental
Assistance
TBRA
Transitional
Housing OTHER PROGRAM INCOME All CDBG
Eligible
Activities per
Housing
Program Rules $0 $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $6,000,000
Salt Lake City
Housing
Programs –
Program
Income
All HOME
Eligible
Activities per
Housing
Program Rules
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
36 | P a g e
Uses of
Funding
Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected
Amount
Available –
Remainder
of Con
Plan
Description Annual
Allocation
Program
Income
Prior Year
Resources Total OTHER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND Economic
Development $0 $0 $0 $0 $4.000,000
The fund
currently has
a balance of
approximately
$4m.
Source: Salt Lake City Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development
Explain how federal funds will leverage those additional resources (private, state and local funds),
including a description of how matching requirements will be satisfied
HUD, like many other federal agencies, encourages the recipients of federal monies to demonstrate that efforts
are being made to strategically leverage additional funds in order to achieve greater re sults. Matches require
subrecipients to produce a specific amount of funding that will “match” the amount of program funds available.
In a US Dept of Housing & Urban Development memo from John Gibbs, Acting Assistant Secretary for
Community Planning and Development (D), dated April 10, 2020, re: Availability of Waivers and Suspensions of
the HOME Program Requirements in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic, Salt Lake City intends to maximize the
waiver and suspension of HOME match requirements.
HOME Investment Partnership Program – 25% Match Requirement
As per #4 of the above mentioned memo, Matching Contribution Requirements, given the urgent housing
and economic needs created by COVID -19, and substantial financial impact the Participating Jurisdiction (PJ)
will face in addressing those needs, wavier of these regulations (24 CFR 92.218 and 92.222(b)) will relieve the
PJ from the need to identify ad provide matching contr ibutions to HOME projects.
Emergency Solutions Grant – 100% Match Requirement
Salt Lake Cit y will ensure that ESG match requirements are met by utilizing the leveraging capacity of its
subgrantees. Funding sources used to meet the ESG match requirements include federal, state and local
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
37 | P a g e
grants; private contributions; private foundations; United Way; Continuum of Care funding; City General
Fund; in -kind match and unrestricted donations.
Fund Leveraging
Leverage, in the context of the City’s four HUD Programs, means bringing other local, state, and federal
financial resources in order to maximize the reach and impact of the City’s HUD Programs. Resources for
leverage include the following:
Housing Choice Section 8 Vouchers
Low Income Housing Tax Credits
New Market Tax Credits
RDA Development Funding
Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund (HTF)
Salt Lake City Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF)
Salt Lake City General Fund
Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund
Industrial & Commercial Bank Funding
Continuum of Care Funding
Foundations & Other Philanthropic Partners
If appropriate, describe publicly owned land or property located within the jurisdiction that may be
used to address the needs identified in the plan
Salt Lake City intends to expand affordable housing and economic development opportunities through the
redevelopment of C ity-owned land, strategic land acquisitions, expansion of the Community Land Trust for
affordable housing, parcel assembly, and disposition. The Housing and Neighborhood Development Division
will work collaboratively with other City Divisions that oversee or control parcels that are own ed by the City to
evaluate the appropriateness for affordable housing opportunities.
Discussion:
Salt Lake City will continue to seek other federal, state and private funds to leverage entitlement grant
funding. In addition, the City will support the pro posed community development initiatives outlined in
this Plan through strategic initiatives, policies, and programs.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
38 | P a g e
AP-20 ANNUAL GOALS AND STRATEGIES
TABLE: G OALS, PRIORITY NEEDS AND OUTCOME INDICATORS
Sort Order Goal Start
Year
End
Year Category
Geogra
phic
Area
Priority
Needs
Addressed
Funding
Goal
Outcome
Indicator
1 - Housing Expand housing
options
2020 2021 Affordable
Housing
Citywide Affordable
Housing
CDBG $1,855,073,
ESG $135,104,
HOME $1,536,677,
HOPWA $702,841,
1149
Household
s assisted
2 –
Transportati
on
Improve access to
transportation
2020 2021 Transportati
on
City
Wide
Transportat
ion
CDBG $45,000
271
Household
s assisted
3 –
Community
Resiliency
Increase economic
and/or housing
stability
2020 2021 Economic
Developmen
t/Public
Services
Target
Areas/Ci
ty Wide
Community
Resiliency
CDBG $530,692 126
Individuals
or
businesses
assisted
4 –
Homeless
Services
Ensure that
homelessness is
brief, rare, and
non -recurring
2020 2021 Public
Services/Ho
meless
Services
Citywide Homeless
Services
CDBG $279,566,
ESG $174,000,
630
Persons
assisted
5 –
Behavioral
Health
Support
vulnerable
populations
experiencing
substance abuse
and mental health
challenges
2020 2021 Public
Services/Beh
avioral
Health
Citywide Behavioral
Health
CDBG $97,000 299
household
s assisted
6 –
Administrati
on
Administration 2020 2021 Administrati
on
Citywide Administrat
ion
CDBG $701,833
ESG $22,630
HOME $95,750
HOPWA $18,026
N/A
Goal Descriptions
TABLE GOAL DESCRIPTIONS 0
Goal Name Goal Description
1 Housing To provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic
segments of Salt Lake City’s population while diversifying the housing stock
within neighborhoods.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
39 | P a g e
Goal Name Goal Description
Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing
stock through targeted rehabilitation effor ts and diversifying the
housing stock within the neighborhoods
Support affordable housing development that increases the number
and types of units available for qualified residents
Support programs that provide access to home ownership
Support rent assist ance programs to emphasize stable housing as a
primary strategy to prevent and/or end homelessness
Support programs that provide connection to permanent housing
upon exiting behavioral health programs
Provide housing and essential supportive services to pe rsons with
HIV/AIDS
2 Transportation To promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation options.
Within eligible target areas, improve bus stop amenities as a way to
encourage the accessibility of public transit and enhance the
experi ence of public transit
Within eligible target areas, expand and support the installation of
bike racks, stations, and amenities as a way to encourage use of
alternative modes of transportation
Support access to transportation, prioritizing very low -income and
vulnerable populations
3 Community Resiliency Provide tools to increase economic and/or housing stability
Support job training and vocational rehabilitation programs that
increase economic mobility
Improve visual and physical appearance of deteriorati ng commercial
buildings - limited to CDBG Target Area
Provide economic development support for microenterprise
businesses
Direct financial assistance to for -profit businesses
Expand access to early childhood education to set the stage for
academic achievement, social development, and change the cycle of
poverty
Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communication
technologies and the internet
Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for
vulnerable population
4 Homeless Services To expand access to supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is
rare, brief, and non -recurring
Expand support for medical and dental care options for those
experiencing homelessness
Provide support for homeless services including Homeless R esource
Center Operations and Emergency Overflow Operations
Provide support for programs undertaking outreach services to
address the needs of those living an unsheltered life
Expand case management support as a way to connect those
experiencing homelessne ss with permanent housing and supportive
services
5 Behavioral Health To provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing
behavioral health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental
health challenges.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
40 | P a g e
Goal Name Goal Description
Expand treatment opt ions, counseling support, and case management
for those experiencing behavioral health crisis
6 Administration 5
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
41 | P a g e
AP-35 PROJECTS – 91.220(d)
Introduction
The goals and strategies outlined in Salt Lake City's 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan serve as the foundation for
program year 2020-2021 projects and activities. The Consolidated Plan encourages building resiliency in low
income areas by investing in economic development, and transportation infrastructure. These two categories of
projects/activities will be limited to the West Side CDBG Target Area. The Consolidated Plan also addresses the
need to utilize federal funding to further support housing, transportation, building community resiliency,
homeless services, and behavioral health. The Consolidated Plan goals will be supported through the
following 2019-2020 efforts:
This Year-1 Action Plan establishes and addressed several Goals and Strategies as outlined in the 2020 -2024
Consolidated Plan. It is recognized that not every strategy will be accessed eac h year, however, each year there
will be projects that move forward each of the goals identified .
Housing: Provide expanded housing options for all economic and demographic segments of Salt Lake
City’s population while diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods.
Strategies:
Support housing programs that address the needs of aging housing stock through targeting
rehabilitation efforts and diversifying the housing stock within neighborhoods
Expand housing support for aging residents that ensure acc ess to continued stable housing
Support affordable housing development that increases the number and types of units available for
income eligible residents
Support programs that provide access to home ownership via down payment assistance, and/or
housing subsidy, and/or financing
Support rent assistance programs to emphasize stable housing as a primary strategy to prevent and
end homelessness
Support programs that provide connection to permanent housing upon exiting behavioral health
programs. Support may include, but is not limited to supporting obtaining housing via deposit and
rent assistance and barrier elimination to the extent allowable to regulation
Provide housing and essential services for persons with HIV/AIDS
Transportation: Promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation options.
Strategies:
Improve bus stop amenities as a way to encourage the accessibility of public transit and enhance the
experience of public transit in target areas
Support access to transportation priori tizing very low -income and vulnerable populations
Expand and support the installation of bike racks, stations, and amenities as a way to encourage use
of alternative modes of transportation in target areas
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
42 | P a g e
Build Community Resiliency: Build resiliency by providing tools to increase economic and/or housing
stability.
Strategies:
Provide job training/vocational training programs targeting low -income and vulnerable populations
including, but not limited to; chronically homeless; those exiting treatment center s/programs and/or
institutions; and persons with disabilities
Economic Development efforts via supporting the improvement and visibility of small businesses
through façade improvement programs
Provide economic development support for microenterprise busin esses
Direct financial assistance to for-profit businesses
Expand access to early childhood education to set the stage for academic achievement, social
development, and change the cycle of poverty
Promote digital inclusion through access to digital communi cation technologies and the internet
Provide support for programs that reduce food insecurity for vulnerable population
Homeless Services: Expand access supportive programs that help ensure that homelessness is rare, brief,
and non-recurring.
Strategies:
Expand support for medical and dental care options for those experiencing homelessness
Provide support for homeless services including Homeless Resource Center Operations and
Emergency overflow operations
Provide support for programs providing outreach ser vices to address the needs of those living an
unsheltered life
Expand case management support as a way to connect those experiencing homelessness with
permanent housing and supportive services
Behavioral Health: Provide support for low -income and vulnerable populations experiencing behavioral
health concerns such as substance abuse disorders and mental health challenges.
Strategies:
Expand treatment options, counseling support, and case management for those experiencing
behavioral health crisis
Administration -- To support the administration, coordination, and management of Salt Lake City’s CDBG, ESG
HOME, and HOPWA programs.
TABLE: PROJECT NAME
# Project Name
1 CDBG: Public Services: Homeless Service Programs
2 CDBG: Public Services: Build Community R esiliency - Job Training Programs
3 CDBG: Public Services: Behavioral Health
4 CDBG: Housing
5 CDBG: Build Community Resiliency - Economic Development
6 CDBG: Public Services: Transportation
7 CDBG: Administration
8 ESG20: Salt Lake City
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
43 | P a g e
9 HOME: Ten ant Based Rental Assistance
10 HOME: Down Payment Assistance
11 HOME: Salt Lake City Home Development Fund
12 HOME: Administration
13 HOPWA20: Salt Lake City
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
44 | P a g e
AP-38 PROJECTS
TABLE: PROJECT SUMMARY INFORMATION
1
Project Name CDBG Public Services: Homeless Service Programs
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Homeless Services
Needs Addressed Homeless: Mitigation, Prevention, Public Services
Funding CDBG: $279,566
Description
Funding for eligible actives that support homeless resource centers, emergency shelters and other supportive
service programs directed to individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Funding allocations are
coordinated with local CoC and ESG efforts.
Target Date
Matrix Code 03T
National Objective LMC
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed activities
158 homeless individuals including chronically homeless, victims of domestic violence, persons with disabilities and
other vulnerable populations are expected to benef it from proposed activities.
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities
Activities will provide essential day-to-day services for the city's most vulnerable populations. Funding will be
targeted, in accordance with meeting a national objective, t o support the chronically homeless, homeless families,
and victims of domestic violence. Funding is projected to be allocated as follows:
Catholic Community Services, Weigand Homeless Resource Center, $47,000
Volunteers of America, Utah, Geraldine King Resource Center, $100,281
Salt Lake Donated Dental Services, Community Dental Project, $44,000
YWCA of Utah, Women in Jeopardy, $58,285
South Valley Services, Domestic Violence Victim Advocate, $30,000
2
Project Name CDBG Public Services: Build Community Resiliency - Job Training Programs
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Build Community Resiliency
Needs Addressed Build community resiliency
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
45 | P a g e
Funding CDBG: $104,809
Description Funding for eligible activities that enhance, expand, an d improve job training programs as a way to build resiliency
and self sufficiency.
Target Date
Matrix Code 05H
National Objective LMC
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed activities
96 adults are expected to benefit from proposed activities. This includes low income residents that are working with
existing job training programs for those that are homeless, exiting homelessness or low income residents.
Location Description Citywide with a focus on assisti ng residents in racial and ethnic concentrated areas of poverty and local target
areas.
Planned Activities
Activities will provide a cost -effective intervention in increasing self -sufficiency for households for those that are low
income and/or living in poverty. Many adults experiencing intergenerational poverty are employed but unable to
meet the needs of their families. Adults and teenagers experiencing intergenerational poverty will be connected to
resources that assist them with employment and job tra ining. Funding is projected to be allocated as follows:
Advantage Services, Provisional Support Employment Program: $64,809
Catholic Community Services of Utah, St. Vincent Kitchen Academy, $40,000
3
Project Name CDBG Public Services: Behavioral Hea lth
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Behavioral Health
Needs Addressed Public Services: Expand Opportunity/Self-Sufficiency
Funding CDBG: $97,000
Description Public Service activities that provide a behavioral health component for the City.
Target Date
Matrix Code 05M
National Objective LMC
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed activities
299 adults living at or near the poverty level are expected to benefit from proposed activities. This inclu des
refugees, recent immigrants, homeless individuals, persons with a disability, victims of domestic violence and other
vulnerable adults.
Location Description Citywide with a focus on assisting residents in behavioral health programming.
Planned Acti vities Activities will provide access to behavioral health programs, with an added benefit of connection to stable housing
opportunities and building self resiliency.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
46 | P a g e
First Step House, Employment Preparation and Employment, $47,000
First Step House, Peer Support Services, $50,000
4
Project Name CDBG: Housing
Target Area
Citywide
West Side Target Area
Goals Supported Housing
Needs Addressed Affordable Housing Development & Preservation
Funding
CDBG: $1,855,073
Description Funding for eligible activities that provide housing rehabilitation, emergency home repair, and accessibility
modifications for eligible households.
Target Date
Matrix Code 14A
National Objective LMH
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed activities
369 low and moderate -income households are expected to benefit from proposed activities. Funding will be
targeted to elderly, disabled, low-income, racial/ethnic minorities, single -parent, and large-family households. This
m ay include, but is not limited to, multi-family housing or single -family housing.
Location Description Citywide with a focus on assisting residents in racial and ethnic concentrated areas of poverty and local target
areas.
Planned Activities
Activities will provide essential housing rehabilitation, emergency repair, and accessibility modifications to address
health/safety/welfare issues for eligible homeowners. Assistance will be provided as grants or low -interest loans.
Funding is projected to be allocated as follows:
ASSIST Inc. –Community Design Center, Emergency Home Repair; Accessibility and Community Design, $391,373
Community Development Corp. of Utah, Affordable Housing and Revitalization: $68,100
NeighborWorks Salt Lake, Rebuild and Revitalize Blight (RRB), $100,000
SLC Housing and Neighborhood Development, Community Land Trust, $250,000
SLC Housing and Neighborhood Development, Housing Rehabilitation and Homebuyer Program, $485,600
SLC Housing and Neighborhood Development, Targeted Repairs Program, $500,000
SLC Housing and Neighborhood Development, Small Repair Program, $60,000
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
47 | P a g e
5
Project Name CDBG: Build Community Resiliency - Economic Development
Target Area West Side Target Area
Goals Supported Build Community Re siliency
Needs Addressed Support access to building community resiliency by providing opportunities for small businesses to thrive
Funding CDBG: $425,883
Description Funding for eligible activities that provide commercial rehabilitation in local targ et areas.
Target Date
Matrix Code 14E
National Objective LMA
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed activities
30 businesses
Location
Description Targeted outreach in West Side Target Area
Planned Activities
Activities will include grants and forgivable loans/grants for businesses located in the West Side target areas to
make exterior façade improvements and to correct code violations. Eligible costs include labor, materials, supplies,
and soft costs re lating to the commercial rehabilitation. Planned activities are as follows:
Salt Lake City Housing and Neighborhood Development: $425,883
6
Project Name CDBG: Public Services: Transportation
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Transportation
Needs Addressed Support access to transportation prioritizing very low-income and vulnerable populations, by offering reduced -fare
transit passes to individuals experiencing homelessness. .
Funding CDBG: $45,000
Description Funding will be utilized to promote accessibility and affordability of multimodal transportation options.
Target Date
Matrix Code 05E
National Objective LMC
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed activities
271 individuals
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
48 | P a g e
Location
Description Citywide.
Planned Activities
Support access to transportation prioritizing very low-income and vulnerable populations, by offering reduced -fare
transit passes to individuals experiencing homelessness. .
Salt Lake City Transportation, HIVE Pass Will Call, $45,000
7
Project Name CDBG: Administration
Target Area N/A
Goals Supported Administration
Needs Addressed
Funding CDBG: $701,833
Description Funding will be utilized for general management, oversight and coordination of Salt Lake City's CDBG program.
Target Date
Matrix Code 21A
National Objective
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed activities
Location Description
Planned Activities Activities will include program administration and overall program management, coordination, monitoring, reporting
and evaluation.
8
Project Name ESG20 Salt Lake City
Target Area County-wide
Goals Supported Homeless Services
Needs Addressed Homeless: Mitigation, Prevention, Pu blic Services
Funding ESG: $301,734
Description
Funding will be utilized for homeless prevention to prevent individuals and families from moving into homelessness,
and for rapid re -housing to move families out of homelessness. In addition, funding will be utilized for emergency
shelter, shelter diversion, outreach and other essential services for homeless individuals and families.
Target Date
Matrix Code 03T
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
49 | P a g e
National Objective LMC
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit fro m
the proposed activities
Proposed activities will prevent individuals and families from moving into homelessness; provide rapid rehousing to
quickly move families out of homelessness; and provide day -to-day services for individuals and families
experienci ng homelessness as follows
Part 1 ESG: Shelter Operations, Outreach, Day -to -Day Services: 97 individuals
Part 2 ESG: Prevention, Rapid Rehousing, Diversion: 481 individuals
Location Description County-wide
Planned Activities
1. Activities will prevent household from moving into homelessness and move homeless families quickly into
permanent, stable housing through the following eligible costs: utilities, rental application fees, security/utility
deposits, rental fees, housing placement fees, housing stability case management, and other eligible costs.
Funding is projected to be allocated as follows:
The Road Home, Rapid Rehousing Program, $40,765
Utah Community Action, Rapid Rehousing Program, $30,000
Utah Community Action, Diversion Program, $30,000
Housing Authority of Salt Lake City, Homeless Prevention Program, $34,339
2. Activities will provide emergency shelter and other essential services for individuals and families experiencing
homelessness. Services include outpatient health services, homeless resource centers, and transitional housing.
Funding is projected to be allocated as follows:
First Step House, Homeless Resource Center Behavioral Health Treatment Services, $60,000
Volunteers of America, Utah, Geraldine King Women’s Resource Center, $38,000
Volunteers of America, Utah, Homeless Youth Resource Center, $46,000
3. In addition, $22,630 will be utilized for program administration for general management, oversight and
coordination of the City's ESG program.
9
Project Name HOME: Tenant Based Rental Assistance
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Housing
Needs Addressed Access to affordable housing
Funding HOME: $270,000
Description Funding will be utilized to provide tenant -based rental assistance housing to homeless and at -risk of homeless
individuals and families.
Target Date
Estimate the number
and type of families 112 families will benefit from the proposed activities.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
50 | P a g e
that will benefit from
the proposed activities
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities
Activities will provide tenant -based rental assistance to homeless, disabled persons and other vulnerable
populations. Funding is projected to be allocated as follows:
Utah Community Action Program, TBRA: $70,000
The Road Home, TBRA: $200,000
10
Project Name HOME: Down Payment and Deposit Assistance
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Housing
Needs Addressed Affordable Housing Development & Preservation
Funding HOME: $200,000
Description Funding will be utilized to provide low-interest loans and/or grants for down payment assistance and/or closing
costs to eligible homebuyers.
Target Date
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed activities
13 households will benefit from proposed activities.
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities
Direct financial assistance to eligible homebuyers in the form of down payment low -interest loans and/or
grants. Funding is p rojected to be allocated as follows:
Community Development Corp. of Utah, Down Payment Assistance: $200,000
11
Project Name HOME: Salt Lake City Home Development Fund
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Housing
Needs Addressed Afford able Housing Development & Preservation
Funding HOME: $1,066,677
Description Funds will be used for development activities including acquisition, new construction, and rehabilitation of existing
housing.
Target Date
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
51 | P a g e
Estimate the number
and type o f families
that will benefit from
the proposed activities
At least 7 households are to benefit from proposed activities.
Location Description Citywide
Planned Activities
Funds will be used for development activities including acquisition, new construc tion, and rehabilitation of multi-
family properties and single family homes.
SLC Housing and Neighborhood Dev, HOME Development Fund: $1,066,677
12
Project Name HOME: Administration
Target Area Citywide
Goals Supported Administration
N eeds Addressed
Funding HOME: $97,750
Description Funding will be utilized for general management, oversight and coordination of Salt Lake City's HOME program.
Target Date
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed activities
Location Description
Planned Activities Activities will include program administration and overall program management, coordination, monitoring,
reporting and evaluation.
13
Project Name HOPWA20 Salt Lake City
Target Area Metrop olitan Statistical Area
Goals Supported Housing
Needs Addressed
Access to affordable housing
Funding HOPWA: $600,867
Description
Funding will be utilized to provide housing and related services to persons with HIV/AIDS and their families.
Activities include, TBRA, Housing Information Services, Permanent Housing Placement, STRMU, and supportive
services.
Target Date
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
52 | P a g e
Estimate the number
and type of families
that will benefit from
the proposed activities
Persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families are expected to benefit from the proposed activities as follows:
Supportive Services: 36 households
STRMU/PHP/Supportive Services: 65 households
TBRA: 66 households
Location Description Salt Lake City Metropolitan Statistical Area
Planned Activities
Activities will include project-based rental assistance, tenant -based rental assistance, short -term
rental/mortgage/utility assistance, housing information services, permanent housing placement, and supportive
services for persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families. Funding is projected to be allocated as follows:
Housing Authority of the County of Salt Lake, TBRA, $510,797
Utah Community Action Program, STRMU, PHP, Supportive Services, $162,044
Utah AIDS Foundation, Supportive Services, $30,000
In addition, Salt Lake City will utilize $18,026 in program administration for general management, oversight and
coordination of the Salt Lake City MSA HOPWA program.
Describe the reasons for allocation priorities and any obstacles to addressing underserved needs
As entitlement funding decreased considerably over the past decade, the city is taking a strategic approach to
directing funding. Priorities include expanding affordable housing opportunit ies throughout the city, providing
critical services for the city’s most vulnerable residents, expanding self -sufficiency for at-risk populations, and
improving neighborhood conditions in concentrated areas of poverty.
The City and partners are unable to fully address needs due to a lack of funding and resources. To address the
lack of resources, the City will continue to engage with community development organizations, housing
providers, housing developers, service providers, community councils, City depa rtments, local businesses,
residents, and other stakeholders to develop strategies for increasing impacts and meeting gaps in services.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
53 | P a g e
AP-50 GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION – 91.220(f)
Description of the geographic areas of the entitlement (including areas of low-income and
minority concentration) where assistance will be directed
Locally-defined target areas provide an opportunity to maximize impact and align HUD funding with existing
investment while simultaneously addressing neighb orhoods with the most severe needs. According to HUD
standards, a Local Target Area is designed to allow for a locally targeted approach to the investment of CDBG
and other federal funds.
The target area for the entirety of the associated Consolidated Plan period, will be ident ified as, “West Side
Target Area”, as shown on the map below. CDBG and other federal funding will be concentrated, but not
necessarily limited to, the target area. Neighborhood and community nodes will be identified and targeted to
maximized community impact and drive further neighborhood investment. During this Action Plan period,
infrastructure projects such as transportation projects and commercial façade improvements will be limited to
this target area. Housing activities will happen citywide, however, a more concentrated marketing strategy for
rehabilitation efforts will be deployed in the West Side Target Area as an opportunity to expand housing
stability.
FIGURE: 2020-2024 WEST SIDE CDBG TARGET AREA
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
54 | P a g e
Salt Lake City’s HUD entitlement funds are geographically distributed with the following priorities:
The CDBG program’s primary objective is to promote the development of viable urban communities by
providing decent housing, suitable living environments and expanded economic activities to persons of lo w and
moderate income. To support the CDBG program’s primary objectives, Salt Lake City is taking a two -pronged
approach to the distribution of funding:
1. Direct funding to local target areas to build capacity and expand resources within concentrated
areas of poverty.
2. Utilize funding citywide, in accordance with meeting a national objective, to support the city’s
most vulnerable populations, including the chronically homeless, homeless families, food -insecure
individuals, the disabled, persons living with HIV/AIDS, victims of domestic violence and the low -
income elderly.
The ESG program’s primary objective is to assist individuals and families regain housing stability after
experiencing a housing or homelessness crisis. ESG funding is distributed citywide to support emergency
shelter, day services, resource centers, rapid re-housing and homeless prevention activities. The majority of
funding is target to Salt Lake City’s urban core, as this is where the highest concentration of homeless services
are located.
The HOME program’s primary objective is to create affordable housing opportunities for low -income
households. HOME funding is distributed citywide to provide direct financial assistance to homebuyers, tenant -
based rental assistance, acquisition, and rehabi litation.
The HOPWA program’s primary objective is to provide housing assistance and related supportive services to
persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families. HOPWA funding is distributed throughout the Salt Lake City
MSA, including Salt Lake, Summi t, and Tooele counties, to provide project-based rental assistance, tenant-
based rental assistance, short-term rental assistance, and supportive services. The majority of funding is utilized
in Salt Lake County, as the majority of HIV/AIDS services are loc ated in the Salt Lake area.
TABLE: GEOGRPAHIC DISTRIBUTION
Target Area % of Funds
1 West Side CDBG Target Area 12%
Rationale for the priorities for allocating investments geographically
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
55 | P a g e
The Target Area was identified through an extensive process that analyzed local poverty rates, low -and
moderate-income rates, neighborhood conditions, citizen input, and available resources.
A recent fair housing equity assessment (May 2018) completed by the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute at the
University of Utah states that there is a housing shortage in Utah, with the supply of new homes and existing
“for sale” homes falling short of demand. While the impact of higher housing prices is widespread, affecting
buyers, sellers, and renters in all income groups, the report concludes that those households below the median
income, and particularly low -income households, are disproportionately hurt by higher housing prices. In fact,
households with incomes below the median have a 1 in 5 chance of a severe housing cost -burden, paying at
least 50% of their income toward housing, while households with incomes above the median have a 1 in 130
chance.1
Discussion
The City’s west side and central corridor continue to have economic disparities that can be addressed through
investments of CDBG funding. Expanding and building upon the target areas of the 2015 -2019 Consolidated
Plan, will allow the city to continue to focus resources in a meaningful way. The first year of this plan is a
transition year and will see a small level of i nvestment at approximately 12%. The city will look to grow that in
future years that will ultimately end up in investments closer to 35% on an annual basis. While not limited to
the target area, housing rehabilitation efforts will be heavily marketed in th e target area. For the 2020-2021
Action Plan, this includes efforts of partners such as ASSIST, NeighborWorks, and Salt Lake City ’s Housing &
Neighborhood Development (HAND). Each organization provides housing rehabilitation services targeted to
low-to-moderate income households. Marketing these programs will help ensure that aging housing stock
does not fall into disrepair or become blighted. Throughout this Plan period and beyond, t he City will leverage
and strategically target funding for neighborhood im provements, transportation improvements, and economic
development to maximize impact within targeted neighborhoods.
1 James Wood, Dejan Eskic and D. J. Benway, Gardner Business Review, What Rapidly Rising Prices Mean for Housing Affor dability, May
2018.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
56 | P a g e
AP-55 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Introduction
The Salt Lake City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (HAND) is committed to lessening the
current housing crisis that is affecting Salt Lake City, and all U.S. cities, through a range of robust policy and
project initiatives to improve housing affordability for all residents, with an emphasis on households earning
40% AMI or below.
One Year Goals for the Number of Households to be Supported
Homeless: 378
Non -Homeless: 1365
Special Needs: 65
TOTAL: 1808
One Year Goals for the Number of Households Supported Through
Discussion
The City’s Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (HAND) is committed to lessening the current
housing crisis that is affecting Salt Lake City, and all U.S. cities, throu gh a range of robust policy and project
initiatives to improve housing affordability for all residents, with an emphasis on households earning 40% AMI
or below.
To guide these initiatives, in December 2017, the City approved Growing SLC, A Five Year Hous ing Plan, 2018-
2022, a thoughtful, data-driven strategy for ensuring long-term affordability and preservation while continuing
to enhance neighborhoods, while balancing their unique needs.
Salt Lake City will support affordable housing activities in the c oming year by utilizing the following federal
community development funding programs: CDBG, ESG, HOME, and HOPWA. Affordable housing activities will
provide subsidies for individuals and families ranging from 0% to 80% AMI. Activities will include:
Tenant-based rental assistance;
Short-term rental/utility assistance;
Rapid re-housing;
Homeowner housing rehabilitation ; and
Direct financial assistance for eli gible homebuyers.
Rental Assistance: 492
The Production of New Units: 7
Rehab of Exi sting Units: 257
Acquisition of Existing Units: 23
TOTAL: 790
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
57 | P a g e
AP-60 PUBLIC HOUSING
Introduction
The Housing Authority of Salt Lake City (HASLC) is responsible for managing the public housing inventory,
developing new affordable housing units and administering the Housing Choice voucher programs for the City.
The Authority strives to provide affordable housing opportunities throughout the communit y by developing
new or rehabilitating existing housing that is safe, decent, and affordable – a place where a person’s income
level or background cannot be identified by the neighborhood in which they live.
In addition to the development and rehabilitation of units, the HASLC also manages several properties
emphasizing safe, decent, and affordable housing that provides an enjoyable living environment that is free
from discrimination, efficient to operate, and remains an asset to the community. The HASLC ma intains a strong
financial portfolio to ensure flexibility, sustainability, and continued access to affordable tax credits,
foundations, and grant resources.
As an administrator of the City’s Housing Choice voucher programs, the Housing Choice Voucher Pro gram
provides rental assistance to low -income families (50% of area median income and below). This program
provides rental subsidies to 3,000 low -income families, disabled, elderly, and chronically homeless clients. Other
programs under the Housing Choice umbrella include: Housing Choice Moderate Rehabilitation; Housing
Choice New Construction; Project Based Vouchers; Multifamily Project Based Vouchers; Veterans Affairs
Supportive Housing Vouchers; Housing Opportunities for Persons with HIV/AIDS; and Shelte r plus Care
Vouchers. Under these other Housing Choice programs, the HASLC provided rental subsidies to additional
qualified program participants.
Actions planned during the next year to address the needs to public housing
HASLC continues to build a stron g portfolio of new properties and aggressively apply for additional vouchers.
As part of a strategic planning process held with Commissioners, staff, and residential leaders, HASLC has also
identified several goals for 2020-2021. Among these goals are increased focus on assisting local leaders and
agencies respond to homelessness in the City as well as developing and attaining more capacity for additional
living units through real estate activities, rehabilitation, pursuing new Shared Housing (previously referred to as
Single Room Occupancy) projects, developing increased relationships and services targeting and attracting
landlords, and sophisticated management of HUD programs. In April 2019, HASLC broke ground on Pamela’s
Place a new 100 unit PSH project f or chronically homeless individuals. This project is anticipated to be
completed in August 2020. HASLC also utilizes HUD RAD to preserve and improve their many properties .
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
58 | P a g e
HASLC continues to look for ways to expand their portfolio by identifying challengin g properties and
continuing to develop catalytic and transformative projects and programming.
Actions to encourage public housing residents to become more involved in management and
participate in homeownership
Both HASLC and Housing Connect have active monthly tenant meetings and encourage participation in
management decisions related to the specific housing communities. Housing Connect has a Resident Advisory
Board that has representatives from public housing, Section 8, and special needs programs. A me mber of the
Resident Advisory Board is appointed to the Housing Connect’s Board of Commissioners.
HASLC operates Family Self -Sufficiency programs that address areas of improving personal finances and
homeownership preparation for voucher recipients.
If the PHA is designated as troubled, describe the manner in which financial assistance will be
provided or other assistance
Housing Connect and HASLC are both designated as high performers.
AP-65 HOMELESS AND OTHER SPECIAL NEEDS ACTIVITIES
Introduction
Salt Lake City works with a large homeless services community to reduce the number of persons experiencing
homelessness, reduce the length of time individuals experience homelessness, increase successful transitions
out of homelessness, and reduce the number of instances that clients may return to homelessness.
Salt Lake City representatives participate in the local Continuum of Care’s executive board and its prioritization
committee specifically, so the Continuum of Care’s priorities are considered during Eme rgency Solutions Grant
allocations. The three local ESG funders also meet regularly to coordinate ESG and CoC activities to ensure an
accurate level of funding is provided to match the community’s service needs and goals. Additionally, the City
participates in Salt Lake County’s Coalition to End Homelessness and the State Homeless Coordinating Council
to further coordinate efforts.
The Salt Lake Continuum of Care contracts with the State of Utah to administer HMIS. All service agencies in the
region and the rest of the state are under a uniform data standard for HUD reporting and local ESG funders. All
ESG funded organizations participate in HMIS. A representative from Salt Lake City sits on the HMIS Steering
C ommittee. HMIS data allows Salt Lake City and its partners to track the effectiveness of programs and gauge
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
59 | P a g e
the continuing service needs of the community.
The State of Utah, in coordination with local service providers and volunteers, conduct an annual Point In Time
count at the end of January to co unt sheltered (emergency shelter and transitional housing) and unsheltered
homeless individuals. Unsheltered homeless individuals are counted by canvassing volunteers. The volunteers
use the VI-SPDAT assessment tool to interview and try to connect unshelte red homeless individuals into
services.
Describe the jurisdictions one-year goals and actions for reducing and ending homelessness
including reaching out to homeless persons (especially unsheltered persons) and assessing their
individual needs
Salt Lake City’s primary homeless services goal is to help homeless individuals and families get off the street
and into permanent housing. In the short term, Salt Lake City will continue to provide collaborative services to
the homeless population.
Salt Lake City recognizes that not every homeless individual is alike and because of that, there is no one size fits
all solution. There is a wide variety of homeless subpopulations in the greater community. Each of these groups
have different needs that Salt Lake City focuses on in order to provide the best services possible.
There are groups of chronic homeless individuals, veterans, families, women with children, youth, and
homeless-by-choice in the greater community. Each of these groups have different needs and ea ch stage of
homelessness must also be considered. The four stages of homelessness are prevention (keeping people from
dropping into homelessness with jobs and affordable housing), homelessness (helping with daily needs –
lockers, showers, etc.), transcendi ng homelessness (finding housing, employment), preventing recurrence
(offering supportive services to housing). If the four stages are not considered for each group, efforts will
eventually be unsuccessful.
Personalized one-on-one outreach to homeless individuals providing information about the specific services
that individual needs (e.g., housing, mental health treatment, a hot meal) is the most effective outreach
approach. Salt Lake City is exploring how to introduce lived experience peer support assis tance as outreach
teams work with unsheltered homeless individuals. Salt Lake City works regularly with various community
partners that provide outreach and assessment of individuals experiencing homelessness including Catholic
Community Services; Volunteers of America, Utah; the Department of Veterans Affairs; The Road Home and
others. In 2016, Salt Lake City opened the Community Connection Center (CCC) located in the primary
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
60 | P a g e
homeless services area of the City. The CCC operates as a drop-in center and employs social workers that assess
individuals’ needs and help connect people with available housing and supportive services. The CCC has been
successful in filling the need for additional homeless outreach and case management services in the City. The
work of the CCC is continuing through 2020 and continues to be a support space as Salt Lake City looks to
readdress homeless services in our community .
Addressing the emergency shelter and transitional housing needs of homeless persons
Starting with the State of Utah’s Ten-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness, most efforts to deal with
homelessness in Utah rely on the Housing First m odel. Although the ten year plan has sunset, the programs
and direction are still being implemented throughout the State. The prem ise of Housing First is that once
homeless individuals have housing, they are more likely to seek and continue receiving services and can search
for employment. The Housing First m odel has been effective in Salt Lake City, though meeting the varied
housing needs of this population can be challenging. The homeless housing market needs more permanent
supportive housing, housing vouchers, affordable non -supportive housing, and housing located near transit
and services. Salt Lake City is working towards new sol utions in these areas as outlined in the City’s adopted
five-year housing plan, Growing SLC .
There is a continued need for day services to meet the basic needs of persons experiencing homelessness.
Needed daytime services include bathrooms, laundry, safe storage for their life’s belongings, mail receipt, and
an indoor area to “hang out”. Salt Lake City addresses these issues by supporting shelters, day services, and
providing a free storage program. These things were all considered in the recent creation of the homeless
resource centers. These centers also provide food services and look to be all inclusive, one stop shop for
services and connection to community resources. This shift in how homeless services are provided will help the
community realize our goal that homelessness is rare, brief, and non-recurring.
Moving forward, Salt Lake City will aim to assist homeless persons make the transition to permanent housing,
including shortening the period of time that individuals and families experience homeless ness, facilitating
access for homeless individuals and families to affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families
who were recently homeless from becoming homeless again.
The City plays an important role by providing strategic funding for the valuable efforts undertaken by other
stakeholders and, at times, filling in gaps in essential services. The City can also lend its voice and political
weight to lobby for changes in policy, regulation, and statutes as needed to facilitate a compreh ensive and
effective approach to addressing homelessness and related issues.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
61 | P a g e
Salt Lake City’s newly adopted housing plan, Growing SLC, includes efforts to provide affordable housing
options along with the spectrum of housing including permanent supportive housing, transition in place, tenant
based rental assistance, and affordable non -supportive housing.
Shelter the Homeless, Collective Impact to End Homelessness Steering Committee, and the Salt Lake City
Continuum of Care voted in support of merging thes e two entities into a new homeless system structure called
the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness. This Coalition’s primary goals are to prevent and end
homelessness in the Salt Lake Valley through a system -wide commitment of resources, services, data collection,
analysis and coordination among all stakeholders. Salt Lake City staff play a key role in assisting this effort as it
moves forward.
Helping homeless persons (especially chronically homeless individuals and families, families with
children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth) make the transition to permanent
housing and independent living, including shortening the period of time that individuals and
families experience homelessness, facilitating access for homeless ind ividuals and families to
affordable housing units, and preventing individuals and families who were recently homeless from
becoming homeless again
Salt Lake City and its service partners work with homeless individuals to help them successfully transition from
living on the streets or shelters and into permanent housing or independent living. Salt Lake City has been
working with service partners and other governmental agencies through the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End
Homelessness (SLVCEH). This includes work on various subgroups that focus on specific areas of service,
including housing and coordinated entry. Salt Lake City has the goal to help streamline service delivery to the
homeless community with the express purpose of shortening the period that individuals and families
experience homelessness.
Salt Lake City has also funded the creation of new permanent supportive housing units and programs which
serve the most vulnerable members of our community. Progress is being made on both goals. Salt Lake City
and its partner, the Road Home, are continuing to operate the House 20 program. The House 20 program
engages with some of the most vulnerable members of our community, the majority of whom are now in stable
housing. Through the City’s Funding Our Future efforts, the City has funded a variety of housing programs that
aim to fill in gaps in services in our community. These programs include a new shared housing pilot program
and housing programs which target families with children, individuals with subst ance use disorders, refugees,
and victims of domestic violence. Salt Lake City has provided funding to support the creation of a combined
280 new units of permanent supportive housing that are at various stages of development in the City. 175 of
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
62 | P a g e
these PSH units are slated for completion within the calendar year. These permanent supportive housing units
have been identified by the Salt Lake Continuum of Care as a need in the larger homeless services community.
Salt Lake City continues to make progress on o ur 5-year housing plan, Growing SLC, which seeks to improve the
housing market in the City by focusing on three primary goals:
Reforming City practices to promote a responsive, affordable high -opportunity housing
market;
Increasing housing opportunities for cost-burdened households; and
Building a more equitable city.
Through implementation of Growing SLC and the funding of housing programs through Funding our Future
and Federal dollars, Salt Lake City is working to increase access to affordable housin g units for individuals and
families experiencing homelessness. These efforts will help shorten the period of time individuals and families
experience homeless and prevent recently homeless individuals and families from falling back into
homelessness.
Helping low-income individuals and families avoid becoming homeless, especially extremely low -
income individuals and families and those who are: being discharged from publicly funded
institutions and systems of care (such as health care facilities, mental he alth facilities, foster care
and other youth facilities, and corrections programs and institutions); or, receiving assistance from
public or private agencies that address housing, health, social services, employment, education, or
youth needs
Salt Lake City, along with other organizations in the Salt Lake Continuum of Care, work to prevent and divert
individuals and families from experiencing homelessness. Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County and the State of Utah
all provide funding to Utah Community Action fo r short-term rental assistance to families at risk of falling into
homelessness.
Discussion
Salt Lake City is reducing and ending homelessness in the community through strong collaborations with
partner organizations throughout the Salt Lake Continuum of Care. Salt Lake City works closely with Salt Lake
County, the State of Utah and service providers to stop families from dropping into homelessness, reduce the
length of time individuals and families experience homelessness, help individuals and families s uccessfully
transition out of homelessness, and keep individuals and families from rescinding back into homelessness.
AP-70 HOPWA GOALS
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
63 | P a g e
One year goals for the number of households to be provided housing through the use of HOPWA
for
Short-term Rent, Mortg age, and Utility Assistance Payments: 65
Tenant-Based Rental Assistance: 66
Units Provided in Permanent Housing Facilities Developed, Leased, or
Operated with HOPWA Funds: 0
Units provided in Transitional Short -Term Housing Facilities Developed,
Leased, or Operated with HOPWA Funds: 0
TOTAL: 131
AP-75 ACTION PLAN BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Introduction
As discussed in sections MA -40 and SP-55 of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, several barriers to the
development and preservation of affordable h ousing exist within Salt Lake City, including the following:
Land costs
Construction costs
Housing and transportation costs
Development and rehabilitation financing
Housing rehabilitation complexities
Foreclosures and loan modifications
Neighborhood market conditions
Economic conditions
Land use regulations
Development fees and assessments
Permit processing procedures
Environmental review procedures
Lack of zoning and development incentives
Complicated impact fee waiver process
Competition for limited development incentives
Landlord tenant policies
NIMBY’ism
While not all of these barriers can be addressed during with federal funding, d uring the 2020-2021 program
year, the City will work to reduce barriers to affordable housing through the following planni ng efforts and
initiatives:
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
64 | P a g e
Growing SLC: A Five-Year Plan, 2018-2022: The City has formally adopted a housing plan that is
addressing the barriers listed above and has served as a catalyst on a local and regional level to focus
on the housing crisis. The plan provides an assessment of citywide housing needs, with emphasis on
the availability and affordability of housing, housing needs for changing demographics, and
neighborhood-specific needs. Growing SLC identifies several goals to remove barriers to affordable
housing. Those goals include reforming City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high -
opportunity housing market; increase housing opportunities for cost -burdened households; and
building a more equitable City.
Homeless Strategies: Salt L ake City works collaboratively with service providers, local municipalities, the
State of Utah, the Continuum of Care, and other stakeholders through the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to
End Homelessness (Coalition) to ensure a regional and concerted effort t o address homeless issues
within the City. The structure of the Coalition provides a succinct network for data collection, resource
deployment, and service implementation. The City will continue to play a critical and visionary role in
the Coalition in the coming year.
Home Ownership Options: The City has launched a new program for homeownership, Welcome Home
SLC. The program provides low to moderate-income families the opportunity to purchase a home in
Salt Lake City. It will help stabilize communities, p rovide incentive for neighborhood investments, and
allow families to build wealth.
Community Land Trust: Salt Lake City has launched a Community Land Trust that will allow donated
and trusted land to maintain perpetual affordability while ensuring the stru cture on the land, the home,
is purchased, owned, and sold over time to income-qualifying households, just as any other home
would be. By holding the land itself in the trust, the land effectively receives a write down each time the
home is sold, insulatin g the property for growing land costs but still allowing equity to be built by the
homeowner.
Funding Our Future: Will provide additional funding during FY 20-21 to increase housing opportunities
in Salt Lake City through a new .5% sales tax increase app roved by Council in May 2018.
Leverage Public Land: The City has been and will continue to look at City owned properties as an
investment in affordable housing. Additionally, proceeds from development on public land could be
used for future affordable hou sing development.
Redevelopment Agency: The Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency has committed $17 million since
2017 to address affordable housing efforts in the City, with a specific focus on areas with high land
values.
Housing Trust Fund: The Housing Trust Fund was created in 2000 to provide financial assistance to
support the development and preservation of affordable and special needs housing in Salt Lake City.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
65 | P a g e
Eligible activities include acquisition, new construction, and rehabilitation of both mult ifamily rental
properties and single-family homeownership. Additional assistance relating to housing for eligible
households also may include project or tenant -based rental assistance, down payment assistance and
technical assistance. Applications for funding can be accepted year-round and are approved through a
citizen’s advisory board, the Mayor and the City Council.
Policy: The City is continually evaluating policies that may impede the development of affordable
housing. A few policy changes the City is considering over the coming year include an Affordable
Housing Overlay zoning ordinance, Housing Loss Mitigation ordinance amendment, and a Single
Room Occupancy (SRO)/Shared Housing ordinance.
Actions planned to remove or ameliorate the negative effects of public policies that serve as
barriers to affordable housing such as land use controls, tax policies affecting land, zoning
ordinances, building codes, fees and charges, growth limitations, and policies affecting the return
on residential investment
Salt Lake City will work to remove or ameliorate public policies that serve as barriers to affordable housing
through the following efforts:
Affordable Housing Development Incentives: Zoning and fee waiver incentives will be implemented
and/or strengthened, including the following:
o Review the City’s Housing Loss Mitigation ordinance to ensure that the city’s stock of
inexpensive housing isn’t rapidly being replaced by more expensive units.
o Develop an Affordable Housing Overlay zone that allows for and provide s incentives for the
creation and preservation of affordable housing.
o Evaluate the desire for a Single Room Occupancy (SRO)/Shared Housing ordinance that allows
for SRO’s in single-family neighborhoods throughout the City.
o Off-Street Parking Ordinance update to improve pedestrian-scale development and amenities.
o Low-Density Multi-Family Residential Zoning amendments to remove local zoning barriers to
housing density and types of housing.
Leverage Public Resources for Affordable Housing Development: Publi c resources, including city -
owned land, will be leveraged with private resources for affordable housing development.
Funding Targeting: The Division of Housing and Neighborhood Development is evaluating ways to
coordinate and target affordable housing subsidies more effectively, to include the coordination of
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
66 | P a g e
local funding sources (Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Salt Lake City Housing Trust Fund, Salt Lake
County funding, etc.).
Implement Fair Housing Action Items: Salt Lake City will work to remove and/or ameliorate housing
impediments for protected classes through action items as identified in the City’s 2020-2024 Fair
Housing Action Plan.
Utilize Federal Funding to Expand Affordable Housing Opportunities: Utilize CDBG, ESG, HOME, and
HOPWA funding to expand housing opportunity through homeowner rehabilitation, emergency home
repair, acquisition/rehabilitation, direct financial assistance, tenant -based rental assistance, project-
based rental assistance, and rapid re-housing.
AP-85 OTHER ACTIONS
Introduction
This section outlines Salt Lake City’s efforts to carry out the following:
Address obstacles to meeting underserved needs
Foster and maintain affordable housing
Reduce lead-based paint hazards
Reduce the number of poverty -level families
Develop institutional structure
Enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service agencies
Radon Mitigation Policy
Actions planned to address obstacles to meeting underserved needs
The most substantial impediment in meeting underserved needs is a lack of funding and resources. Strategic
shifts identified through Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan provide a framework for maximizing and
leveraging the City's block grant allocations better focus funding to address underserved needs. Underse rved
needs and strategic actions are as follows:
Underserved Need: Affordable housing
Actions: Salt Lake City is utilizing federal and local resources to expand both rental and
homeownership opportunities. In addition, the City is utilizing public land to leverage private capital
for the development of affordable housing. These efforts will work to address the affordable housing
gap in Salt Lake City.
Underserved Need: Homelessness
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
67 | P a g e
Actions: Salt Lake City is working with housing and homeless service provid ers to coordinate and
streamline processes for service delivery. By utilizing the VI-SPDAT pre-screen survey, providers are
able to access and prioritize services based on chronicity and medical vulnerability. These efforts will
assist in addressing unmet needs by utilizing resources more effectively.
Underserved Need: Special needs individuals.
Actions: Salt Lake City is working to address underserved needs for refugees, immigrants, the elderly,
victims of domestic violence, persons living with HIV/AIDS, and persons with a disability by providing
resources for basic needs, as well as resources to expand self -sufficiency. For example, federal funding
is utilized to provide early childhood education for refugees and other at -risk children; improve
immediate and long-term outcomes for persons living with HIV/AIDS; and provide job training
vulnerable populations; and provide medical services for at risk populations.
Actions planned to foster and maintain affordable housing
The City is committed to foster and m aintain affordable housing throughout our City. This is evident through
identifying specific gaps that exist in the community, and then designing affordable housing efforts specifically
to address these needs. The City has developed an aggressive strategy to develop, preserve and assist
affordable housing over the next two years. The initiative aims to target households earning 80% AMI and
below, with emphasis on households earning 40% AMI and below. Through this housing initiative and efforts
identified in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, Salt Lake City aims to:
Address the City’s affordable housing shortage for those most in need.
Address housing needs for Salt Lake City’s changing demographics.
Address neighborhood specific needs, including the following:
o Protect affordability in neighborhoods where affordability is disappearing.
o Promote affordability in neighborhoods with a lack of affordable housing.
Preserve the City’s existing affordable housing stock.
Strengthen the City’s relationship with our housin g partners, financial institutions, and foundations.
Support those who develop and advocate for affordable housing.
Toward this end, Salt Lake City will foster and maintain affordable housing during the 201 9-2020 program year
through the following actions:
Utilize CDBG funding to support owner-occupied rehabilitation for households at 80% AMI and below.
Utilize CDBG and HOME funding for acquisition and rehabilitation of dilapidated and blighted housing.
Utilize ESG, HOME and HOPWA funding to create housing opportunities for individuals and
households at 30% AMI and below through Tenant-Based Rental Assistance and Rapid Re-Housing.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
68 | P a g e
Utilize CDBG and HOME funding for direct financial assistance to homebuyers at 80% AMI and below.
Promote the development of aff ordable housing with low income housing tax credits, Salt Lake City
Housing Trust Fund, Olene Walker Housing Loan Fund, Salt Lake City’s HOME Development fund and
other funding sources.
Leverage public resources, including publicly owned land, with private capital for the development of
affordable housing.
Work to ameliorate and/or eliminate housing impediments for protected classes as outlined in the Fair
Housing Action Plan.
Work to leverage other city resources such as Redevelopment Agency funding/strate gies, maximize
sales tax housing funding, and other sources as they are identified with federal funding where
applicable.
Salt Lake City has launched a new Community Land Trust that currently has six properties, with plans to
increase the number of properties in the coming years.
Actions planned to reduce lead-based paint hazards
Because of the high percentage of the housing units in Salt Lake City that were built before 1978, outreach and
education efforts must continue. As such, the City has implemented a plan to address lead issues in our
residential rehabilitation projects. The City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program is in compliance with HUD’s rules
concerning identification and treatment of lead hazards. Du ring the 2020-2021 program year, Salt Lake City will
work in conjunction with our partners on the state and county levels to educate the public on the dangers
posed by lead based paint, to include the following:
Undertake outreach efforts through direct mailings, the Salt Lake City website, various fa irs and public
events, and the local community councils.
Provide materials in Spanish to increase lead-based paint hazard awareness in minority communities.
Partner with Salt Lake County’s Lead Safe Salt Lake program to treat lead hazards in the homes of
children identified as having elevated blood levels.
Emphasize lead hazards in our initial contacts with homeowners needing rehabilitation.
Work with community partners to encourage local contractors to obtain worker certifications for their
employees and sub-contractors.
Actions planned to reduce the number of poverty -level families
In a strategic effort to reduce the number of households living in poverty and prevent households at risk of
moving in to poverty from doing so, Salt Lake City is focusing on a two-pronged approach:
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
69 | P a g e
1. Creating neighborhoods of opportunity to build capacity and expand resources within
concentrated areas of poverty.
2. Support the city’s most vulnerable populations, including the chronically homeless, homeless
families, food-insecure individuals, the disabled, persons living with HIV/AIDS, victims of domestic
violence and the low-income elderly.
The City’s anti-poverty strategy aims to close the gap in a number of socioeconomic indicators, such as
improving housing affordability, school-readiness of young children, employment skills of at-risk adults, access
to transportation for low-income households, and access to fresh foods for food -insecure families. Efforts will
focus on the following objectives:
Assist low -income individuals to maximize their incomes.
Reduce the linkages between poor health and poverty.
Expand housing opportunities.
Reduce the impacts of poverty on children.
Ensure that vulnerable populations have access to supportive services.
Federal entitlement f unds allocated through this 2020-2021 Action Plan will support the City’s anti -poverty
strategy through the following efforts:
Provide job training for vulnerable populations.
Provide early childhood education to limit the effects of intergenerational poverty.
Provide essential supportive services for vulnerable populations.
Provide housing rehabilitation for low -income homeowners.
Expanded affordable housing opportunities.
Improved neighborhood/commercial infrastructure in West Side Target Area.
Enhance support for sm all businesses and micro-enterprise businesses.
Reduce food insecurities for low income households.
Actions planned to develop institutional structure
As outlined in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, Salt Lake City is building upon the 2019-2015 Plan and
c ontinuing to take a coordinated and strategic shift in allocating federal entitlement funds to place a stronger
emphasis on community needs, goals, objectives and outcomes. This includes the following efforts to
strengthen and develop institutional structu re:
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
70 | P a g e
Geographically target infrastructure and economic development funding to areas of the city with
higher poverty rates, lower incomes, reduced access to transportation
Increase coordination between housing and supportive service providers to reduce/elimi nate
duplicative efforts, encourage partnerships, increase transparency, and standardize processes.
Strengthen support for the city’s most vulnerable populations, including the chronically homeless,
homeless families, the disabled, persons living with HIV/AIDS, victims of domestic violence and the
low-income elderly.
Support housing efforts that connect residents with supportive services and programs that improve
self-sufficiency.
Offer technical assistance to agencies implementing projects with CDBG, ESG, HOME, and/or HOPWA
funding to ensure compliance and support of program objectives.
Support employee training and certifications to expand the internal knowledge base on HUD
programs, as well as housing and community development best practices.
Actions planned to enhance coordination between public and private housing and social service
agencies
Salt Lake City recognizes the importance of coordination between supportive service and housing providers in
meeting priority needs. Stakeholders have been working towards developing and implementing a streamlined
and effective delivery system to include the following efforts:
Created and implemented a no wrong door approach to accessing housing and other services.
Increased coordination through the Salt Lake Continu um of Care, Salt Lake Homeless Coordinating
Committee, Salt Lake County Collective Impact Committee, and State Homeless Coordinating Council.
Coordinated assessments to help individuals and families experiencing homeless move through the
system faster.
Coordinated diversion and homeless prevention resources to reduce new entries into homelessness.
Coordinated efforts to house the highest users of the homeless services and provide trauma informed
case management.
Improved weekly “housing triage” meetings that provide a format for developing a housing plan for
homeless individuals and families with the most urgent housing needs.
Discussion
Actions planned to mitigate impacts of Radon
Salt Lake City is committed to providing safe, affordable housing opportunit ies that are free of contaminations
that could affect the health and safety of occupants. Section 50.3(i) states that “it is HUD policy that all property
proposed for use in HUD programs be free of hazardous materials, contamination, toxic chemicals and ga sses,
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
71 | P a g e
and radioactive substances, where a hazard could affect the health and safety of occupants of conflict with the
intended utilization of the property.” To that end, the city created a Radon Mitigation Policy that address the
potential of Radon in homes that are newly constructed or rehabilitated utilizing federal funding issued through
this Action Plan. In June 2020, Salt Lake City will host a training seminar to review the requirements with
subrecipients and ensure that they are prepared to be complia nt with the updated requirements. The city has,
and will continue, to provide technical assistance to each agency in an effort to ensure agencies are properly
identifying sites that must be tested, how to test correctly, how to read test results, and the a ppropriate
mitigation standards that must be followed.
The Radon Mitigation Policy includes specifics on testing and mitigation requirements. The city has also
partnered with the State of Utah to implement the mitigation policy, provide technical assist ance, and
outreach/education materials. To leverage resources, the city will refer clients needing financial assistance for
mitigation to other community resources. To ensure that even the most vulnerable and high risk populations
have an opportunity to m itigate Radon, the City has implemented a grant program whereby residents meeting
a set of criteria, may apply for a grant to bear the costs of mitigation.
AP-90 PROGRAM SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS - 91.220(l)(1,2,4)
Introduction
Salt Lake City’s program speci fic requirements for CDBG, HOME, and ESG are outlined as follows.
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(1)
1. Projects planned with all CDBG funds expected to be available during the year are identified in the
Projects Table. The following identifies program income that is available for use that is included in
projects to be carried out
1 The total amount of anticipated program income that will have been
received before the start of the next program year and tha t has not yet
been reprogrammed.
$6,000,000
2 The amount of proceeds from section 108 loan guarantees that will be
used during the year to address the priority needs and specific
objectives identified in the grantee's strategic plan.
0
3 The amount of surplus fu nds from urban renewal settlements. 0
4 The amount of any grant funds returned to the line of credit for which the
planned use has not been included in a prior statement or plan . 0
5 The amount of income from float‐funded activities. 0
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
72 | P a g e
Total Program Income: $6,000,000
2. Other CDBG Requirements
1 The amount of urgent need activities 0
2 The estimated percentage of CDBG funds that will be used for activities
that benefit persons of low and moderate income
90%
Overall Benefit - A consecutive period of one, two or three years may be used to determine
that a minimum overall benefit of 70% of CDBG funds is used to benefit persons of low and
moderate income. This Annual Action Plan covers a one year period.
HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(2)
1. A description of other forms of investment being used beyond those identified in Section 92.205 is as
follows
Salt Lake City does not utilize HOME funding beyon d those identified in Section 92.205.
2. A description of the guidelines that will be used for resale or recapture of HOME funds when used for
homebuyer activities as required in 92.254, is as follows
In order to preserve the number of affordable housing uni ts for continued benefit to low -income residents, Salt
Lake City requires that HOME funds used to assist homeownership be recaptured whenever assisted units
become vacant prior to the end of the affordability period that is commensurate with the amount of funding
invested in the activity. Trust deeds or property restrictions are filed on appropriate properties to ensure
compliance with the period of affordability.
Homeownership Recapture:
Salt Lake City follows the HOME recapture provisions established at §92.253(a)(5)(ii). Any remaining HOME
assistance to the home buyer must be recovered if the housing does not continue to be the principal residence
of the family for the duration of the period of affordability. The HOME investment that is subject to recaptu re is
based on the direct subsidy amount which includes the HOME assistance that enabled the home buyer to buy
the housing unit. In all cases, the recapture provisions are limited to the net proceeds of the sale. Salt Lake City
requires all sub-recipients and CHDO’s to follow the same recapture guidelines as outlined and required in the
HOME rule. This provision is intended to ensure a fair return on investment for the homeowner if a sale occurs
during the period of affordability. The City will utilize one of the following options:
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
73 | P a g e
A) If it was determined that HOME regulations were not adhered to for initial approval of the
homeowner or during the term of affordability, the entire HOME subsidy will be recaptured.
B) In the event of change of title/ownership, the City will reduce the HOME investment amount
to be recaptured on a pro-rata basis for the time the homeowner has owned and occupied the
housing measured against the applicable affordability period.
C) If the net proceeds are not sufficient to recapture the appropriate HOME investment plus
enable the homeowner to recover the amount of the homeowner's down payment and any
capital improvement investment made by the owner since purchase, the City will share the net
proceeds. Net proceeds are the sales price minus loan repayment (other than HOME funds)
and closing costs. The net proceeds will be divided proportionally on a pro -rata basis for the
time the homeowner has owned and occupied the housing measured against the applicable
affordability period. Owner investment returned first. The City may choose to permit the home
buyer to recover the home buyer's entire investment (down payment and capital
im provements made by the owner since purchase) before recapturing the HOME investment.
HOME Funds Provided for Homebuyer Activity
subject to Recapture of HOME Funds
Minimum years
of Affordability
Under $15,000 5 Years
Between $15,000 and $40,000 10 Years
Over $40,000 15 Years
Homeownership Resale:
Resale requirements will only apply to HOME -funded affordable homeownership opportunities provided using
the community land trust model. In that model, Salt Lake City provides funding to a community land trus t to
sell homes at an affordable price while placing a 99-year leasehold on the estate. Resale provisions will be
enforced by a recorded covenant signed by the land owner, the homebuyer, and the City, and also through a
99-year ground lease between the lan d owner (the trust) and the homebuyer. Under both the covenant and the
ground lease, the home may be sold only to an income-qualified buyer who will occupy the home as a primary
residence. The land owner, through the ground lease, shall have an option to p urchase in order to ensure that
the home is sold to an eligible buyer at an affordable price. This provision is intended to ensure a fair retur n on
investment for the homeowner if a sale occurs during the period of afforda bility. The Resale Requirement will
limit the sales price, as described below.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
74 | P a g e
Due to the growing costs of homes in the Salt Lake City residential market, the City has o pted to implement a
Homeownership Value Limit of $378,100 for a single family home. Salt Lake City determined 95 percent of the
median area purchase price for single family housing in the jurisdiction in accordance with procedures
established at § 92.254(a)(2)(iii). Specifically, this purchase price was calculated based on a median sales price of
$398,000 (i.e. $398,000 × 0.95 = $378,100) for single family homes. This figure is for both new construction and
existing homes. The attached sales data includes a count of 2,361 sales since May 2019 and only includes
addresses within incorporated Salt Lake City boundaries. Please see attachment s for additional information.
3. A description of the guidelines for resale or recapture that ensures the affordability of u nits acquired
with HOME funds? See 24 CFR 92.254(a)(4) are as follows
As stated above, Salt Lake City requires that HOME funds be recaptured whenever assisted units become vacant
prior to the end of the affordability period that is commensurate with the am ount of funding invested in the
activity. In very rare cases, Salt Lake City will use HOME funds as an acquisition source for multifamily projects.
With these rental activities, rental projects must meet the appropriate period of affordability or HOME fund s
provided to them will be recaptured by the City. Trust deeds or property restrictions are filed on appropriate
properties to ensure compliance with the period of affordability.
Rental Housing Recapture:
All HOME-assisted units must meet the affordability requirements for not less than the applicable period
specified below regardless of the term of any loan or mortgage, transfer of ownership, or repayment of loan
funds.
Rental Housing Activity Minimum years
of Affordability
Rehab or acquisition of existing housing per unit
amount of HOME funds under $15,000 5 Years
Between $15,000 and $40,000 10 Years
Over $40,000 or rehab involving refinancing 15 Years
New construction or acquisition of newly constructed
housing 20 Years
4. Plans for using HOME funds to refinance existing debt secured by multifamily housing that is
rehabilitated with HOME funds along with a description of the refinancing guidelines required that
will be used under 24 CFR 92.206(b), are as follows
Not applicable. Salt Lake City does not i ntend to use HOME funds to refinance multifamily housing
debt.
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG)
Reference 24 CFR 91.220(l)(4)
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
75 | P a g e
1. Include written standards for providing ESG assistance (may include as attachment)
The Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) Policies include written standards for providing ESG assistance.
2. If the Continuum of Care has established centralized or coordinated assessment system that
meets HUD requirements, describe that centralized or coordinated assessment system
The Salt Lake Continuum of Care has developed a collaborative, written coordinated assessment plan.
Consensus exists for a coordinated assessment plan that covers the entire Continuum of Care with a multi -
access entry point quick assessment method for any homeless individual or fam ily in need of emergency shelter
or service. Our 211 system, service providers, government agencies, and others publicize all existing access
points, striving to do everything we can to ensure individuals and families in need have clear direction for
accessing appropriate services. After entry into an emergency service, individuals are tracked as they progress
toward housing and/or support interventions. All homeless families and those individuals prioritized for
permanent supportive housing placements are guided toward this centralized process and placed into one of
several housing programs depending on assessment. Standardized assessments include a quick assessment for
emergency services and eligibility and enrollment materials for housing placements.
Salt Lake City worked with partners as part of the Collective Impact process to further improve our coordinated
assessment system. Representatives of the City worked with the CoC, ESG funders, and service providers to
improve the coordinated assessment system to meet requirements set forth in Notice CPD-17-01. The new
coordinated assessment system was approved by the Salt Lake County Homeless Coordinating Committee in
January, 2018. Salt Lake City is continuing to work with the CoC, ESG funders, and service p roviders to
operationalize these new requirements through the Coordinated Entry Task Group.
3. Identify the process for making sub -awards and describe how the ESG allocation available to private
nonprofit organizations (including community and faith -based o rganizations) will be allocated
Granting sub-awards is an intensive, months-long process. It begins with applications being made available and
education workshops held to explain different federal grant programs and eligible activities under each. Staff
also reaches out to potential applicants through the Salt Lake Homeless Coordinating Council, the local
Continuum of Care, the Utah Housing Coalition and others.
After the application period closes, a general needs hearing is conducted to help guide how ESG monies should
be spent. Applications are discussed with a citizen board in a public forum. Applicants are invited to meet with
the citizen board to answer final questions or provide additional information regarding their programs and their
role in the larger homeless services system structure.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
76 | P a g e
The Community Development & Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board (CDCIP Board) reviews the
applications and makes a recommendation to the Salt Lake City Mayor based on federal guidelines, the 5 Year
Consolidated Plan, and the City’s long term homeless services strategies. The Mayor then makes a
recommendation on funding to the City Council based on the CDCIP board recommendation, federal
guidelines, the 5 Year Consolidated Plan, and the City’s long -term homeless services strategies.
The City Council holds a public hearing for comment on the programs and proposed benefits of each. The City
Council then makes a funding decision based on public comment, the Mayor’s recommendation, federal
guidelines, the 5 Year C onsolidated Plan, and the City’s long term homeless services strategies.
4. If the jurisdiction is unable to meet the homeless participation requirement in 24 CFR 576.405(a), the
jurisdiction must specify its plan for reaching out to and consulting with homeless or formerly
homeless individuals in considering policies and funding decisions regarding facilities and
services funded under ESG
Before the Salt Lake City Council makes the final funding decisions for ESG funds, there are multiple venues for
public outreach including two public hearings. Efforts are made to include participation from homeless and
formerly homeless individuals. Emergency Solutions Grant funds, along with other public and private monies,
are used by Salt Lake City to implement our short and long term homeless service goals.
Individuals experiencing homelessness often help the city craft and implement short -term and long-term
service plans. Below are a few examples of how the city has created the opportunity for homeless persons to
participate:
Homeless individuals participated in the creation of the long -term homeless services situation
assessment.
The City interviewed over 100 homeless individuals as part of its Homeless Services Site
Evaluation Commission in 2015.
Summer of 2016, the C ity held a workshop specifically with individuals experiencing
homelessness to draft the criteria used to locate new homeless resource centers.
February 2017, a workshop was held with homeless individuals to gain feedback on the
design, location and programming at new homeless resource centers.
March 2018, Salt Lake City participated in a Homeless Youth Forum, which brought together a
wide range of service providers together to discuss service delivery for homeless youth. There
were approximately 20 homeless and formerly homeless youth who were dispersed amongst
the discussion groups and they provided valuable feedback on various service delivery
systems.
SALT LAKE CITY 2020 -2021 ACTION PLAN
77 | P a g e
Summer of 2018, the City coordinated with Salt Lake County to collect survey data on funding
priorities from individuals experiencing homelessness on two separate occasions.
The City continues to reach out to persons with “lived experience” to help shape the services
being prioritized and funded throughout the homeless services system.
ESG subgrantees and other homeless service providers routinely consult with current and formerly homeless
individuals to make programming and service delivery decisions. There is representation from homeless and
formerly homeless individuals on the Collective Impact Steering Committee and the CoC executive board.
5. Describe performance standards for evaluating ESG
Salt Lake City scores programs receiving Emergency Solutions Grant funding using the performance metrics
required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop ment (HUD) and local priorities. In an effort to
increase transparency, leverage resources, and maximize efficiencies, Salt Lake City does the following:
All applications undergo a risk analysis prior to the awarding of funds.
Standardized quarterly reporting is reviewed for compliance, timeliness, and accuracy.
Monitoring and technical assistance risk analyses are performed on all subgrantees to
determine which organization would benefit from monitoring or technical assistance visits.
Collect information that supports the required performance measurement metrics and
provides context on local initiatives.
To ensure consistent performance metrics, the Salt Lake Continuum of Care contracts with the State of Utah to
administer HMIS, or Hom eless Management Information System. All service agencies in the region and the rest
of the state are under a uniform data standard for HUD reporting and local ESG funders. All ESG funded
organizations participate in HMIS. Salt Lake City reviews HMIS data to ensure grantees are properly using funds
as promised in their contracts and meeting larger City, Continuum of Care, and State goals.
Exhibit 3
Substantial Amendments Regarding SLC CARES HUD-CV
Allocation
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CON PLAN 20-24 & AAP 20 -21
1
SALT LAKE CITY
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS TO
2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN
2020-2024 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN
2020-2021 ACTION PLAN
MAYOR
ERIN MENDENHALL
CITY COUNCIL
DISTRICT 1: JAMES ROGERS
DISTRICT 2, VICE CHAIR: ANDREW JOHNSTON
DISTRICT 3 , CHAIR: CHRIS WHARTON
DISTRICT 4: ANALIA VALDEMOROS
DISTRICT 5: DARIN MANO
DISTRICT 6: DAN DUGAN
DISTRICT 7: AMY FOWLER
Prepared by
S A L T L A K E C I T Y
HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CON PLAN 20-24 & AAP 20 -21
2
September 10, 2020
PY 2020 Salt Lake City CARES Act Substantial Amendment
TO ADD
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT-CORONAVIRUS (CDBG-CV)
EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANT-CORONAVIRUS (ESG-CV)
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE WITH AIDS/HIV-CORONAVIRUS
(HOPWA-CV)
SUMMARY
Substantial Amendments to the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan, and
2020-2021 Annual Action Plan for utilization of CARES HUD-CV funds for coronavirus response and
recovery.
The requested amendments will allow the award of U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Securities Act (CARES Act) fund ing to Salt Lake City, a
total of $7,138,203 for coronavirus (CV) response and recovery. These funds will be used by Salt Lake
City for eligible activities and services in accordance with Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG-CV), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG-CV) and Housing Opportunities for People With
AIDS/HIV (HOPWA-CV) HUD regulations and CARES Act waivers.
CARES HUD-CV1 funds were allocated to Salt Lake City on April 2, 2020 via notification from HUD
Acting Assistant Secretary for Community Plann ing and Development. On June 9, 2020, Salt Lake City
was notified of an additional allocation of ESG-CV2 funds. On September 11, 2020, Salt Lake City was
notified of an additional allocation of CDBG-CV3 funds.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG-CV), first round $2,064,298, third round
$999,551
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG-CV), first round $1,040,462 and second round $2,946,449
Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS/HIV (HOPWA -CV), first round $87,443
Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) staff will administer the CARES HUD-CV funds.
HAND staff will communicate with the Administration and City Council about the CARES HUD -CV
allocation process.
CARES HUD-CV FUNDING
On March 27, 2020, the United States Congress passed The Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic
Security Act (CARES Act) (H.R. 748, Public Law 116 -136), which makes available $5 billion in
supplemental Community Development Block Grant (CDBG -CV) funding, $1 billion for Emergency
Solutions Grants (ESG-CV) and $53.7 million for Hous ing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS
(HOPWA-CV) grants to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus .
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CON PLAN 20-24 & AAP 20 -21
3
The CARES Act stipulated that HUD-CV funding must not fund duplicative activities and requires
tracking to ensure no other funding source could be utilized for the expense. Grantees may use HUD -CV
funds for a range of activities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. Funds must serve low -
to moderate-income individuals or households, underserved communities or populations, and align with
HUD National Objectives.
PROGRAM YEAR (PY) 2020 SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT
Due to the City’s allocated CARES HUD-CV funding Substantial Amendments to the City’s most
recently adopted 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan, and 2020-2021
Annual Action Plan are required.
These Substantial Amendments has been prepared with the guidance from HUD that has been issued to
date.
HUD REQUIREMENTS
HUD’s Substantial Amendment Section 24 CFR 91.505 (b), outlines the criteria for Subst antial
Amendment and states “the jurisdiction shall identify in its Citizen Participation Plan the criteria
it will use for determining what constitutes a Substantial Amendment. It is these Substantial
Amendments that are subject to a citizen participation process, in accordance with the
jurisdiction's citizen participation plan.”
SALT LAKE CITY 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Salt Lake City’s Consolidated Plan for 2020 -2024 Citizen Participation Plan defines a Substantial
Amendment as:
1. A proposed use of funds that does not address a goal or underlying strategy identified in
the governing Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan; or
2. Increasing funding levels for a given project by 100% or more of the previously adopted
amount; or
3. Decreasing funding levels for a given project by 100% AND pivoting impacted funds to
another approved use during an action plan period; or
4. A change to a regulatory requirement or additional allocated funding from the US
Department of Housing & Urban Development that defines that a Substantial
Amendment must be completed.
Substantial Amendment to 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan:
#1 Accept Additional Allocations of Funding
Section SP-35, The Strategic Plan, Anticipated Resources. HUD 24 CFR 91.215 (a)(4),
91.220 (c)(1,2). Located on page 146 of the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan.
The CARES HUD-CV allocations represent an additional allocation of funding from
HUD to Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, thus requiring a Substantial
Amendment.
(See the SP-35 Anticipated Resources Appendix)
The City’s current 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan will be amended to reflect the additional
funding and eligible uses of the grant funds.
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CON PLAN 20-24 & AAP 20 -21
4
.
Substantial Amendments to 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan (Appendix C of the 2020-2024
Consolidated Plan):
#1 Shortened Public Comment Period
Citizen Participation, HUD 24 CFR 91.105. Located on page 281 of the 2020-2024
Citizen Participation Plan (Appendix C of the 2020 -2024 Consolidated Plan)
Substantial Amendments are required to follow the City’s Citizen Participation Plan, as
outlined in the Consolidated Plan for 2020 -2024, which under normal circumstances,
requires a public comment period for the Substantial Amendment of thirty (30) days.
However, to quickly implement the funds and activities of the CARES HUD-CV, HUD
has waived that requirement with amendment to the City’s Citizen Participation Plan,
reducing the public comment period to five (5) days. Further, HUD is allowing the
Citizen Participation Plan and the Substantial Amendment to the 2020-2024 Consolidated
Plan and 2020 Annual Action Plan to run concurrently.
Although the CARES Act has shortened the public comment period to five (5) days, Salt
Lake City Ordinance requires a fourteen (14) days public com ment period. Salt Lake City
will utilize a fourteen (14) day public comment period for this Substantial Amendment.
The City’s current 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan will be amended to reflect this
change and accept a fourteen (14) day public comment period.
This Shortened Public Comment Period amendment only applies to the CARES HUD -
CV allocation, and not to other funding allocated by HUD.
Substantial Amendment to 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan:
#1 Accept Additional Allocations of Funding
Section AP -15, Expected Resources. HUD 24 CFR 91.215 (a)(4), 91.220 (c)(1,2).
Located on page 33 of the 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan.
A Substantial Amendment is required to accept the CARES HUD -CV. These funds
represent an additional allocation of funding from HUD to Salt Lake City’s 2020-2024
Consolidated Plan and 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan.
(See the AP-15 Expected Resources Appendix)
The City’s current 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan will be amended to reflect the
additional funding and eligible uses of grant f unds .
PUBLIC PROCESS
The 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan (Appendix C of the 2020 -2014 Consolidated Plan) specifies the
policies and procedures that encourage participation by Salt Lake City residents in the planning,
implementation, and ongoing evaluation of the City’s Consolidated Plan as required by the U.S.
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CON PLAN 20-24 & AAP 20 -21
5
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Citizen Participation Plan encourages
participation from citizens in neighborhoods that receive significant federal funding and from c itizens
living throughout the City.
The public is invited to comment on the Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan before
adoption by City Council. Per the guidance outlined in Consolidated Plan announcements of a Substantial
Amendment may be communicated by the following way(s):
1. Public Notice to HAND’s comprehensive email/mailing list; or
2. Press Release, released through the Mayor’s Office; or
3. Details will be posted on Housing and Neighborhood Development’s website; or
4. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other
applicable forms of electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticing.
In all areas, the City will look to include the use of electronic communication, meetings, training,
noticing, outreach, etc. where appropriate provided it is clearly communicated for participation by the
general public.
Electronic draft documents of Substantial Amendments will be made available for public review and
comment. Where allowable, the City will follow t he required noticing of fourteen (14) calendar days.
An electronic version of the Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan will be posted on the
City’s official web site during the same period. Due to the current COVID Emergency Declaration for
Salt Lake City issued by Mayor Mendenhall on March 10, 2020 and since extended to -date, Salt Lake
City facilities may be closed and documents will need to be reviewed electronically and in accordance
with City policy.
All comments made by the public will be reviewed and analyzed by Salt Lake City Council staff and
Housing and Neighborhood Development staff. Comments may be incorporated into the final Substantial
Amendments document. A summary of these comments or views, and a summary of any comments or
views not accepted and the reasons therefore, shall be attached to the Substantial Amendments.
A copy of the Substantial Amendments will be available at www.slc.gov/HAND.
Comments will be accepted from September 10 through September 23, 2020.
Prior to making decisions on the Substantial Amendments the Salt Lake City Council will consider and
review all public comments.
Written comments may be submitted to the Council at Comments.Council@slcgov.com, or to the
Housing and Neighborhood Development contact at Tony.Milner@slcgov.com. Additionally, messages
may be left on the Council comment telephone number; 801 -535-7654.
COORDINATION WITH COMMUNITY PARTNERS
Salt Lake City has worked closely with Salt Lake County, the State of Utah and other community partners
to ensure funds are strategically targeted to reach our most vulnerable residents who are impacted by
coronavirus and programs are not duplicative. Community Partners include:
Other regional CARES HUD-CV grantees
Salt Lake City CARES HUD-CV Internal Working Group
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT, CON PLAN 20-24 & AAP 20 -21
6
Salt Lake City’s Resident Advisory Group, the Community Development and Capital
Improvement Program Board
HUD Regional Office
HUD Technical Assistance Representative
National homeless and affordable housing consultants and advocacy groups
HUD requires CV grantees to prevent the duplication of benefits, which means grant funds may not be
used to pay costs if another source of financial assistance is available to pay that cost. HAND will work
with selected community partners and track other funding and community benefits in order to prevent
duplication of services.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Lani Eggertsen-Goff, Director
Housing and Neighborhood Development
Salt Lake City Corporation
Lani.Eggertsen-Goff@slcgov.com
801-535-6240
Tony Milner, Policy and Program Manager
Housing and Neighborhood Development
Salt Lake City Corporation
Tony.Milner@slcgov.com
(801) 535-6168
TO VIEW THE: 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN, 2020 -2024 CITIZEN PARTCIPATION
PLAN, and 2020-2021 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN, please click on the following link, or visit
HAND’s main website page at www.slc.gov/HAND/.
APPENDICES :
Substantial Amendments to SP-35 Anticipated Resources and AP-15 Expected Resources
Exhibit 4
Substantial Amendment to SP-35 Anticipated Resources and
AP-15 Expected Resources
1 | P a g e
EXHIBIT 4.
SP-35, ANTICIPATED RESOURCES
HUD CFR 24, 91.215(A)(4), 91.220(C)(1,2)
Uses of Funding
Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected
Amount
Available –
Remainder of
Con Plan
Description Annual
Allocation
Program
Income
Prior Year
Resources Total CDBG Acquisition
$3,509,164 $0 $35,000 $3,544,164 $13,600,000
Prior year
resources are
unspent funds
from previous
years.
Administration
Economic
Development
Homebuyer
Assistance
Homeowner
Rehabilitation
Multifamily Rental
Construction
Multifamily
Public
Improvements
Public Services
Rental
Rehabilitation
New Construction
for Ownership
TBRA
Historic Rental
Rehabilitation
New Construction HOME Acquisition
$957,501 $300,000 $0 $1,257,501 $4,600,000
Program income
is typically
generated from
housing loan
repayments
from nonprofit
agencies.
Administration
Homebuyer
Assistance
Homeowner
Rehabilitation
Multifamily Rental
Construction
Multifamily
2 | P a g e
Uses of Funding
Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected
Amount
Available –
Remainder of
Con Plan
Description Annual
Allocation
Program
Income
Prior Year
Resources Total
Rental
Rehabilitation
New Construction
for Ownership
TBRA ESG Administration
$301,734 $0 $2,500 $304,234 $1,160,000
Prior year
resources are
unspent funds
from previous
years.
Financial Assistance
Overnight Shelter
Rapid Re-Housing
(Rental Assistance)
Rental Assistance
Services
Transitional
Housing HOPWA Administration
$600,876 $0 $15,000 $615,876 $1,720,000
Prior year
resources are
unspent funds
from previous
years.
Permanent Housing
in Facilities
Permanent Housing
Placement
STRMU
Short-Term or
Transitional
Housing Facilities
Supportive Services
TBRA OTHER: HOUSING – TRUST FUND Acquisitions
$0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $3,000,000
The Trust Fund
has a budget of
$2m and expects
to receive a total
of
approximately
$3m in revenue
over the next
plan period.
Administration
Conversion and
Rehab for
Transitional
Housing
Homebuyer
Rehabilitation
Housing
Multifamily Rental
New Construction
Multifamily Rental
Rehab
New Construction
for Ownership
Permanent Housing
in Facilities
Rapid Re-Housing
Rental Assistance
TBRA
3 | P a g e
Uses of Funding
Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected
Amount
Available –
Remainder of
Con Plan
Description Annual
Allocation
Program
Income
Prior Year
Resources Total
Transitional
Housing OTHER PROGRAM INCOME All CDBG Eligible
Activities per
Housing Program
Rules $0 $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $6,000,000
Salt Lake City
Housing
Programs –
Program Income
All HOME Eligible
Activities per
Housing Program
Rules OTHER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND Economic
Development $0 $0 $0 $0 $4.000,000
The fund
currently has a
balance of
approximately
$4m. OTHER FUNDS – CARES HUD-CV HUD and CARES
Act Eligible
Activities
CDBG-CV1
$2,064,298
CDBG-CV3
$999,551
ESG-CV1
$1,040,462
ESG-CV2
$2,946,449
HOPWA-CV1
$87,443
$0 $0 $7,138,203 $7,138,203
CARES HUD-
CV allocations
to respond to
and recovery
from COVID-
19.
4 | P a g e
AP -15, EXPECTED RESOURCES
HUD CFR 24, 91.220(C)(1,2)
Uses of Funding
Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected
Amount
Available –
Remainder of
Con Plan
Description Annual
Allocation
Program
Income
Prior Year
Resources Total CDBG Acquisition
$3,509,164 $0 $35,000 $3,544,164 $13,600,000
Prior year
resources are
unspent funds
from previous
years.
Administration
Economic
Development
Homebuyer
Assistance
Homeowner
Rehabilitation
Multifamily Rental
Construction
Multifamily
Public
Improvements
Public Services
Rental
Rehabilitation
New Construction
for Ownership
TBRA
Historic Rental
Rehabilitation
New Construction HOME Acquisition
$957,501 $300,000 $0 $1,257,501 $4,600,000
Program income
is typically
generated from
housing loan
repayments
from nonprofit
agencies.
Administration
Homebuyer
Assistance
Homeowner
Rehabilitation
Multifamily Rental
Construction
Multifamily
Rental
Rehabilitation
5 | P a g e
Uses of Funding
Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected
Amount
Available –
Remainder of
Con Plan
Description Annual
Allocation
Program
Income
Prior Year
Resources Total
New Construction
for Ownership
TBRA ESG Administration
$301,734 $0 $2,500 $304,234 $1,160,000
Prior year
resources are
unspent funds
from previous
years.
Financial Assistance
Overnight Shelter
Rapid Re-Housing
(Rental Assistance)
Rental Assistance
Services
Transitional
Housing HOPWA Administration
$600,876 $0 $15,000 $615,876 $1,720,000
Prior year
resources are
unspent funds
from previous
years.
Permanent Housing
in Facilities
Permanent Housing
Placement
STRMU
Short-Term or
Transitional
Housing Facilities
Supportive Services
TBRA OTHER: HOUSING – TRUST FUND Acquisitions
$0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $3,000,000
The Trust Fund
has a budget of
$2m and expects
to receive a total
of
approximately
$3m in revenue
over the next
plan period.
Administration
Conversion and
Rehab for
Transitional
Housing
Homebuyer
Rehabilitation
Housing
Multifamily Rental
New Construction
Multifamily Rental
Rehab
New Construction
for Ownership
Permanent Housing
in Facilities
Rapid Re-Housing
Rental Assistance
TBRA
Transitional
Housing
6 | P a g e
Uses of Funding
Expected Amount Available – Year 1 Expected
Amount
Available –
Remainder of
Con Plan
Description Annual
Allocation
Program
Income
Prior Year
Resources Total OTHER PROGRAM INCOME All CDBG Eligible
Activities per
Housing Program
Rules $0 $1,500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $6,000,000
Salt Lake City
Housing
Programs –
Program Income
All HOME Eligible
Activities per
Housing Program
Rules OTHER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND Economic
Development $0 $0 $0 $0 $4.000,000
The fund
currently has a
balance of
approximately
$4m. OTHER FUNDS – CARES HUD-CV HUD and CARES
Act Eligible
Activities
CDBG-CV1
$2,064,298
CDBG-CV3
$999,551
ESG-CV1
$1,040,462
ESG-CV2
$2,946,449
HOPWA-CV1
$87,443
$0 $0 $7,138,203 $7,138,203
CARES HUD-
CV allocations
to respond to
and recovery
from COVID-
19.
Exhibit 5
Salt Lake City CARES HUD-CV Funding Recommendations
Summary of Funding
$3,063,849
Project / Program Description Intent Needs/Gaps Addressing HUD Matrix HUD Nat'l Obj.Entity % of Recommendation
Housing Stability Housing Stability: Up to 3 months of mortgage payments (80% AMI).
Housing stability resources for vulnerable
residents who have been directly impacted by
COVID-19.
50% of Salt Lake City residents are in
employment sectors that are prone to layoffs
and furloughs from COVID-19. Additionally,
many Salt Lake City residents are cost burdened
or severely cost burdened with housing
expenses. A small fraction of loans are covered
by the CARES Act forbearance protections and
many residents are at risk of slipping into
foreclosure. This program will stabilize
vulnerable homeowners and ensure they stay
in their homes.
Subsistence
Payments 0GR LMC TBD *10%$300,000
Public Service Agency NPO programs to prepare for and prevent the spread of COVID-19.
NPO's can apply for funding to address
organization specific needs as it pertains to
COVID-1 such as PPE, staff capacity, direct
client services, etc.
Address organization specific needs and gaps to
address COVID-19.
Health Services
05M, Other
Public Services
05Z
LMJP TBD *11%$350,000
Community Stabilization Programs that provide basic needs for the community to respond to
COVID-19 such as digital access, food security, or targeted services.
Address basic life needs to stabilize and assist
residents and youth.
Without having basic needs met like food,
childcare, and technology individuals and
families will continue to struggle to sustain
during COVID-19.
Food 05W, Child
Care 0GL, Tech
(Child Care)
0GL, Health
Services 05M
LMC TBD *16%$500,000
Economic Development - Small Businesses Grants Grant program that provides funding assistance to targeted businesses to
be used for payroll, job retention/creation, PPE, etc.
This program would strategically target small,
minority, or WBE businesses and offer a one-
time grant and technical assistance.
The program will relieve the financial burden
on small businesses. The technical assistance
component will assist in addressing technology
and/or language barriers so future business
needs can be met.
Econ Dev
Microenterprise
Assistance 18C
LMCMC TBD *16%$501,438
On September 11, 2020, SLC was notified of a third
round of CARES HUD CDBG-CV in the amount of
$999,511. These additional funds did not go through
the City's previous Internal Working Group
recommendation process. 20% of this allocation will
be set aside for Administration, with the remaining
amount to be determined for a CDBG-CV eligible
project / program.
TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD *$799,641
Administration Salt Lake City Grant Administration (20%).Funding support for Salt Lake City staff that
administer HUD grants.
Salary and overhead expenses for HAND,
Finance, and City Attorney's Office. 21A SLC Corp 20%$612,770
$3,063,849
$3,986,911
Project / Program Description Intent Needs/Gaps Addressing HUD 24 CFR HUD Nat'l Obj.Entity % of Recommendation
Homeless Prevention Housing stability: Up to 6 months rent (50% AMI).
Housing stability and homeless prevention
resources for vulnerable residents who have
been directly impacted by COVID-19 including
rental assistance, landlord/tenant mediation,
shelter diversion, and arrears.
CARES Act safety nets expire in July and
forecasters anticipate a cliff that will impact
tenant stability and will likely include an
increase in evictions.
576.103 LMC TBD *43%$1,700,000
Rapid Rehousing Housing Stability: Deposit, rent, and utilities (30% AMI).
Provide permanent supportive housing for
individuals experiencing homelessness. These
program funds will leverage FEMA investment
in non-congregate hotel shelter operations.
Currently there are over 120 high risk and
vulnerable individuals that are housed in hotels
that will be placed in permanent housing with
wrap around stability services.
576.104 LMC TBD *17%$688,220
Street Outreach Operation expenses related to the prevention and spread of COVID-19.
People experiencing unsheltered homelessness
(those sleeping outside or in places not meant
for human habitation) may be at risk for
infection when there is community spread of
COVID-19.
Lack of housing contributes to poor physical
and mental health outcomes, and linkages to
permanent housing for people experiencing
homelessness should continue to be a priority
576.101 LMC TBD *13%$500,000
Emergency Quarantine Shelter Operation expenses related to the prevention and spread of COVID-19.
Operation expenses for non-congregate
shelter/motel placement, increasing shelter
capacity with motel placement, support of
operating costs for PPE for congregate shelter
operators and resident treatment programs.
HRC's have seen a considerable increase in
expenses to combat the spread of COVID-19 in
a congregate shelter setting. Additionally, staff
have a high risk of exposure and facility
configurations are needed to protect staff.
576.102 LMC TBD *18%$700,000
Administration Salt Lake City Grant Administration (10%).Funding support for Salt Lake City staff that
administer HUD grants.
Salary and overhead expenses for HAND,
Finance, and City Attorney's Office. 576.108 SLC Corp 10%$398,691
100%$3,986,911
$87,443
Project / Program Description Intent Needs/Gaps Addressing HUD CFR 24 HUD Nat'l Obj.Entity % of Recommendation
Housing Stability Permanent Housing Placement (PHP) and Short-term Rent, Mortgage and
Utility Assistance (STRMU).
Costs for short-term rent, mortgage or
hotel/motel stays to provide quarantine space
for eligible households who may have been
exposed to infectious diseases such as COVID-
19.
Stabilize in adequate housing HOPWA eligible
households with compromised immune
systems to minimize exposure to COVID-19.
574.300 LMC TBD *94%$82,196
Administration Salt Lake City Grant Administration (6%).Funding support for Salt Lake City staff that
administer HUD grants.
Salary and overhead expenses for HAND,
Finance, and City Attorney's Office. 574.300 SLC Corp 6%$5,247
100%$87,443
Total $7,138,203
Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) staff will administer the CARES HUD-CV funds. HAND staff will communicate with the Administration and City Council about the CARES HUD-CV allocation process, which is anticipated to mirror the regular, annual HUD allocation process. This includes a competitive application
process, review and recommendation by the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program resident advisory board, the Mayor’s recommendations, and the Council’s recommendations.
SALT LAKE CITY CARES HUD-COVID FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (as of September 11, 2020)
CARES Act Funds Used to Support Coronavirus Response and Recovery Eligible Activities
CDBG-CV HAND Funding Recommendations, $2,064,298 (Round 1), $999.551 (Round 3)
ESG-CV HAND Funding Recommendations, $1,040,462 (Round 1), $2,946,449 (Round 2)
HOWPA-CV HAND Funding Recommendations, $87,443
Exhibit 6
Availability of Waives of CPD Grant Program and Consolidated
Plan Requirements to Prevent the Spread of CVID-19 and
Mitigate Economic Impacts Caused by COVID-19
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WASHINGTON, DC 20410-7000
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT
www.hud.gov espanol.hud.gov
MEMORADUM FOR: All Community Planning and Development Field Office Directors,
Deputy Directors and Program Managers
FROM: John Gibbs, Assistant Secretary, Acting, D
SUBJECT: Availability of Waivers of Community Planning and Development
(CPD) Grant Program and Consolidated Plan Requirements to
Prevent the Spread of COVID-19 and Mitigate Economic Impacts
Caused by COVID-19
PURPOSE
This memorandum explains the availability of waivers of certain regulatory requirements
associated with several CPD grant programs to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and to facilitate
assistance to eligible communities and households economically impacted by COVID-19. This
memorandum covers waivers of consolidated plan requirements for all CPD formula programs and
program-specific waivers for the following CPD programs:
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA);
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG); and
Continuum of Care (CoC).
This memorandum also announces a simplified notification process for recipients of these
programs to use this waiver flexibility to expedite the delivery of assistance. CPD Field Office
Directors, Deputy Directors, and Program Managers are instructed to inform CPD recipients
operating within their jurisdictions of the content of this memorandum.
NOTIFICATION PROCESS
Recipients may use the waivers described in this memorandum to assist affected CPD
program beneficiaries and CPD program eligible households to prevent the spread of COVID-19
and to mitigate against the economic impact caused by COVID-19 for eligible households. To use
the waiver flexibility provided in this memorandum, the recipient must provide notification in
writing, either through mail or e-mail, to the CPD Director of the HUD Field Office serving its
jurisdiction no less than two days before the recipient anticipates using the waiver flexibility.
Further directions on notifying HUD can be found in Attachment #1.
WAIVER AUTHORITY
In December 2019, a new coronavirus known as SARS-CoV-2 was first detected in Wuhan,
Hubei Province, People’s Republic of China, causing outbreaks of the coronavirus disease COVID-
2
19 that has now spread globally. The first case was reported in the United States in January 2020.
In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus outbreak a pandemic and
President Trump declared the outbreak a national emergency. During this time, the majority of
states have declared states of emergency with most shutting down large gathering places and
limiting the movement of their residents. As a consequence, many CPD recipients are facing
challenges in ensuring appropriate shelter options are available for program participants who need
to be separated from others because they are exhibiting symptoms, training staff on how to safely
work with program participants and prevent spreading the virus, obtaining supplies to prevent the
spread of the virus, and maintaining necessary staffing levels during the outbreak. Further, many
program participants are suffering economic consequences from the mass shutdown of businesses
and lack of availability of traditional mainstream benefits. A number of recipients have inquired
about the availability of waivers of various CPD program requirements to facilitate assistance to
program participants and prevent the spread of the virus.
In accordance with 24 CFR 5.110, HUD may, upon a determination of good cause and
subject to statutory limitations, waive regulatory provisions. Additional regulatory waiver authority
is provided in 24 CFR 91.600. These regulatory provisions provide HUD the authority to make
waiver determinations for the ESG, CoC, and HOPWA Programs and consolidated planning
requirements for all CPD formula programs.
WAIVER AVAILABILITY
To provide additional flexibility to communities to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and
better assist individuals and families, including those experiencing homelessness infected with the
virus or economically impacted by the virus, I hereby find good cause to provide the regulatory
waivers below. To use each waiver, each recipient must follow the notification process described
above and update its program records to include written documentation of the specific conditions
that justify the recipient’s use of the waiver, consistent with the justifications and applicability
provisions below. Provisions that are not specifically waived remain in full effect.
CONTINUUM OF CARE PROGRAM
1. Fair Market Rent for Individual Units and Leasing Costs
Requirement: Rent payments for individual units with leasing dollars may not exceed Fair
Market Rent (FMR).
Citation: 24 CFR 578.49(b)(2)
Explanation: The CoC Program regulation at 24 CFR 578.49(b)(2) prohibits a recipient
from using grant funds for leasing to pay above FMR when leasing
individual units, even if the rent is reasonable when compared to other
similar, unassisted units.
Justification: Waiving the limit on using grant leasing funds to pay above FMR for
individual units above FMR, but not greater than the reasonable rent will
3
assist recipients in locating additional units to house individuals and families
experiencing homelessness and reduce the spread and harm of COVID-19.
Applicability: The FMR restriction is waived for any lease executed by a recipient or
subrecipient to provide transitional or permanent supportive housing during
the 6-month period beginning on the date of this memorandum. The affected
recipient or subrecipient must still ensure that rent paid for individual units
that are leased with CoC Program leasing dollars meet the rent
reasonableness standard in 24 CFR 578.49(b)(2).
2. Disability Documentation for Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH)
Requirement: A recipient providing PSH must serve individual and families where one
member of the household has a qualifying disability (for dedicated projects
and DedicatedPlus projects that individual must be the head of household).
Further, the recipient must document a qualifying disability of one of the
household members. When documentation of disability is the intake
worker’s observation, the regulation requires the recipient to obtain
additional confirming evidence within 45 days.
Citation: 24 CFR 578.103(a) and 24 CFR 578.103(a)(4)(i)(B)
Explanation: 24 CFR 578.103(a) requires recipients to maintain records providing
evidence they met program requirements and 24 CFR 578.103(a)(4)(i)(B)
establishes the requirements for documenting disability for individuals and
families that meet the “chronically homeless” definition in 24 CFR 578.3.
Acceptable evidence of disability includes intake-staff recorded observations
of disability that, no later than 45 days from the application for assistance, is
confirmed and accompanied by evidence in paragraphs
24 CFR 578.103(a)(4)(i)(B)(1), (2), (3), or (5). HUD is waiving the
requirement to obtain additional evidence.
Justification: Waiving 24 CFR 578.103(a)(4)(i)(B)(4) as specified below will allow
recipients to house people by relying on intake staff-recorded observation of
disability while providing recipients’ intake staff with additional time to
confirm the disability. This will help households with observed disabilities
to be housed quickly and obtain the necessary documentation once
healthcare workers are no longer inundated by COVID-19 responses.
Applicability: The requirement that intake staff-recorded observation of disability be
confirmed and accompanied by other evidence no later than 45 days from the
application for assistance documentation requirement is waived for any
program participants admitted into PSH funded by the CoC Program for the
6-month period beginning on the date of this memorandum.
Note: For the purposes of individuals and families housed in PSH from the date of
4
this memorandum until public health officials determine no additional
special measures are necessary to prevent the spread of COVID-19, a written
certification by the individual seeking assistance that they have a qualifying
disability is considered acceptable documentation approved by HUD under
24 CFR 578.103(a)(4)(i)(B)(5).
3. Limit on Eligible Housing Search and Counseling Services
Requirement: With respect to program participant’s debts, 24 CFR 578.53(ed)(8)(ii)(B)
only allows the costs of credit counseling, accessing a free personal credit
report, and resolving personal credit issues. 24 CFR 578.53(d) limits the use
of CoC Program funds for providing services to only those costs listed in the
interim rule.
Citation: 24 CFR 578.53(e)(8)(ii)(B) and 578.53(d)
Explanation: 24 CFR 578.53(e)(8) allows recipients and subrecipients to use CoC funds to
pay for housing search and counseling services to help eligible program
participants locate, obtain, and retain suitable housing. For program
participants whose debt problems make it difficult to obtain housing,
24 CFR 578.53(e)(8)(ii)(B) makes eligible the costs of credit counseling,
accessing a free personal credit report, and resolving personal credit issues.
However, payment of rental or utility arrears is not included as an eligible
cost. 24 CFR 578.53(d) limits eligible supportive service costs to those
explicitly listed in 24 CFR 578.53(e), which is a more limited list than is
eligible under the McKinney-Vento Act.
Justification: Waiving the limitation of housing search and counseling eligible activities to
allow recipients and subrecipients to pay for up to 6 months of rental arrears
and 6 months of utility arrears will help recipients and subrecipients remove
barriers to obtaining housing quickly and help reduce the spread and harm of
COVID-19.
Applicability: The limitation on eligible housing search and counseling activities is waived
so that CoC Program funds may be used for up to 6 months of a program
participant’s utility arrears and up to 6 months of program participant’s rent
arrears, when those arrears make it difficult to obtain housing. This waiver
is in effect one-year beginning on the date of this memorandum.
4. Permanent Housing-Rapid Re-housing Monthly Case Management
Requirement: Recipients must require program participants of permanent housing – rapid
re-housing projects to meet with a case manager at least monthly.
Citation: 24 CFR 578.37(a)(1)(ii)(F)
5
Explanation: The CoC Program interim rule at 24 CFR 578.37(a)(1)(ii)(F) requires
program participants to meet with a case manager not less than once per
month to assist them in ensuring long-term housing stability. The project is
exempt from this requirement already if the Violence Against Women Act of
1994 (42 U.S.C. 13925 et seq.) or the Family Violence Prevention and
Services Act (42 U.S.C. 10401 et seq.) prohibits the recipient carrying out
the project from making its housing conditional on the participant's
acceptance of services.
Justification: Recipients are reporting limited staff capacity as staff members are home for
a variety of reasons related to COVID-19 (e.g., quarantining, children home
from school, working elsewhere in the community to manage the COVID-19
response). In addition, not all program participants have capacity to meet via
phone or internet. Waiving the monthly case management requirement as
specified below will allow recipients to provide case management on an as-
needed basis and reduce the possible spread and harm of COVID-19.
Applicability: This requirement in 24 CFR 578.37(a)(1)(ii)(F) that projects require program
participants to meet with case mangers not less than once per month is
waived for all permanent housing- rapid re-housing projects for two months
beginning on the date of this memorandum.
5. Housing Quality Standards (HQS) – Initial Physical Inspection of Unit
Requirement: Recipients are required to physically inspect any unit supported with leasing
or rental assistance funds to assure that the unit meets housing quality
standards (HQS) before any assistance will be provided on behalf of a
program participant.
Citation: 24 CFR 578.75(b)(1)
Explanation: 24 CFR 578.75(b)(1) requires that recipients or subrecipients physically
inspect each unit to assure that it meets HQS before any assistance will be
provided for that unit on behalf of a program participant.
Justification: Waiving the physical initial inspection requirement 24 CFR 578.75(b)(1) as
specified below will allow recipients to help prevent the spread of COVID-
19.
Applicability: This waiver of the requirement in 24 CFR 578.75(b)(1) that the recipient or
subrecipient physically inspect each unit to assure that the unit meets HQS
before providing assistance on behalf of a program participant is in effect for
6-months beginning on the date of this memorandum for recipients and
subrecipients that are able to meet the following criteria:
6
a. The recipient is able to visually inspect the unit using technology,
such as video streaming, to ensure the unit meets HQS before any
assistance is provided; and
b. The recipient or subrecipient has written policies to physically re-
inspect the unit within 3 months after the health officials determine
special measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 are no longer
necessary.
6. HQS – Re-Inspection of Units
Requirement: Recipients or subrecipients must inspect all units for which leasing or rental
assistance funds are used, at least annually to ensure they continue to meet
HQS.
Citation: 24 CFR 578.75(b)(2)
Explanation: 24 CFR 578.75(b)(2) requires that recipients or subrecipients are required to
inspect all units supported by leasing or rental assistance funding under the
CoC Program at least annually during the grant period to ensure the units
continue to meet HQS.
Justification: Waiving the annual re-inspection 24 CFR 578.75(b)(2) requirement during
this public health crisis as specified below will help allow recipients to
prevent the spread of COVID-19.
.
Applicability: This requirement in 24 CFR 578(b)(2) is waived for 1-year beginning on the
date of this memorandum.
7. One-Year Lease Requirement
Requirement: Program participants residing in PSH must be the tenant on a lease for a
term of at least one year that is renewable and terminable for cause.
Citation: 24 CFR 578.3, definition of permanent housing, 24 CFR 578.51(l)(1)
Explanation: The CoC Program regulation at 24 CFR 578.3, definition of permanent
housing, and 24 CFR 578.51(l)(1) requires program participants residing in
permanent housing to be the tenant on a lease for a term of one year that is
renewable and terminable for cause.
Justification: Waiving the one-year lease requirement as specified below will allow
recipients to more quickly identify permanent housing for individuals
and families experiencing homelessness, which is helpful in preventing the
spread of COVID-19.
Applicability: The one-year lease requirement is waived for six-months beginning on the
7
date of this memorandum, so long as the initial lease term of all leases is for
more than one month.
CONSOLIDATED PLAN REQUIREMENTS
8. Citizen Participation Public Comment Period for Consolidated Plan Amendment
Requirement: 30-day Public Comment Period.
Citations: 24 CFR 91.105(c)(2) and (k), 24 CFR 91.115(c)(2) and (i) and 24 CFR
91.401
Explanation: A CPD grantee may amend an approved consolidated plan in accordance
with 24 CFR 91.505. Substantial amendments to the consolidated plan are
subject to the citizen participation process in the grantee’s citizen
participation plan. The citizen participation plan must provide citizens with
30 days to comment on substantial amendments.
Justification: Given the need to expedite actions to respond to COVID-19, HUD waives
24 CFR 91.105(c)(2) and (k), 91.115(c)(2) and (i) as specified below, in
order to balance the need to respond quickly to the growing spread and
effects of COVID-19 with the statutory requirement to provide reasonable
notice and opportunity for citizens to comment on substantial amendments
concerning the proposed uses of CDBG, HOME, HTF, HOPWA or ESG
funds.
Applicability: This 30-day minimum for the required public comment period is waived for
substantial amendments, provided that no less than 5 days are provided for
public comments on each substantial amendment. The waiver is available
through the end of the recipient’s 2020 program year. Any recipient wishing
to undertake further amendments to prior year plans following the 2020
program year can do so during the development of its FY 2021 Annual
Action Plan.
9. Citizen Participation Reasonable Notice and Opportunity to Comment
Requirement: Reasonable Notice and Opportunity to Comment.
Citations: 24 CFR 91.105(c)(2) and (k), 24 CFR 91.115(c)(2) and (i) and 24 CFR
91.401
Explanation: As noted above, the regulations at 24 CFR 91.105 (for local governments)
and 91.115 (for States) set forth the citizen participation plan requirements
for recipients. For substantial amendments to the consolidated plan, the
regulations require the recipient to follow its citizen participation plan to
8
provide citizens with reasonable notice and opportunity to comment. The
citizen participation plan must state how reasonable notice and opportunity
to comment will be given.
Justification: HUD recognizes the efforts to contain COVID-19 require limiting public
gatherings, such as those often used to obtain citizen participation, and that
there is a need to respond quickly to the growing spread and effects of
COVID-19. Therefore, HUD waives 24 CFR 91.105(c)(2) and (k), 24 CFR
91.115(c)(2) and (i) and 24 CFR 91.401 as specified below to allow these
grantees to determine what constitutes reasonable notice and opportunity to
comment given their circumstances.
Applicability: This authority is in effect through the end of the 2020 program year.
EMERGENCY SOLUTIONS GRANTS PROGRAM
10. HMIS Lead Activities
Requirement: ESG funds may be used to pay the costs of managing and operating the
HMIS, provided that the ESG recipient is the HMIS Lead.
Citation: 24 CFR 576.107(a)(2)
Explanation: To enable ESG-funded projects to participate in HMIS as required by section
416(f) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act,
24 CFR 576.107(a)(2) authorizes the use of ESG funds for managing and
operating the HMIS (e.g., hosting and maintaining HMIS software or data,
upgrading, customizing, and enhancing the HMIS), only where the ESG
recipient is the HMIS Lead, as designated by the CoC.
Justification: Waiving the rule as specified below would allow more recipients to use ESG
funding to upgrade or enhance the HMIS as needed to incorporate ESG
program data related to COVID-19.
Applicability: The condition that the recipient must be the HMIS Lead to pay costs under
24 CFR 576.102(a)(2) is waived to the extent necessary to allow any
recipient to use ESG funds to pay costs of upgrading or enhancing its local
HMIS to incorporate data on ESG Program participants and ESG activities
related to COVID-19. This waiver is in effect for 6-months beginning on the
date of this memorandum.
11. Re-evaluations for Homelessness Prevention Assistance
Requirement: Homelessness prevention assistance is subject to re-evaluation of each
program participant’s eligibility need for assistance not less than once every
3 months.
9
Citation: 24 CFR 576.401(b)
Explanation: The ESG regulations at 24 CFR 576.401(b) requires recipients or
subrecipients providing homelessness prevention assistance to re-evaluate
the program participant’s eligibility, and the types and amounts of assistance
the program participant needs not less than once every 3 months.
Justification: Waiving re-evaluation requirement for homelessness prevention assistance
as specified below is necessary to help program participants remain stable in
housing during the economic uncertainty caused by COVID-19.
Applicability: The required frequency of re-evaluations for homelessness prevention
assistance under section 576.401(b) is waived for up to 2-years beginning
on the date of this memorandum, so long as the recipient or subrecipient
conducts the required re-evaluations not less than once every 6 months.
12. Housing Stability Case Management
Requirement: Program participants receiving homelessness prevention or rapid re-housing
assistance must meet with a case manager not less than once per month,
unless certain statutory prohibitions apply.
Citation: 24 CFR 576.401(e)
Explanation: Under 24 CFR 576.401(e), the recipients or subrecipients must require
program participants to meet with a case manager not less than once per
month to assist them in ensuring long-term housing stability, unless the
Violence Against Women Act of 1994 or Family Violence Prevention and
Services Act prohibits the recipient or subrecipient from making its shelter or
housing conditional on the participant's acceptance of services.
Justification: Recipients are reporting limited staff capacity as staff members are home for
a variety of reasons related to COVID-19 (e.g., quarantining, children home
from school, working elsewhere in the community to manage the COVID-19
response). In addition, not all program participants have capacity to meet via
phone or internet. Waiving the monthly case management requirement as
specified below will allow recipients to provide case management on an as
needed basis and reduce the possible spread and harm of COVID-19.
Applicability: This waiver is in effect for two months beginning on the date of this
memorandum.
13. Restriction of Rental Assistance to Units with Rent at or Below FMR
Requirement: Restriction of rental assistance to units with rent at or below FMR.
10
Citation: 24 CFR 576.106(d)(1)
Explanation: Under 24 CFR 576.106(d)(1), rental assistance cannot be provided unless the
total rent is equal to or less than the FMR established by HUD, as provided
under 24 CFR Part 888, and complies with HUD’s standard of rent
reasonableness, as established under 24 CFR 982.507.
Justification: Quickly moving people into permanent housing is especially critical in
preventing the spread of COVID-19. Waiving the limit on rental assistance
to rents that are equal to or less than the FMR, established by HUD, will
assist recipients and subrecipients in more quickly locating additional units
to house individuals and families experiencing homelessness.
Applicability: The FMR restriction is waived for any individual or family receiving Rapid
Re-housing or Homelessness Prevention assistance who executes a lease for
a unit during the 6-month period beginning on the date of this memorandum.
The ESG recipient or subrecipient must still ensure that the units in which
ESG assistance is provided to these individuals and families meet the rent
reasonableness standard.
HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS (HOPWA)
14. HOPWA – Self-Certification of Income and Credible Information on HIV Status
Requirement: Source Documentation for Income and HIV Status Determinations.
Citation: 24 CFR 574.530, Recordkeeping
Explanation: Each grantee must maintain records to document compliance with
HOPWA requirements, which includes determining the eligibility of a
family to receive HOPWA assistance.
Justification: This waiver will permit HOPWA grantees and project sponsors to rely
upon a family member’s self-certification of income and credible
information on their HIV status (such as knowledge of their HIV-related
medical care) in lieu of source documentation to determine eligibility for
HOPWA assistance of families and grantees affected by COVID-19.
Applicability: Eligibility is restricted to a low-income person who is living with
HIV/AIDS and the family of such person. This waiver is in effect for
recipients who require written certification of the household seeking
assistance of their HIV status and income, and agree to obtain source
documentation of HIV status and income eligibility within 3 months of
public health officials determining no additional special measures are
necessary to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
11
15. HOPWA – FMR Rent Standard
Requirement: Rent Standard for Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA).
Citation: 24 CFR 574.320(a)(2), Rent Standard
Explanation: Grantees must establish rent standards for their tenant-based rental
assistance programs based on FMR (Fair Market Rent) or the HUD-
approved community-wide exception rent for unit size. Generally, the
TBRA payment may not exceed the difference between the rent standard
and 30 percent of the family's adjusted income.
Justification: This waiver of the FMR rent standard limit permits HOPWA grantees to
establish rent standards, by unit size, that are reasonable, and based upon
rents being charged for comparable unassisted units in the area, taking
into account the location, size, type, quality, amenities, facilities,
management and maintenance of each unit. Grantees, however, are
required to ensure the reasonableness of rent charged for a unit in
accordance with §574.320(a)(3).
This waiver is required to expedite efforts to identify suitable housing
units for rent to HOPWA beneficiaries and HOPWA-eligible families
that have been affected by COVID-19, and to provide assistance to
families that must rent units at rates that exceed the HOPWA grantee's
normal rent standard as calculated in accordance with §574.320(a)(2).
Applicability: Such rent standards may be used for up to one year beginning on the date
of this memorandum.
16. HOPWA – Property Standards for TBRA
Requirement: Property Standards for Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA)
Citation: 24 CFR 574.310(b), Housing Quality Standards
Explanation: This section of the HOPWA regulations provides that units occupied by
recipients of HOPWA TBRA meet the Housing Quality Standards (HQS)
established in this section.
Justification: This waiver is required to enable grantees and project sponsors to
expeditiously meet the critical housing needs of the many eligible
families that have been affected by COVID-19 while also minimizing
the spread of the coronavirus.
Applicability: This waiver is in effect for one year beginning on the date of this
memorandum for recipients and project sponsors that are able to meet the
12
following criteria:
a. The recipient or project sponsor is able to visually inspect the unit
using technology, such as video streaming, to ensure the unit meets
HQS before any assistance is provided; and
b. The recipient or subrecipient has written policies to physically re-
inspect the unit after the health officials determine special
measures to prevent the spread of COVID-19 are no longer
necessary.
17. HOPWA Space and Security
Requirement: Adequate Space and Security.
Citation: 24 CFR 574.310(b)(2)(iii), Space and security
Explanation: This section of the HOPWA regulations provide that each resident must
be afforded adequate space and security for themselves and their
belongings.
Justification: This waiver is required to enable grantees and project sponsors operating
housing facilities and shared housing arrangements the flexibility to use
optional appropriate spaces for quarantine services of eligible households
affected by COVID-19. Optional spaces may include the placement of
families in a hotel/motel room where family members may be required to
utilize the same space not allowing for adequate space and security for
themselves and their belongings.
Applicability: This space and security requirement is waived for grantees addressing
appropriate quarantine space for affected eligible households during the
allotted quarantined time frame recommended by local health care
professionals.
13
Attachment #1 to Memorandum:
Procedure for Using Available Waivers of Program and Consolidated Plan Requirements to
Prevent the Spread of COVID-19 and Mitigate Economic Impacts Caused by COVID-19
This attachment provides further information on the process that grantees must follow to use the
waiver flexibility provided in the memorandum.
Grantees must mail or email notification to the Community Planning and Development Director of
the HUD Field Office serving the grantee.
The mail or email notification must be sent two days before the grantee anticipates using waiver
flexibility, and include the following details:
Requestor’s name, title, and contact information;
Declared-disaster area(s) where the waivers will be used;
Date on which the grantee anticipates first use of the waiver flexibility; and
A list of the waiver flexibilities the grantee will use:
1. CoC Program - Fair Market Rent for Individual Units and Leasing Costs
2. CoC Program - Disability Documentation for Permanent Supportive
Housing (PSH)
3. CoC Program – Limit on Eligible Housing Search and Counseling
Services
4. CoC Program - Permanent Housing-Rapid Re-housing Monthly Case
Management
5. CoC Program - Housing Quality Standards (HQS) – Initial Physical
Inspection of Unit
6. CoC Program - HQS – Re-Inspection of Units
7. CoC Program – One-Year Lease Requirement
8. Consolidated Planning Requirements – HOME, CDBG, HTF, ESG, and
HOPWA Programs – Citizen Participation Public Comment Period for
Consolidated Plan Amendment
9. Consolidated Planning Requirements – HOME, CDBG, HTF, ESG, and
HOPWA Programs – Citizen Participation Reasonable Notice and
Opportunity to Comment
10. ESG Program - HMIS Lead Activities
11. ESG Program - Re-evaluations for Homelessness Prevention Assistance
12. ESG Program - Housing Stability Case Management
13. ESG Program - Restriction of Rental Assistance to Units with Rent at or
Below FMR
14. HOPWA Program – Self-Certification of Income and Credible Information
on HIV Status
15. HOPWA Program – FMR Rent Standard
16. HOPWA Program – Property Standards for TBRA
17. HOPWA Program - Space and Security
Exhibit 7
Substantial Amendments, Public Notice Fliers
for Public Comment, English and Spanish
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor a nd NEIGHBORHOODS
HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD
DEVELOPMENT
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114 -5487 T EL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535 .6269
NOTICE of SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS
SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS TO ACCESS
CARES A CT HUD CORONAVIRUS FUNDS
Salt Lake City will make available for public comment s Substantial Amendments to the 2020 -
2024 Consolidated Plan, 2020 -2024 Citizen Participation Plan, and 2020 -2021 Annual Action
Plan for the utilization of CARES Act U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) coronavirus funds.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG-CV)
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG-CV)
Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS/HIV (HOPWA -CV)
Per the statutory requirements outlined in the CARES Act , Salt Lake City is requesting
Substantial Amendments to these plans for the purpose of utilizing HUD coronavirus funds for
activities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. Funds must serve low - to
moderate-income individuals or households, underserved communities or populations, and
align with HUD National Objectives.
A copy of the Substantial Amendments will be available at www.slc.gov/HAND.
Comments will be accepted from Septemeber 11, 2020 through September 24,
2020.
Prior to making decisions on t he Substantial Amendment s the Salt Lake City Council will
consider and review all public comments.
Written comments may be submitte d to the Council at Comments.Council@slcgov.com, or to
the Housing and Neighborhood Development contact at Tony.Milner@slcgov.com. Additionally,
messages may be left on the Council comment telephone number; 801 -535-7654.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM
PSalt Lake City Corporation is committed to ensuring we are accessible to all members of the
public. To request ADA accommodations contact Sarah Benj by email at
sarah.benj@slcgov.com or by phone at 801.535.7697.
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor a nd NEIGHBORHOODS
HOUSING and NEIGHBORHOOD
DEVELOPMENT
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114 -5487 T EL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535 .6269
NOTICE of SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENTS
ENMIENDAS SUSTANCIALES A LAS REGULACIONES SOBRE
EL ACCESO A LOS FONDOS DEL ACTA CARES PARA EL
CORONAVIRUS DE HUD
Salt Lake City pondrá a disposición del público, para que comenten sobre los
mismas, Enmiendas Sustanciales al Plan Consolidado 2020 -2024, al Plan de Participación
Ciudadana 2020 -2024 y al Plan de Acción Anual 2020 -2021 para la utilización de la Ley CARES
Coronavirus del Departamento de Vivienda y Desarrollo Urbano (HUD) fondos.
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG -CV)
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG-CV)
Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS/HIV (HOPWA -CV)
De acuerdo con los requisitos estatutarios descritos en la Ley CARES, Salt Lake City solicita
Enmiendas Sustanciales a estos planes con el fin de utilizar los fondos de coronavirus de HUD
para actividades de prevención, preparación y respuesta al coronavirus. Los fo ndos deben servir
a individuos o hogares de ingresos bajos a moderados, comunidades o poblaciones
desatendidas, y deben alinearse con los Objetivos Nacionales de HUD.
Una copia de las Enmiendas Sustanciales estará disponible en www.slc.gov/HAND.
Se aceptarán comentarios desde el 11 de Septiembre de 2020 hasta el 24 de
Septiembre de 2020.
Antes de tomar decisiones sobre las Enmiendas Sustanciales, el Concejo Municipal de Salt Lake
considerará y revisará todos los comentarios públicos.
Los comentarios escritos pueden enviarse al Consejo a Comments.Council@slcgov.com, o al
contacto de Vivienda y Desarrollo de Vecindarios en Tony.Milner@slcgov.com. Además, se
pueden dejar mensajes en el número de teléfono de comentarios del Consejo; 801 -535-7654.
PROGRAMA DE IGUALDAD DE OPORTUNIDADES
Salt Lake City Corporation se compromete a garantizar que todos los miembros del público tengan acceso
a ellos. Para solicitar adaptaciones según la ADA, comuníquese con Sarah Benj por correo electrónico a
sarah.benj@slcgov.com o por teléfono al 801.535.7697.
Exhibit 8
Summary of Public Comment
Summary of Public Comment:
A public comment period for the Substantial Amendments to 2020-24 Consolidated Plan and 2020-21
Annual Action Plan regarding the associated HUD-CV funding from the CARES Act began September
11, 2020 and ended September 24, 2020. No comments from the public were received by city staff.
Exhibit 9
HAND Public Process
PUBLIC PROCESS:
The 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan (Appendix C of the 2020-2014 Consolidated Plan)
specifies the policies and procedures that encourage participation by Salt Lake City residents in
the planning, implementation, and ongoing evaluation of the City’s Consolidated Plan as
required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Citizen
Participation Plan encourages participation from citizens in neighborhoods that receive
significant federal funding and from citizens living throughout the City.
The public is invited to comment on the Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan
before adoption by City Council. Per the guidance outlined in Consolidated Plan announcements
of a Substantial Amendment may be communicated by the following way(s):
1. Public Notice to HAND’s comprehensive email/mailing list; or
2. Press Release, released through the Mayor’s Office; or
3. Details will be posted on Housing and Neighborhood Development’s website; or
4. Additional outreach may include utilizing the Mayor’s social media platforms and other
applicable forms of electronic communication, meetings, training, and noticing.
In all areas, the City will look to include the use of electronic communication, meetings, training,
noticing, outreach, etc. where appropriate so long as it is clearly communicated for participation
by the general public.
Electronic draft documents of Substantial Amendments will be made available for public review
and comment. Where allowable, the City will follow the required noticing of fourteen (14)
calendar days.
An electronic version of the Substantial Amendments to the Consolidated Plan will be posted on
the City’s official web site during the same period. Due to the current COVID Emergency
Declaration for Salt Lake City issued by Mayor Mendenhall on March 10, 2020 and since
extended to-date, Salt Lake City facilities may be closed and documents will need to be reviewed
electronically and in accordance with City policy.
All comments made by the public will be reviewed and analyzed by Salt Lake City Council staff
and Housing and Neighborhood Development staff. Comments may be incorporated into the
final Substantial Amendments document. A summary of these comments or views, and a
summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons therefore, shall be attached to
the Substantial Amendments.
Exhibit 10
HAND Grant Management
GRANT ADMINISTRATION: Salt Lake City will solicit applications for CARES HUD-CV
in the form of a public noticed, competitive bid process. Eligible applicants will be local service
providers or agencies who provide activities and services that prevent, prepare for, and respond
to coronavirus. HAND will review applications to determine eligibility based on HUD
regulation, and evaluate the applications based on the goals and strategies in the City’s
Consolidated Plan for 2020-2024.
The Community Development and Capital Improvements Program (CD-CIP) Board will review
the applications and make funding recommendations to the Mayor and City Council for
consideration. The Mayor will review the funding requests and the CD-CIP’s recommendations.
The Mayor will then submit her recommendations to the City Council. The City Council will
review the funding requests and Mayor’s recommendations, hold a public hearing to accept
public comment on the requests, and allocate funding to Subgrantees.
HAND will execute written grant agreements with Subgrantees which will require compliance
with all federal requirements as well as City policies. The agreements define the Subgrantees’
performance measurements, billing procedures, required documentation, and reporting
procedures. The scope of service sections outlines the approved activities to be performed by the
Subgrantees and the budget sections outline the amount of funding allocated to each of the
activities for which they receive funding.
The City’s grant agreements also require the submission of quarterly and annual reports
documenting accomplishments. HAND reviews these reports to ensure the information it reports
to HUD in the CAPER and IDIS is complete, accurate, timely, and reflects comprehensive
performance data. HAND interacts with Subgrantees throughout the program year through
technical assistance, the coordination of activities, program management, financial management,
and technical assistance.
Subgrantees are trained in the regulations and requirements specific to CV funding. The City will
also require each Subgrantee to input client data into a statewide HMIS system for all ESG and
HOPWA programs. The City will continue to have dedicated staff to monitor Subgrantees for
compliance in accordance with the City’s current monitoring policies. Furthermore, Subgrantees
will be required to annually certify that they have written policies and procedures that govern the
HUD program and follow the documentation standards. All Subgrantees are subject to monitored
by the City to verify for compliance.
Exhibit 11
Resolution
1
R 20-1
T 20-1
RESOLUTION NO. 36 OF 2020
An appropriations resolution adopting the CARES Act 2020 Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) Coronavirus funding that includes Community Development Block Grant funding,
Emergency Solutions Grant funding, and Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS
funding, and approving the signing of an Interlocal Cooperation agreement between Salt Lake
City and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation (City) is eligible under Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Title 24, Part 91, et. al., to receive CARES Act 2020 Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) Coronavirus Community Development Block Grant (CDBG-CV) funds in
the amount of $3,063,849, Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG-CV) funds in the amount of
$3,986,911, and Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA-CV) funds in the
amount of $87,443 from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for
the program year; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the people of Salt Lake City that the City file an
application with HUD for said funds in accordance with 24 CFR Part 91; and
WHEREAS, in order to receive said funds, the City is required to substantial amend the
adopted 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan and 2020-2021
Annual Action Plan; and
WHEREAS, the public notices and other pre-submission requirements as set forth in 24
CFR Part 91 have been accomplished by the City, including but not limited to the following: A
public comment period was held on the substantial amendments August 21 through September 3,
2020; and
WHEREAS, the City Council does now meet on this day of October 20, 2020 to adopt
Substantial Amendments to the City’s 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan, 2020-2024 Citizen
Participation Plan and 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan for CDBG-CV, ESG-CV, and HOPWA-
CV funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as
follows:
1. That the City hereby adopts the substantial amendments to the 2020-2024
Consolidated Plan, 2020-2024 Citizen Participation Plan, and 2020-2021
Annual Action Plan for CDBG-CV, ESG-CV, and HOPWA-CV funds as set
forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference.
2. That the Mayor, as the official representative of Salt Lake City, or her designee,
is hereby authorized to submit the CARES Act HUD Coronavirus funds with
such additional information and certifications as may be required under 24 CFR
Part 91 to the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development.
2
3. That the Mayor, as the official representative of the City, or her designee, is
hereby authorized to sign and execute a grant agreement with HUD (the “HUD
Grant Agreement”) regarding the aforementioned federal grant funds, and any
and all subsequent agreements between the City and other public entities
resulting from and consistent with the HUD Grant Agreement, subject to final
approval as to form by the City Attorney.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 20th day of October, 2020.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Chris Wharton
Chris Wharton (Nov 9, 2020 18:04 MST) CHAIR
Approved as to form:
Kimberly K. Chytraus
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: 11/05/2020
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
Kimberly Chytraus (Nov 5, 2020 15:21 MST)
B
Cindy Trishman (Nov 9, 2020 21:15 MST)
3
EXHIBIT “A”
Funding Recommendations for CARES Act 2020 HUD Coronavirus funding. Exhibit “A”
attached hereto, shall include Funding Recommendations for the CDBG-CV Program, Funding
Recommendations for the ESG-CV Program, and Funding Recommendations for the HOPWA-
CV Program.
Summary of Funding
$3,063,849
Project / Program Description Intent Needs/Gaps Addressing HUD Matrix HUD Nat'l Obj.Entity % of Recommendation
Housing Stability Housing Stability: Up to 3 months of mortgage payments (80% AMI).
Housing stability resources for vulnerable
residents who have been directly impacted by
COVID-19.
50% of Salt Lake City residents are in
employment sectors that are prone to layoffs
and furloughs from COVID-19. Additionally,
many Salt Lake City residents are cost burdened
or severely cost burdened with housing
expenses. A small fraction of loans are covered
by the CARES Act forbearance protections and
many residents are at risk of slipping into
foreclosure. This program will stabilize
vulnerable homeowners and ensure they stay
in their homes.
Subsistence
Payments 0GR LMC TBD *10%$300,000
Public Service Agency NPO programs to prepare for and prevent the spread of COVID-19.
NPO's can apply for funding to address
organization specific needs as it pertains to
COVID-1 such as PPE, staff capacity, direct
client services, etc.
Address organization specific needs and gaps to
address COVID-19.
Health Services
05M, Other
Public Services
05Z
LMJP TBD *11%$350,000
Community Stabilization Programs that provide basic needs for the community to respond to
COVID-19 such as digital access, food security, or targeted services.
Address basic life needs to stabilize and assist
residents and youth.
Without having basic needs met like food,
childcare, and technology individuals and
families will continue to struggle to sustain
during COVID-19.
Food 05W, Child
Care 0GL, Tech
(Child Care)
0GL, Health
Services 05M
LMC TBD *16%$500,000
Economic Development - Small Businesses Grants Grant program that provides funding assistance to targeted businesses to
be used for payroll, job retention/creation, PPE, etc.
This program would strategically target small,
minority, or WBE businesses and offer a one-
time grant and technical assistance.
The program will relieve the financial burden
on small businesses. The technical assistance
component will assist in addressing technology
and/or language barriers so future business
needs can be met.
Econ Dev
Microenterprise
Assistance 18C
LMCMC TBD *16%$501,438
On September 11, 2020, SLC was notified of a third
round of CARES HUD CDBG-CV in the amount of
$999,511. These additional funds did not go through
the City's previous Internal Working Group
recommendation process. 20% of this allocation will
be set aside for Administration, with the remaining
amount to be determined for a CDBG-CV eligible
project / program.
TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD *$799,641
Administration Salt Lake City Grant Administration (20%).Funding support for Salt Lake City staff that
administer HUD grants.
Salary and overhead expenses for HAND,
Finance, and City Attorney's Office. 21A SLC Corp 20%$612,770
$3,063,849
$3,986,911
Project / Program Description Intent Needs/Gaps Addressing HUD 24 CFR HUD Nat'l Obj.Entity % of Recommendation
Homeless Prevention Housing stability: Up to 6 months rent (50% AMI).
Housing stability and homeless prevention
resources for vulnerable residents who have
been directly impacted by COVID-19 including
rental assistance, landlord/tenant mediation,
shelter diversion, and arrears.
CARES Act safety nets expire in July and
forecasters anticipate a cliff that will impact
tenant stability and will likely include an
increase in evictions.
576.103 LMC TBD *43%$1,700,000
Rapid Rehousing Housing Stability: Deposit, rent, and utilities (30% AMI).
Provide permanent supportive housing for
individuals experiencing homelessness. These
program funds will leverage FEMA investment
in non-congregate hotel shelter operations.
Currently there are over 120 high risk and
vulnerable individuals that are housed in hotels
that will be placed in permanent housing with
wrap around stability services.
576.104 LMC TBD *17%$688,220
Street Outreach Operation expenses related to the prevention and spread of COVID-19.
People experiencing unsheltered homelessness
(those sleeping outside or in places not meant
for human habitation) may be at risk for
infection when there is community spread of
COVID-19.
Lack of housing contributes to poor physical
and mental health outcomes, and linkages to
permanent housing for people experiencing
homelessness should continue to be a priority
576.101 LMC TBD *13%$500,000
Emergency Quarantine Shelter Operation expenses related to the prevention and spread of COVID-19.
Operation expenses for non-congregate
shelter/motel placement, increasing shelter
capacity with motel placement, support of
operating costs for PPE for congregate shelter
operators and resident treatment programs.
HRC's have seen a considerable increase in
expenses to combat the spread of COVID-19 in
a congregate shelter setting. Additionally, staff
have a high risk of exposure and facility
configurations are needed to protect staff.
576.102 LMC TBD *18%$700,000
Administration Salt Lake City Grant Administration (10%).Funding support for Salt Lake City staff that
administer HUD grants.
Salary and overhead expenses for HAND,
Finance, and City Attorney's Office. 576.108 SLC Corp 10%$398,691
100%$3,986,911
$87,443
Project / Program Description Intent Needs/Gaps Addressing HUD CFR 24 HUD Nat'l Obj.Entity % of Recommendation
Housing Stability Permanent Housing Placement (PHP) and Short-term Rent, Mortgage and
Utility Assistance (STRMU).
Costs for short-term rent, mortgage or
hotel/motel stays to provide quarantine space
for eligible households who may have been
exposed to infectious diseases such as COVID-
19.
Stabilize in adequate housing HOPWA eligible
households with compromised immune
systems to minimize exposure to COVID-19.
574.300 LMC TBD *94%$82,196
Administration Salt Lake City Grant Administration (6%).Funding support for Salt Lake City staff that
administer HUD grants.
Salary and overhead expenses for HAND,
Finance, and City Attorney's Office. 574.300 SLC Corp 6%$5,247
100%$87,443
Total $7,138,203
Housing and Neighborhood Development (HAND) staff will administer the CARES HUD-CV funds. HAND staff will communicate with the Administration and City Council about the CARES HUD-CV allocation process, which is anticipated to mirror the regular, annual HUD allocation process. This includes a competitive application
process, review and recommendation by the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program resident advisory board, the Mayor’s recommendations, and the Council’s recommendations.
SALT LAKE CITY CARES HUD-COVID FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (as of September 11, 2020)
CARES Act Funds Used to Support Coronavirus Response and Recovery Eligible Activities
CDBG-CV HAND Funding Recommendations, $2,064,298 (Round 1), $999.551 (Round 3)
ESG-CV HAND Funding Recommendations, $1,040,462 (Round 1), $2,946,449 (Round 2)
HOWPA-CV HAND Funding Recommendations, $87,443
Exhibit 12
CARES HUD-CV
Funding Recommendations Log 2020-2021
2020-2021 Funding Available: $3,063,849
1 Attorney's Office New REQUEST:26,042$
Administration of Grant Programs*CDCIP:26,042$
MAYOR:26,042$
COUNCIL:-$
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 105.57
2 Finance Division New REQUEST:53,249$
Administration of Grant Programs*CDCIP:53,249$
MAYOR:53,249$
COUNCIL:-$
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 105.57
3 New REQUEST:533,479$
CDCIP:533,479$
MAYOR:533,479$
Administration of Grant Programs*COUNCIL:-$
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 105.57
REQUEST:612,770$
CDCIP:612,770$
MAYOR:612,770$
COUNCIL:-$
4 NeighborWorks Salt Lake New REQUEST:200,000$
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:200,000$
COUNCIL:-$
REQUEST:200,000$
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:200,000$
COUNCIL:-$
SALT LAKE CITY CDBG-CV PROGRAM: FUNDING LOG 2020-2021
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT AWARDS REQUEST/RECOMMENDED 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID-19 ELIGIBILITY % OF GRANT AWARD
CDBG-CV HOUSING STABILITY
Mortgage Assistance Program for households 80% AMI and affected by
COVID-19.Mortgage Assistance Program
CDBG-CV ADMIN
Partial funding for staff salary to provide contract administration for CV
federal grants.
* $314,748 Has been appropriated by City Council to cover administration
costs for 2020-2021. Balance will be utilized for the remainder of the grant
period.
Partial funding for staff salary to provide financial administration and
accounting services for CV federal grants.
* $314,748 Has been appropriated by City Council to cover administration
costs for 2020-2021. Balance will be utilized for the remainder of the grant
period.
Housing & Neighborhood Development
Division
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME
Funding for salaries and operational expenses of HAND to administer and
monitor the CV federal grants and to conduct the community processes.
* $314,748 Has been appropriated by City Council to cover administration
costs for 2020-2021. Balance will be utilized for the remainder of the grant
period.
(Note: 20% is the maximum CDBG-CV administration amount.) CDBG-CV ADMIN TOTAL
PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT AWARDS REQUEST/RECOMMENDED 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID-19 ELIGIBILITY % OF GRANT AWARD
CDBG-CV HOUSING STABILITY TOTAL
The applicant's original application (homebuyer and home repair assistance) was HUD-CV
ineligible, and the CDCIP did not score this application due to it's ineligibility.
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to
COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
The Mayor recommended the applicant to administer a Mortgage Assistance Program, which the
applicant said that they could administer.
CDBG-CV Page 1
5 4th Street Clinic New REQUEST:300,000$
CDCIP:300,000$
MAYOR:300,000$
COUNCIL:
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 108.80
6 The Road Home New REQUEST:132,990$
Advocates for Gail Miller Resource
Center
CDCIP:132,990$
MAYOR:132,990$
COUNCIL:
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 108.22
7 Utah Community Action New REQUEST:137,389$
Public Service Agency CDCIP:137,389$
MAYOR:137,389$
COUNCIL:
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 107.20
8 First Step House New REQUEST:445,266$
First Step House COVID-19 Response
Program
CDCIP:445,266$
MAYOR:445,266$
COUNCIL:
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 104.60
9 The INN Between New REQUEST:154,221$
CDCIP:154,221$
MAYOR:154,221$
COUNCIL:
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 94.90
REQUEST:1,169,866$
CDCIP:1,169,866$
MAYOR:1,169,866$
COUNCIL:-$
Provide funding for temporary staff for the Intake Center, provides
coordinated entry for all six Utah Community Action programs—Adult
Education, Case Management and Housing, Head Start preschool, HEAT
Utility Assistance, Nutrition and Weatherization.
In order to prepare. respond, & prevent further spread of COVID-19 in our
congregate living facilities, this program will provide additional staff
capacity & costs to ensure the continuation on-site behavioral health,
medical, & housing services to clients.
Staffing costs for medical respite and end of life costs for homeless Salt
Lake City residents who are vulnerable to COVID-19.
CDBG-CV PUBLIC SERVICE AGENCY
Funds will be used to pay the salaries, taxes, and benefits for FTE staff
dedicated to the dorms at the Gail Miller Resource Center (GMRC).
Fourth Street Clinic (FSC) will use funding to pay for contractual labor for a
medical assistants to support testing for COVID-19 as well as operation
costs which include PPE supplies and increased utility cost to provide
heating and electric to medical tents.
COVID-19 Response
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT AWARDS REQUEST/RECOMMENDED 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID-19 ELIGIBILITY % OF GRANT AWARD
End of Life and Temporary Housing of
Terminally Ill
CDBG-CV PUBLIC SERVICE AGENCY TOTAL
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to
COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to
COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to
COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to
COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to
COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
CDBG-CV Page 2
10 First Step House New REQUEST:178,320$
First Step House COVID-19 Response
Program
CDCIP:178,320$
MAYOR:178,320$
COUNCIL:-$
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 104.40
11 Salt Lake City Corporation New REQUEST:141,334$
CDCIP:141,334$
MAYOR:141,334$
COUNCIL:-$
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 100.22
12 Shelter the Homeless New REQUEST:183,159$
HRC COVID-Response CDCIP:142,659$
MAYOR:142,659$
COUNCIL:-$
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 78.10
REQUEST:502,813$
CDCIP:462,313$
MAYOR:462,313$
COUNCIL:-$
CDBG-CV COMMUNITY STABILIZATION TOTAL
Increase emergency food support and access to healthy culturally
relevant food for low income refugee families with limited household
resources to absorb the economic impacts due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Expand Emergency Food Delivery
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME PREVIOUS GRANT AWARDS REQUEST/RECOMMENDED
% OF GRANT AWARDPROJECT DESCRIPTION
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to
COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to
COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to
COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
The CDCIP board did not recommend the expenses for thermal cameras and operator, $32,700,
but did approve the expenses for meals and admin.
The expense for the ADA door opener, $7,800, was an ineligible HUD-CV expense.
2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID-19 ELIGIBILITY
CDBG-CV COMMUNITY STABILIZATION
Provide for food costs, PPE, and additional staffing costs so FSH facilities
can respond to COVID-19.
Purchase meals at the two Salt Lake City HRC's, as well as PPE, and thermal
cameras to respond to COVID-19 amongst the homeless population.
CDBG-CV Page 3
13 International Rescue Committee New REQUEST:75,000$
CDCIP:75,000$
MAYOR:150,000$
COUNCIL:-$
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 105.10
14 9th South LLC New REQUEST:100,000$
Maven District CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:-$
The CDCIP board did not score this application due to it's HUD-CV ineligibility.
REQUEST:175,000$
CDCIP:75,000$
MAYOR:150,000$
COUNCIL:-$
15 Salt Lake City Corporation New REQUEST:150,000$
SLC Healthy Home Program CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:-$
REQUEST:150,000$
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:-$
Offer a Pay What You Can program that provides memberships
on a sliding scale pricing structure to serve diverse-owned businesses and
minority entrepreneurs.
Requested funding will support staffing/operations for ongoing training and
technical assistance (TTA) to COVID impacted businesses supporting LMI
immigrant/refugee entrepreneurs in SLC and provide COVID-grants to
impacted SLC new American small food businesses.
CDBG-CV SMALL BUSINESS TOTAL
Application not eligible for HUD-CV Funding. CV funds can be used to rehab private properties to
directly quarantine COVID-19 patients. However, this application would only indirectly prevent
COVID-19 for non-patients.
CDBG-CV OTHER TOTAL
Program will focus on replacing critical air health systems within the home
and improving interior air quality for low income persons and vulnerable
seniors.
CDBG-CV SMALL BUSINESS
% OF GRANT AWARD
This application is HUD-CV ineligible. Applicant would be paying themselves and HUD requires an
arms length transaction for For-Profit entities.
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to
COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
CDBG-CV OTHER
PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT AWARDS REQUEST/RECOMMENDED 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID-19 ELIGIBILITY
% OF GRANT AWARD
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME
Spice Kitchen Incubator Pandemic Small
Business Resiliency Project
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT AWARDS REQUEST/RECOMMENDED 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID-19 ELIGIBILITY
CDBG-CV Page 4
FUNDS REQUESTED FUNDS AVAILABLE
Administration 612,770$ 3,063,849$
Housing Stability 200,000$ 3,063,849$
Public Service Agency 1,169,866$
Community Stabilization 502,813$
Small Business 175,000$ FUNDS RECOMMENDED
Other 150,000$ CDCIP:2,319,949$
TOTAL FUNDS REQUESTED:2,810,449$ 2,594,949$
-$
CDCIP Board Recommendation:
AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION
CDCIP:-$
468,900$
Administration Staff Analysis:3,063,849$ COUNCIL:
COUNCIL:
GRANT AWARD:
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE:
Board Motion For Remaining ESG and CDBG Funding: To go to homeless service agencies that could help with
COVID-19 vaccination, such as agencies that can help identify low income, homeless, marginalized populations,
and communities of color, to obtain and receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
MAYOR:
MAYOR:
TOTALS
CDBG-CV Page 5
1 Utah Community Action New REQUEST:1,212,940$
Homeless Prevention CDCIP:1,212,940$
MAYOR:1,212,940$
COUNCIL:-$
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 108.42
REQUEST:1,212,940$
CDCIP:1,212,940$
MAYOR:1,212,940$
COUNCIL:-$
2 Utah Community Action New REQUEST:773,355$
Rapid Rehousing CDCIP:773,355$
MAYOR:773,355$
COUNCIL:-$
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 110.81
3 The Road Home New REQUEST:50,000$
Prevention Assistance CDCIP:50,000$
MAYOR:150,000$
COUNCIL:-$
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 105.89
REQUEST:823,355$
CDCIP:823,355$
MAYOR:923,355$
COUNCIL:-$
SALT LAKE CITY ESG-CV PROGRAM: FUNDING LOG 2020-2021
Support for households who have recently exited Rapid
Re-Housing Program and are in need of an immediate intervention to
retain their housing stability.
ESG-CV RAPID REHOUSING TOTAL
PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT
AWARDS
REQUEST/RECOMMENDED 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID-19 ELIGIBILITY % OF GRANT AWARD
$3,986,9112020-2021 Funding Available:
Emergency rental assistance for clients experiencing a COVID related
crisis, and funding for case managers to provide case management
services to clients.
ESG-CV HOMELESS PREVENTION TOTAL
Emergency rental assistance for clients experiencing a Covid related
crisis, and funding for case managers to provide case management
services to clients to ensure they are able to become self-reliant.
ESG-CV RAPID REHOUSING
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME
ESG-CV HOMELESS PREVENTION
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT
AWARDS
REQUEST/RECOMMENDED 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID-19 ELIGIBILITY % OF GRANT AWARD
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and
Respond to COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and
Respond to COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and
Respond to COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
ESG-CV Page 1
4 Volunteers of America New REQUEST:128,917$
Homeless Outreach Program CDCIP:128,917$
MAYOR:128,917$
COUNCIL:-$
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 106.70
5 Soap to Hope New REQUEST:112,180$
Street Outreach Program CDCIP:112,180$
MAYOR:112,180$
COUNCIL:-$
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 71
REQUEST:241,097$
CDCIP:241,097$
MAYOR:241,097$
COUNCIL:-$
6 Friends of Switchpoint New REQUEST:750,000$
Salt Lake Winter Overflow Shelter CDCIP:750,000$
MAYOR:750,000$
COUNCIL:-$
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 96.7
7 The Inn Between New REQUEST:114,400$
Medical Respite CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:-$
CDCIP did not score this application due to it's HUD-CV ineligibility.
REQUEST:864,400$
CDCIP:750,000$
MAYOR:750,000$
COUNCIL:-$
Reach the increased number of unsheltered individuals experiencing
homelessness due to COVID-19. Funding will support new positions,
and to provide basic needs items.
Essential care and supplies for homeless persons living on the street,
including substance abuse services. Staffing costs to increase outreach.
ESG-CV STREET OUTREACH TOTAL
Staff costs for a medical housing, to medically frail and terminally ill
homeless individuals, who need to be in a COVID-free environment due
to underlying health conditions and other high-risk factors.
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and
Respond to COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
Application is HUD-CV ineligible. Application does not meet the HUD-CV definition of
Emergency Temporary Shelter.
ESG-CV STREET OUTREACH
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT
AWARDS
REQUEST/RECOMMENDED 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID-19 ELIGIBILITY % OF GRANT AWARD
Funds will be used for staffing two 24/7 facilities that will operate as
winter overflows. Shelter rental costs, staffing, food and
PPE supplies will be included in the use of funds.
ESG-CV EMERGENCY SHELTER TOTAL
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and
Respond to COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and
Respond to COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
ESG-CV EMERGENCY SHELTER
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT
AWARDS
REQUEST/RECOMMENDED 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID-19 ELIGIBILITY % OF GRANT AWARD
Emergency Shelter Housing
ESG-CV Page 2
8 Salt Lake City Corporation New REQUEST:398,691$
Administration of Grant Programs * CDCIP:398,691$
MAYOR:398,691$
COUNCIL:-$
Maximum Score 129
Applicant Score: 103.9
REQUEST:398,691$
CDCIP:398,691$
MAYOR:398,691$
COUNCIL:-$
FUNDS REQUESTED FUNDS AVAILABLE
Homeless Prevention 1,212,940$ 3,986,911$
Rapid Rehousing 823,355$ 3,986,911$
Street Outreach 241,097$
Emergency Shelter 864,400$ FUNDS RECOMMENDED
Administration 398,691$ CDCIP:3,426,083$
TOTAL FUNDS REQUESTED:3,540,483$ MAYOR:3,526,083$
COUNCIL:-$
CDCIP Board Recommendation:
AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION
CDCIP:-$
MAYOR:460,828$
COUNCIL:3,986,911$
Administration Staff Analysis:
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT
AWARDS
REQUEST/RECOMMENDED
2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID-19 ELIGIBILITY
% OF GRANT AWARD
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE:
TOTALS
Board Motion For Remaining ESG and CDBG Funding: To go to homeless service agencies that could help with
COVID-19 vaccination, such as agencies that can help identify low income, homeless, marginalized populations, and
communities of color, to obtain and receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and
Respond to COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
Grant administration for ESG-CV Funding.
* $314,748 Has been appropriated by City Council to cover
administration costs for 2020-2021. Balance will be utilized for the
remainder of the grant period.
ESG-CV ADMIN
GRANT AWARD:
(NOTE: 10% is the maximum ESG-CV amount) ESG-CV ADMIN TOTAL
ESG-CV Page 3
2020-2021 Funding Available: $87,443
1 Utah Community Action REQUEST:82,196$
Housing Stability HTFAB:82,196$
MAYOR:82,196$
COUNCIL:-$
Max Score: 129
Applicant Score 119.83Applicant Score 119.83
REQUEST:82,196$
HTFAB:82,196$
MAYOR:82,196$
COUNCIL:-$
2 Salt Lake City Corporation REQUEST:5,247$
Administration of Grant Program*HTFAB:5,247$
MAYOR:5,247$
COUNCIL:-$
Max Score: 129
Applicant Score: 109.17
REQUEST:5,247$
HTFAB 5,247$
MAYOR:5,247$
COUNCIL:-$
FUNDS REQUESTED FUNDS AVAILABLE
Housing Stability $ 82,196 87,443$
Administration 5,247$ 87,443$
TOTAL FUNDS REQUESTED 87,443$
FUNDS RECOMMENDED
HTF Board Recommendation:HTFAB:87,443$
MAYOR:87,443$
COUNCIL:-$
AVAILABLE FOR ALLOCATION
Administration Staff Analysis:HTFAB:-$
MAYOR:-$
COUNCIL:87,443$
HOPWA-CV ADMIN
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME
This funding will be utilized to provide Permanent Housing Placement
(PHP) and Short-term Rent, Mortgage and Utility (STRMU) assistance for
persons with HIV/AIDS, during the COVID-19 Crisis
Grant administration for HOPWA-CV funding.
* $314,748 Has been appropriated by City Council to cover administration
costs for 2020-2021. Balance will be utilized for the remainder of the grant
period.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREVIOUS GRANT
AWARDS
REQUEST/RECOMMENDED 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID-19 ELIGIBILITY % OF GRANT AWARD
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to
COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
SALT LAKE CITY HOPWA-CV PROGRAM: FUNDING LOG 2020-2021
APPLICANT/ PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2020-2024 CONSOLIDATED PLAN and COVID-19 ELIGIBILITY
HOPWA-CV HOUSING STABILITY TOTAL
HOPWA-CV HOUSING STABILITY
PREVIOUS GRANT
AWARDS
REQUEST/RECOMMENDED
% OF GRANT AWARD
TOTALS
Aligns with Consolidated Plan and meets eligibility through the Prepare, Prevent, and Respond to
COVID-19 requirement of the CARES ACT.
GRANT AWARD:
TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE:
(NOTE: 6% is the HOPWA-CV admin amount.) HOPWA-CV ADMIN TOTAL
HOPWA-CV Page 1
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO: City Council Members
FROM:Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:February 2, 2021
RE: Zoning Map Amendments from CC to FB-UN2 for Properties
at 1301 and 1321 South State Street PLNPCM2020-00328
The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for properties at 1301 and 1321
South State Street totaling approximately 1.77 acres. The subject parcels are currently zoned CC (Corridor
Commercial) and the applicant is requesting a change to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2). An
amendment to table 21A.27.050E2 is also requested to add this corner to other named locations eligible for
increased building height.
Currently Coachmans Restaurant and a two-story office building are on the subject parcels. (Photos of the
parcels are found on page 28 of the Administration’s transmittal.) The applicant indicated an intent to
replace the existing buildings with a new mixed-use building including ground floor commercial space and
owner-occupied condominiums above at a price point attainable to a wide range of potential buyers.
The FB-UN2 zone typically includes buildings up to four stories, with taller buildings allowed on some
street corners. This zoning amendment requests adding this corner to others in the FB-UN2 zone that
allow buildings up to 65 feet tall. The other named street corners are:
West Temple at 800 or 900 South
200 West at 700, 800 or 900 South
200 West at Fayette Avenue
300 West at 800 or 900 South
Item Schedule:
Briefing: February 2, 2021
Set Date: February 2, 2021
Public Hearing: March 2, 2021
Potential Action: March 16, 2021
Page | 2
Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council for the zoning map amendment. This recommendation includes a
condition that the two parcels be consolidated before the ordinance is published.
Aerial image showing the subject parcels outlined in blue.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments, determine if the
Council supports moving forward with the proposal.
POLICY QUESTION
Is the Council supportive of the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the zoning map and
master plan amendments?
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Three key issues were identified through Planning’s analysis of the proposed project. A summary of each is
below. See pages 18-24 of the Administration’s transmittal for the complete analysis.
Issue 1 – CC and FB-UN2 Zoning Development Potential
The subject parcels are located at a key intersection on 1300 South and State Street. State Street is an
important gateway into Salt Lake City and 1300 South is a major east/west arterial street.
Page | 3
CC Zoning
CC zoning regulations do not encourage housing or high-density development due to height limits, high
parking minimums, and deep setbacks potentially making mixed-use developments unfeasible. These
setbacks also discourage a walkable pedestrian environment along State Street and when combined with
typically shallow lot depths, further limit development potential. Planning staff found these factors
prevented the corridor from achieving a critical mass of people, goods and services that make for the best
urban areas.
South State Street Corridor Overlay District
The subject site is within the South State Street Corridor Overlay District which is generally aligned with
the State/Main street corridor from 900 South to 2100 South. The overlay has additional requirements
including maximum setback, parking setback and exempts front yard setback, with the goal of increasing
pedestrian activity and walkability along the corridor. There are additional design requirements of ground
floor glass, blank wall maximum and screening of equipment and service areas. Planning staff noted while
the overlay district maximum setback improves feasibility of mixed-use developments as proposed, it does
not overcome height limitations.
FB-UN2 Zoning
Zoning regulations and design guidelines greatly impact development in an area. Form-based districts
provide zoning regulations focusing on the form of development, how buildings are oriented toward public
spaces, scale of development and interaction of uses within the city.
Planning staff included the following tables comparing the CC and FB-UN2 zones and design guidelines on
pages 66-67 of the transmittal:
Page | 4
Planning staff also included the following list of items provided by form-based districts in creating urban
neighborhoods:
1. People oriented places;
2. Options for housing types;
3. Options in terms of shopping, dining, and fulfilling daily needs within walking distance or
conveniently located near mass transit;
4. Transportation options;
5. Access to employment opportunities within walking distance or close to mass transit;
6. Appropriately scaled buildings that respect the existing character of the neighborhood;
7. Safe, accessible, and interconnected networks for people to move around in; and
8. Increased desirability as a place to work, live, play, and invest through higher quality form
and design.
Planning further noted the following establish an acceptable standard of quality and design in the FB-UN2
zone:
Greater Building Height for Higher Density
Building Frontage
Ground Floor Transparency
Active Ground Floors
Amenity Space
Pedestrian Friendly
Ground Floor Residential Treatments
Parking Standards & Orientation
Page | 5
The following were also considered by Planning staff when comparing the existing and proposed zones:
Housing/Mixed Use
The Central Community Master Plan future land use map designates the subject site as “Medium
Residential/Mixed Use (10-50 dwelling units/acre). The proposed FB-UN2 zone does not completely
match the master plan’s “Medium Residential/Mixed Use” designation. There is not a density limitation in
the FB-UN2 zone which could result in greater than 10-50 dwelling units per acre. On the other hand, the
CC zone is more permissive, with lower height requirements, greater setbacks and higher parking
requirements. These make construction of mixed-use developments more difficult. It is Planning staff’s
opinion rezoning the subject parcels to FB-UN2 would facilitate cost-effective mixed-use buildings and
better urban form.
Attachment C of the Administration’s transmittal (pages 33-36) includes the Residential section of the
Master Plan and Planning noted it supports changes the proposed rezone would bring.
Safety
Design guidelines in the FB-UN2 zoning district can provide additional active street frontages with
increased “eyes on the street.” New buildings closer to the front property line could help engage sidewalk
activity with visual interest and variation for pedestrians. Transparent ground floor windows and doors
allow passers-by to see activity inside, and those inside can see out to the street. This may increase the
perception of safety and security.
Sustainability
Housing at this location is close to TRAX and bus routes reducing impact on transportation needs.
Planning staff found higher density housing has the potential to create compact housing types that may
reduce per household water and energy use resulting in lower infrastructure demands and housing costs.
Issue 2: Additional Height on Corner
The FB-UN2 zone allows taller buildings that are located at identified main intersections. Additional height
incentivizes development and activity at these corners while keeping a distinction between the intersection
and lower buildings mid-block.
As discussed above, part of the proposal is to add this corner to others allowing additional height. Planning
staff noted if the Council approves the petition a text amendment would not be required since it would be a
site-specific addition to the ordinance.
Issue 3: Compatibility with Adjacent Properties
Surrounding properties to the south, north and west fronting on State Street and 1300 South are zoned CC.
They have a variety of uses including office space, retail, drive-in restaurant, a bank, and gas
station/convenience store. An adjacent parcel to the east is multi-family residential and zoned RMF-45. It
serves as a buffer between more intense land uses on State Street and the lower density neighborhood to
the east.
Both the CC and FB-UN2 zoning districts require a seven-foot landscape buffer when adjacent to
residential property. In addition, FB-UN2 requires floors above 30 feet in height to be stepped back 15 feet
from the building foundation at grade for elevations adjacent to a public street, trail or open space. Note:
this step back does not apply to buildings with balconies on floors rising above 30 feet in height.
Page | 6
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment D of the Planning Commission staff report (pages 37-38 of the Administration’s transmittal)
outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal.
They are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for full details. Planning staff
found this proposal generally complies or is consistent with these standards.
1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and
policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents.
Finding: The proposed amendment is generally consistent with the goals and policies of the
applicable master plans.
2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning
ordinance.
Finding: The proposal generally furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance.
3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties.
Finding: The change in zoning is not anticipated to create any substantial new negative impacts
that wouldn’t be anticipated with the current zoning.
4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any
applicable overlay zoning district which may impose additional standards.
Finding: The subject site is within the South State Street Corridor Overlay District. Requirements
and design guidelines are similar if not stricter in the FB-UN2 zoning than the overlay and
therefore will not impose additional standards.
5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but
not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, storm
water drainage systems, water supplies and wastewater and refuse collection.
Finding: The proposal does not increase the need for improvements beyond that required by
existing zoning allowances.
PUBLIC PROCESS
• Notice of the project was sent to Liberty Wells, Central City and Ball Park Community Councils May
18, 2020.
• Notices mailed to property owners/residents within ~300 feet of the subject site June 3, 2020.
• Liberty Wells Community Council online meeting June 10, 2020.
o The applicant responded to questions about the number of units desired for a potential
project, about how it complied with the master plan and about parking. The applicant
responded that the number of units had not been confirmed at the time and that the project
would provide parking according to the necessity of the project.
o Planning reports response to the request was positive.
• Online open house June 18, 2020.
• Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing for the proposal included:
o Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve August 11,
2020.
o Public hearing notice posted and mailed August 12, 2020.
Page | 7
• Planning staff received five emails with comments on the proposal. Four were in favor and one was
opposed to removing Coachmans Restaurant and gentrification of the area. These emails are
included on pages 40-44 of the Administration’s transmittal.
•The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal and held a public hearing at its August 26, 2020
meeting. No one spoke at the hearing. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council for the proposal.
Zoning Map Amendment
1301 and 1321 South State Street
from:
Corridor Commercial (CC)
to:
Form Base Urban Neighborhood 2 (FB-UN2)
February 2, 2021
Applicant would like to:
1.Consolidate the two parcels
2.Remove existing buildings
3.Build a mixed-use building –
owner occupied and financially
attainable
Recommendation:
In August 2020, the Planning
Commission recommended to the
City Council approval of this
rezoning.
Site:
1301 & 1321 S.
State Street
Edison StreetState Street1300 South
Current Zoning
State Street1300 South
CC
RMF-45R-1/5,000CC
CC
Key Intersection
•State Street is an important gateway to Salt Lake City
•1300 South is a major east/west arterial street
Plans applicable to this site:
Plan Salt Lake
•access to a wide variety of housing types
•basic human need for safety
•social interaction, and services needed for the
wellbeing of the community
Central Community Master Plan
•urban design requirements to “improve the quality
of living in the Central Community
•need for safety
•new mixed-use designations to support livable
communities
Plans applicable to this site:
RDA Project Area
•higher aesthetic
•support for population growth
•mixed-use development options for increased
residential capacity
Life on State (Draft)
•more density along State Street
•more height
•development that better engages the sidewalk
and street
Zoning:
Current Zoning:
•Corridor Commercial (CC)
•State Street Overlay
Proposed Zoning:
•Form Base Urban Neighborhood 2
(FB-UN2)
•State Street Overlay
Zoning Comparison
CC zoning requires more setbacks, more
parking and less height/density
Zoning Standard CC Zone FB-UN2 Zone
Front Setback*15’
25’ Max. for 35% (SSSC Overlay)
0 Minimum
10’ Maximum
Corner Side Yard 15’ 0 Minimum
10’ Maximum
Interior Side Yard 0 15’ adjacent to single family or FB-
UN1
Rear Yard 10’20’ adjacent to single family or FB-
UN1
Height 30’ with additional 15’ through the
Design Review process 50’ or 65’ on some corner lots
Lot Size (minimum)10,000 square feet 4,000 square feet
Lot Width 75’30’
Parking
• 1 per 1br Unit
• 2 per 2br Unit
• 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. retail
No minimum
Design Standards CC Zone
South State
Street
Corridor
FB-UN2 Zone
Ground floor use Yes
Ground floor use + visual interest Yes
Building materials: ground floor Yes
Building materials: upper floors Yes
Glass: ground floor Yes Yes
Building entrances Yes Yes Yes
Blank wall: maximum length Yes Yes
Upper floor step back Yes
Balconies & Patios Yes
Lighting: parking lot Yes Yes
Screening of equipment and service area Yes
Pedestrian Connections Yes
Open Space Area Yes
Building Fenestration Yes
Parking Yes
Parking setback Yes Yes
Design Guidelines Comparison
FB-UN2 has more design guidelines
Properties
Across the
Street:
•Commercial
•Lower Height
Properties
Across the
Street:
•Drive-
through
•Parking in
front
Properties
Across the
Street:
•Drive-through
•Parking in
front
Adjacent
Properties:
•Multi-family
residential
•Government
office building
Findings:
Staff finds that development under
the CC zone does not encourage
the type of development the
different master plans call for.
Findings:
The type of development in the FB-
UN2 has the potential for:
•Additional housing
•To be more sustainable
•To be safer
•Better designed
Building Regulation Building Form
Building height and
Placement:
Cottage Development 1 Row House Multi-Family
Residential
Mixed Use Storefront
H Height 2.5 stories, 30' maximum
from established grade 4 stories with a maximum of 50'. 5 stories with a maximum of 65' on
parcels located on the corners of West Temple at 800 or 900 South, 200
West at 700, 800 or 900 South, 200 West at Fayette Avenue, 300 West at
800 or 900 South, the southeast corner of 1300 South and State Street
and in the area identified on Figure 21A.27.050C.1. All heights measured
from established grade
Table 21A.27.050E2
FB-UN2 Building Form Standards
Condition of Approval:
In order to add this site to other
corner sites the parcels will need to
be consolidated.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
Date Received:
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council:
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: PLNPCM2020-00328 - 1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning
Map Amendment
STAFF CONTACT: Katia Pace, Principal Planner, katia.pace@slcgov.com, 801-535-6354
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to adopt the ordinance amending the zoning map for the property at 1301 and 1321
South State Street and amending Table 21A.27.050E2 of the zoning ordinance to include
additional land area eligible for additional building height.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Glen Anderson, representing the property owner, is requesting a zoning map amendment to
rezone the properties at 1301 and 1321 S. State Street currently zoned CC (Corridor
Commercial) to FB-UN2 (Form Base Urban Neighborhood 2) and to amend Table
21A.27.050E2 of the zoning ordinance to include additional land area eligible for additional
building height.
The FB-UN2 generally includes buildings up to four (4) stories in height, and with taller
buildings located on some street corners. This zoning amendment will also add this corner to
other sites/corners in the FB-UN2 that allow buildings up to 65 feet in height.
The property is currently occupied by a restaurant and a commercial building. The applicant
requested the rezoning because the FB-UN2 zoning district better aligns with the potential use of
12/29/2020Lisa Shaffer (Jan 4, 2021 09:53 MST)
01/04/2021
the corner lot and the potential for a new mixed-use building (to replace the existing buildings on
the parcels).
An analysis of both zoning districts was
done and regarding compatibility with
adjacent properties, the CC zone is more
permissive with development potentials
and land use allowed, and the FB-UN2
zoning would allow higher density and
height. The existing CC zone has very
few design requirements, and the change
to FB-UN2 will add additional design
requirements that will help ensure better
public facing building design,
ensuring high-quality and
pedestrian-oriented development.
Regarding master plan
compatibility, the proposed FB-
UN2 zoning generally fits within the
master plan’s designation for the
property and may better promote of the
master plan’s policies. For additional
information regarding the two associated
zones and the zoning amendment
considerations, please refer to the
Planning Commission Staff Report
found in Exhibit 3b.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• Notice of the project and request for comments was sent to the Chairs of the Liberty
Wells, Central City, and Ball Park community councils on May 18, 2020.
• Notices were mailed to property owners/residents within ~300 feet of the proposal on
June 3, 2020.
• The Liberty Wells Community Council held an online meeting on June 10, 2020
o The applicant was questioned about the number of units desired for a potential project,
about how it complied with the master plan and about parking. The applicant responded
that the number of units had not been confirmed at the time and that the project would
provide parking according to the necessity of the project.
o Response to the request was positive.
• Online Open House with information about the proposal, where to get more information,
and who to contact for questions and comments was published on June 18, 2020 in the
Salt Lake City Planning’s website https://www.slc.gov/planning/open-houses/.
• The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 26, 2020. The Planning
Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City
Council to change the zone from CC to FB-UN2 with the condition that the two parcels,
1301 and 1321 South State Street, be consolidated before the ordinance is published. Edison Street State Street 1300 South
Public Input:
• One phone call was received with a concern that the zoning amendment does not follow a
comprehensive approach to zoning for the whole area.
• Five emails were received. Four in favor of the rezoning and one against the removal of
Coachman’s Restaurant and gentrification of the area. A copy of the emails can be found
in the Planning Commission Staff Report found in Exhibit 3b.
EXHIBITS:
1. Chronology
2. Notice of City Council Hearing
3. Planning Commission – August 26, 2020
a. Mailed Notice
b. Staff Report
c. Agenda/Minutes
e. Staff Presentation Slides
4. Original Petition
5. Mailing List
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2021
(Amending the zoning map pertaining to properties located at 1301 and 1321 South State Street to
rezone those parcels from CC Corridor Commercial District to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban
Neighborhood 2, and amending Table 21A.27.050.C of the Salt Lake City Code to include additional
land area eligible for additional building height)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to properties located at 1301 and 1321
South State Street to rezone those parcels from CC Corridor Commercial District to FB-UN2 Form
Based Urban Neighborhood 2, and amending Table 21A.27.050.C of the Salt Lake City Code to
include additional land area eligible for additional building height pursuant to petition number
PLNPCM2020-00328.
WHEREAS, Glen Anderson submitted an application to rezone properties located at 1301 and
1321 South State Street from CC Corridor Commercial District to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban
Neighborhood 2 and to amend Table 21A.27.050.C of the Salt Lake City Code to include
additional land area eligible for additional building height pursuant to petition number
PLNPCM2020-00328; and
WHEREAS, at its August 26, 2020 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a
public hearing and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City
Council on said application; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the city council has determined that
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and
hereby is amended to reflect that the parcels located at 1301 and 1321 South State Street (Tax ID Nos.
16-07-358-001-0000 and 16-07-358-008-0000), more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached
hereto, are rezoned from CC Corridor Commercial District to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban
Neighborhood 2.
SECTION 2. Amending text of the Salt Lake City Code Table 21A.27.050.C. That Table
21A.27.050.C (Zoning: Form Based Districts: FB-UN1 and FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood
District: FB-UN2 Building Form Standards) of the Salt Lake City Code, shall be and hereby is amended
to read and appear as follows:
TABLE 21A.27.050.C
FB-UN2 BUILDING FORM STANDARDS
Building
Regulation
Building Form
Cottage
Development1
Row House Multi-
Family
Residential
Mixed
Use
Storefront
Building height
and placement:
H Height 2.5 stories, 30’
maximum from
established grade
4 stories with a maximum of 50’. 5 stories with a maximum of 65’ on
parcels located on the corners of West Temple at 800 or 900 South,
200 West at 700, 800 or 900 South, 200 West at Fayette Avenue, 300
West at 800 or 900 South, the southeast corner of 1300 South and State
Street, and in the area identified on Figure 21A.27.050C.1. All heights
measured from established grade.
F Front and
corner side
yard setback
No minimum
Maximum 10’
B Required
build-to
Minimum of 50% of street facing facade shall be built to the minimum setback line
S Interior side
yard
4’ setback required Minimum of 15’ along a side
property line adjacent to FB-UN1
or any residential zoning district
that has a maximum building
height of 35’ or less, otherwise 4’
setback required
Minimum of 15’ along a side
property line adjacent to FB-UN1 or
any residential zoning district that
has a maximum building height of
35’ or less, otherwise no setback
required
R Rear yard Minimum of 20’
along a rear
property line
adjacent to FB-UN1
or any residential
zoning district that
has a maximum
building height of
35’ or less,
otherwise no
setback required
Minimum of 25’ along a rear
property line adjacent to FB-UN1
or any residential zoning district
that has a maximum building
height of 35’ or less, otherwise
no setback required
Minimum of 20’ along a rear
property line adjacent to FB-UN1 or
any residential zoning district that
has a maximum building height of
35’ or less
U Upper level
step back
Buildings shall be stepped back 1 additional foot for every foot of building height above 30’
along a side or rear property line adjacent to FB-UN1 or any residential zoning district that has a
maximum building height of 35’ or less, unless the building is set back from the property line
45’ or more. When a parcel in the FB-UN2 District is separated by an alley from a parcel in the
FB-UN1 District, or any residential zoning district that has a maximum building height of 35’ or
less, the width of the alley may be counted toward the upper level step back
L Minimum
lot size
4,000 sq. ft.; not to
be used to calculate
density
1,500 sq. ft.; not to be used to
calculate density
4,000 sq. ft.; not to be used to
calculate density
W Minimum
lot width
15’ per unit facing a street. Side orientation allowed
provided building configuration standards are complied
with
30’
DU Dwelling
units per
building
form
1 per cottage Minimum of 3; no maximum No minimum or maximum
BF Number of
building
forms per
lot
1 cottage for every
1,000 sq. ft. of lot
area
1 building form permitted for
every 1,000 sq. ft. of lot area
1 building form permitted for every
4,000 sq. ft. of lot area
Parking:
Surface
parking in
front and
corner side
yards
Not permitted
Vehicle
access
If off street parking is provided, vehicle access from an
alley is required when property is served by a public or
private alley with access rights. Vehicle access from
street is only permitted when no alley access exists. If
pull through parking is required by Fire or other Code,
ingress shall be from street and egress onto alley
If property is less than 30’ wide,
vehicle access from an alley is
required when property is served by
a public or private alley with access
rights. If no alley access exists, only
1 vehicle access point from a street
may be permitted
If property is 30’ wide or more, only
1 vehicle access point from a street
may be permitted. If property is
served by a public or private alley,
ingress shall be from street and
egress onto alley unless otherwise
permitted by this section
Corner lots with a minimum width of
120’, may have 1 vehicle access
point per street frontage. Vehicle
access may be one-way or
multidirectional
Vehicle
access width
at street
When a one-way vehicle drive is included in a development, no vehicle drive or curb cut may
exceed 12’ in width. When a multidirectional vehicle drive is included, a curb cut may not
exceed 24’ in width
Vehicle
access from
street design
standards
If vehicle access is from a street, the following additional design standards shall apply: garage
entry shall have a minimum 20’ setback from property line; garage entry may not exceed 50%
of first floor building width; one-way garage entry may not exceed 14’ in width; multiway
garage entry may not exceed 26’ in width; garage door or gate shall be constructed of durable
building materials and compatible with building design
Driveway
location
The minimum distance between curb cuts shall be 12’. Driveways shall be at least 6’ from
abutting property lines for a depth of 10’ unless shared. Driveways shall be at least 12’ from
property lines adjacent to a street corner or 5’ from the point of tangency of the curb return,
whichever is greater. Abandoned curb cuts shall be removed and replaced with City standard
curb
Vehicle
access and
parking
compliance
All new drive approaches, driveways, and parking lots shall comply with form based urban
neighborhood regulations, and all other applicable sections of this Code. Existing drive
approaches, driveways, and parking lots shall be made compliant with form based urban
neighborhood regulations upon change of use, increase in parking, or building additions greater
than 25% of the footprint of the structure or 1,000 sq. ft., whichever is less
Parking on
separate lots
Parking may be provided on an adjacent lot, or in a common area associated with the
development, or within 500’ of the property. If located on an adjacent parcel or on a parcel
within 500’, the proposed location of the parking shall contain a principal building and the
parking shall be located behind a principal building
Attached
garages and
carports
Attached garages and carports are required to be accessed from the rear yard where the rear yard
is accessible by an alley with access rights to the subject property. If there is no access to the
rear yard, an attached garage may be accessed from the front or corner side yard provided that
the garage door (or doors) is no wider than 50% of the front facade of the structure and the entry
to the garage is set back at least 10’ from the street facing building facade and at least 20’ from a
public sidewalk. Side loaded garages are permitted
Note:
1. See Subsection 21A.27.020.B.1.d of this chapter for additional standards.
SECTION 3. Condition. This proposed zoning map and zoning text amendment will not be
published until the applicant has obtained subdivision approval to combine the subject parcels located at
1301 and 1321 South State Street (Tax ID Nos. 16-07-358-001-0000 and 16-07-358-008-0000).
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first
publication. The Salt Lake City Recorder is instructed to not publish this ordinance or cause it to be
recorded until the condition identified in Section 3 above has been met as certified by the Salt Lake City
Planning Division.
SECTION 5. Time. If the condition identified above has not been met within one year after
adoption, this ordinance shall become null and void. The city council may, for good cause shown, by
resolution, extend the time period for satisfying the condition identified above.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 2021.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2021
Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:
________________________________
By:
________________________________
Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney
December 10, 2020
Exhibit “A”
Legal description of the properties
Tax ID No. 16-07-358-001-0000
NYE’S ADD 0804 BEG AT A PT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF A STREET WHICH IS S 0^02’11” E
40.34 FT ALG THE MONUMENT LINE OF EDISON ST & S 89^54’32” W 182.50 FT FR THE SLC
MONUMENT AT 13TH SOUTH & EDISON*
Tax ID No. 16-07-358-008-0000.
1217 LOT A, NYES ADDITION BLOCK 2 AMD.
1. CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
April 30, 2020 Petition PLNPCM2020-00328 was received by the
Planning Division.
May 4, 2020 Petition assigned to Katia Pace
May 18, 2020 Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the
Chairs of the Liberty Wells, Central City, and Ball Park
community councils.
June 3, 2020 Early notification was sent to property owners and
residents within 300 feet of the project area.
June 10, 2020 Proposal presented at the Liberty Wells Community
Council online meeting.
June 18, 2020 Online Open House with information about the
proposal, where to get more information, and who to
contact for questions and comments.
August 14, 2020 Planning Commission hearing notice mailed to owners and
tenants of property within 300 feet of the subject property.
August 26, 2020 Planning Commission reviewed the petition and conducted
a public hearing. The commission then voted to send a
positive recommendation to the City Council.
2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020-00328 at 1301 and 1321 S.
State Street from CC to FB-UN2 Rezone and amending Table 21A.27.050E2 of the zoning
ordinance to include additional land area eligible for additional building height – A request
by Glen Anderson, representing the property owner, to rezone the properties at 1301 and 1321
S. State Street currently zoned CC (Corridor Commercial). The applicant is requesting to
change the zoning to the FB-UN2 (Form Base Urban Neighborhood 2). This zoning
amendment will also add this corner to other sites/corners in the FB-UN2 that allow
buildings up to 65 feet in height. The applicant requested the rezoning because the FB-
UN2 zoning district better aligns with the potential use of the corner lot and the
potential for a new mixed-use building (to replace the existing buildings on the parcels).
Although the applicant has requested that the property be rezoned to the FB-UN2 zone,
consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with
similar characteristics. The property is in Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano.
As part of their study, the City Council is holding two advertised public hearings to
receive comments regarding the petition. During these hearings, anyone desiring to
address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The
Council may consider adopting the ordinance on the same night of the second public
hearing. The hearing will be held electronically:
DATE: Date #1 and Date #2
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: **This meeting will not have a physical location.
**This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to the Salt Lake City Emergency
Proclamation. If you are interested in participating in the Public Hearing,
please visit our website at www.slccouncil.com to learn how you can share
your comments during the meeting. Comments may also be provided by
calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801)535-7654 or sending an email to
council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source
are shared with the Council and added to the public record.
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please
call Katia Pace at 385-226-8499 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday or via e-mail at katia.pace@slcgov.com.
People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48
hours in advance in order to participate in this hearing. Please make requests at least two
business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at
council.comments@slcgov.com , 801-535-7600, or relay service 711.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
A. Mailed Notice
August 14, 2020
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
B. Staff Report
August 26, 2020
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 www.slcgov.com
PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174
PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY & NEIGHORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
Staff Report
To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission
From: Katia Pace, 801-535-6354, katia.pace@slcgov.com
Date: August 26, 2020
Re: PLNPCM2020-00328 CC to FB-UN2 Rezone
Zoning Map Amendment
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1301 and 1321 South State Street
PARCEL ID: 16-07-358-001-0000 & 16-07-358-008-0000
MASTER PLAN: Central Community Master Plan
ZONING DISTRICT: Current – Corridor Commercial (CC)
Proposed – Form Base Urban Neighborhood 2 (FB-UN2)
REQUEST:
Glen Anderson, representing the property
owner, is requesting a zoning map amendment
to rezone the properties at 1301 and 1321 S.
State Street currently zoned CC (Corridor
Commercial). The applicant is requesting to
change the zoning to FB-UN2 (Form Base
Urban Neighborhood 2) and to add this
site/corner to a list of other sites in the FB-
UN2 that allow buildings up to 65 feet height.
The property is currently occupied by a
restaurant and a commercial building. The FB-
UN2 generally includes buildings up to
four (4) stories in height, and with taller
buildings located on some street corner
parcels. Development regulations are
based on building type, with the overall
scale, form, and orientation of buildings as the
primary focus.
The applicant feels that the intent of the FB-
UN2 zoning district better aligns with the
potential use of the corner lot and the
potential for a new mixed-use building (to
replace the existing buildings on the parcels).
The FB-UN2 also has design standards that
were created to reduce the impacts of increase
height and density. Edison StreetState Street 1300 South
1
1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the findings listed in the staff report, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
forward a favorable recommendation for the rezone request to the City Council with the condition that
the That the two parcels, 1301 and 1321 South State Street, be consolidated before the ordinance is
published.
Petition Description
The property is comprised of two lots
that are currently occupied by a one-
story restaurant, Coachman’s, on the
corner lot, and a two-story commercial
building on the south lot. The lot in the
corner is 0.57 acres (24,829 square
feet) and the lot on the south is 1.2028
acres (52,394 square feet). The parking
for both buildings is located between
State Street and the front façade of the
commercial building. The intent of the
applicant after the rezoning is to
demolish the existing buildings,
combine the lots and build a mixed-use
development with commercial on the
ground floor and housing above.
The main reason the applicant is
requesting this rezoning is to have
additional height and density to build a
mixed-use project which would include
housing that is financially attainable,
and owner occupied. The applicant has
provided a detailed narrative about the
reasons for this request and how they
believe it complies with the City’s
considerations for a rezone in
Attachment A.
KEY ISSUES:
The considerations below were identified through the analysis of the proposal and the zoning
amendment consideration standards:
1. CC and FB-UN2 Zoning Development Potential
2. Additional Height on the Corner Lot
3. Compatibility with Adjacent Properties
Issue 1: CC and FB-UN2 Zoning Development Potential
This site is located at a key intersection of 1300 South and State Street. State Street is an important
gateway to Salt Lake City and 1300 South is a major east/west arterial street. State Street was
traditionally the boundary between housing and commercial/industrial areas and much of the zoning,
between 900 South and 2100 South, on State Street is CC (Corridor Commercial).
Staff finds that a development according to the CC zoning standards could be a missed opportunity for
this corner of State Street and 1300 South. State Street 1300 South
CC RMF-45 R-1/5,000 CC
CC
1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment
Zoning on and surrounding State Street & 1300 South
The following is a comparison of zoning reequipments between the CC and the FB-UN2 zones:
Zoning Standard CC Zone FB-UN2 Zone
Front Setback*
15’
25’ Max. for 35% (SSSC
Overlay)
0 Minimum
10’ Maximum
Corner Side Yard 15’ 0 Minimum
10’ Maximum
Interior Side Yard 0 15’ adjacent to single family or
FB-UN1
Rear Yard 10’ 20’ adjacent to single family
or FB-UN1
Height
30’ with additional 15’
through the Design Review
process
50’ or 65’ on some corner lots
Lot Size (minimum) 10,000 square feet 4,000 square feet
Lot Width 75’ 30’
Parking
• 1 per 1br Unit
• 2 per 2br Unit
• 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. retail
No minimum
* Structures located within the CC Corridor Commercial Base Zoning District and the SSSC South State Street Corridor
Overlay District are exempted from the minimum front yard setback requirement and have a maximum front yard setback
3
1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment
The zones also differ in the design standards required for development, with the FB-UN2 zone having
more standards that encourage pedestrian engagement and visual interest:
Design Standards CC Zone
South
State
Street
Corridor
FB-UN2
Zone
Ground floor use Yes
Ground floor use + visual interest Yes
Building materials: ground floor Yes
Building materials: upper floors Yes
Glass: ground floor Yes Yes
Building entrances Yes Yes Yes
Blank wall: maximum length Yes Yes
Upper floor step back Yes
Balconies & Patios Yes
Lighting: parking lot Yes Yes
Screening of equipment and service area Yes
Pedestrian Connections Yes
Open Space Area Yes
Building Fenestration Yes
Parking Yes
Parking setback Yes Yes
CC Zoning
The purpose of the CC zoning is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive
commercial development with a local and regional market area along arterial and major
collector streets. State Street is over zoned for retail and under zoned for other uses.
CC zoning regulations do not encourage housing or high-density development because it limits
the allowed height and requires high parking minimums and deep setbacks that can make
mixed-use projects unfeasible. The setbacks discourage a walkable pedestrian environment
along State Street. Lot depths are typically shallow, which, when combined with setback
regulations, further limit development potential. This is a particular issue on the east side of
State Street. These factors have prevented the corridor from achieving the critical mass of
people, goods and services that make for the best urban areas.
4
1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment
South State Street Corridor Overlay District
The subject site is within the South State Street Corridor Overlay District. This area is generally
aligned with the State/Main Street corridor from 900 South to 2100 South. This overlay has
additional requirements: maximum setback, parking setback and it exempts front yard setback.
Furthermore, there are three additional design requirements: ground floor glass, blank wall
maximum and screening of equipment and service areas. The South State Street Corridor
Overlay district maximum setback improves feasibility but does not overcome height
limitations.
FB-UN2 Zoning
Zoning regulations and related design guidelines have a major impact on the types of
development that occur in an area. Form based districts are intended to provide zoning
regulations that focus on the form of development, the way buildings are oriented toward public
spaces, the scale of development, and the interaction of uses within the city.
The purpose of the form-based districts is to create urban neighborhoods that provide the
following:
1. People oriented places;
2. Options for housing types;
3. Options in terms of shopping, dining, and fulfilling daily needs within walking distance or
conveniently located near mass transit;
4. Transportation options;
5. Access to employment opportunities within walking distance or close to mass transit;
6. Appropriately scaled buildings that respect the existing character of the neighborhood;
7. Safe, accessible, and interconnected networks for people to move around in; and
8. Increased desirability as a place to work, live, play, and invest through higher quality form
and design.
Form based districts provide places for people to live, work, and play within a proximity.
Regulations within form-based districts place emphasis on the built environment over land use.
Design standards improve the FB-UN2 zone because they establish an acceptable standard of
quality and design, such as:
• Greater Building Height for Higher Density
• Building Frontage
• Ground Floor Transparency
• Active Ground Floors
• Amenity Space
• Pedestrian Friendly
• Ground Floor Residential Treatments
• Parking Standards & Orientation
The considerations below were also contemplated while comparing the existing and proposed zones:
Housing/Mixed Use
The Central Community Master Plan future land use map shows this site as “Medium
Residential/Mixed Use (10-50 dwelling units/acre). “Medium Density Residential Mixed Use” is
defined in the plan as:
This land use designation allows integration of medium density residential and small
business uses at ground floor levels. The intent is to increase population density to
support neighborhood business uses, provide more housing units, and expand the use of
common public facilities such as open space, libraries, schools, and mass transit.
5
1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment
The FB-UN2 zone does not completely match the “Medium Residential/Mixed Use” designation
in the master plan. This zone allows for multi-family development without a density limitation,
thus potentially exceeding the noted 10-50 dwelling units an acre. However, the CC zone being a
lot more permissive, with lower height requirements, higher setbacks and higher parking
requirements results in building mixed-use developments a lot harder. Whereas, the rezoning to
the FB-UN2 zone would facilitate cost-effective mixed-use buildings and better urban form.
The Residential section of the master plan (see Attachment E) supports the changes this
rezoning would bring.
Safety
One of the goals for the neighborhood of this site is to eliminate the problems associated with
the pawnshops, prostitution, and undesirable activities on State Street. A lack of eyes on the
street from evening activity and residents is partly to blame for the lack of safety.
Through the required design guidelines found in the FB-UN2, the development can provide
more active street frontages through increased “eyes on the street”. Locating new buildings at or
near the front property line helps to engage sidewalk activity, providing visual interest and
variation for pedestrians. Transparent windows and doors on the ground floor of buildings
increase the liveliness of a street. Passers-by can see the action inside, and those inside can
watch people and keep eyes on the street; in turn creating a higher perception of safety and
security.
Sustainability
Housing at this site would have a low impact on transportation needs being that the site is
strategically located close to TRAX and bus routes. Also, higher density has the potential to
create compact housing types that could reduce per household water and energy use, reducing
infrastructure demands and housing costs.
Issue 2: Additional Height on Corner
The FB-UN2 allows taller height for buildings that are located at identified main street intersections.
The purpose for the additional height is to incentivize development and activity at these corners and
keep a distinction between the mid-block areas and intersections (lower buildings).
Part of this proposal is to include this site/corner with other corners that allow additional height.
Reference to this site would be included to the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, Table 21A.27.050E2.
Since this is a site-specific addition to the zoning ordinance, a text amendment will not be necessary.
Specifically, the proposal would add the underlined reference:
6
1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment
Table 21A.27.050E2
FB-UN2 Building Form Standards
Building Regulation Building Form
Building height and
Placement:
Cottage
Development1
Row
House
Multi-Family
Residential
Mixed
Use
Storefront
H Height 2.5 stories, 30'
maximum from
established grade
4 stories with a maximum of 50'. 5 stories with a maximum of
65' on parcels located on the corners of West Temple at 800 or
900 South, 200 West at 700, 800 or 900 South, 200 West at
Fayette Avenue, 300 West at 800 or 900 South, the southeast
corner of 1300 South and State Street and in the area identified
on Figure 21A.27.050C.1. All heights measured from
established grade
Meanwhile the subject site includes two parcels so the site would be added to the table above after the
lots are consolidated. The lot consolidation would be a condition of approval.
Issue 3: Compatibility with Adjacent Properties
As part of a zoning amendment request, staff is directed to analyze how adjacent properties may be
affected by a change in zoning to the property. In this case, the properties adjacent to this site are:
• East: is a multi-family parcel that is zoned RMF-45.
• South: is the Utah State Department of Workforce and Human Services that is zoned CC.
• West: Across the street there are several parcels with a variety of land uses such as retail,
restaurants and a gas station that is zoned CC. And across the street, kitty corner to this site is a
drive-inn restaurant that is zoned CC.
• North: Across the street there is a strip mall with a bank on the corner that is zoned CC.
The abutting property on the east is a multi-family residential that is zoned RMF-45 and serves as a
buffer from the more intense land uses along State Street and the lower density neighborhood further
east.
Both CC and FB-UN2 require a 7-foot landscape buffer between a residential property. The FB-UN2
also requires that floors rising above thirty feet (30’) in height need to be stepped back fifteen (15)
horizontal feet from the building foundation at grade for building elevations that are adjacent to a
public street, public trail, or public open space. This step back does not apply to buildings that have
balconies on floors rising above 30 feet in height.
DISCUSSION:
The proposal has been reviewed against the Zoning Amendment consideration criteria in Attachment F,
including criteria regarding the proposed zoning’s impact and compatibility on adjacent properties, and
compatibility with the associated master plan.
Regarding compatibility with adjacent properties, CC zone is more permissive with development
potentials and land use allowed, and the FB-UN2 zoning would allow higher density and height. The
existing CC zone has very few design requirements, and the change to FB-UN2 will add additional
design requirements that help ensure better public facing building design outcomes ensuring high
quality, pedestrian oriented future development. Regarding master plan compatibility, the proposed
FB-UN2 zoning generally fits within the master plan’s designation for the property and may better
promote some of the master plan’s policies.
7
1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment
Due to these considerations, staff is recommending that the Commission forward a favorable
recommendation on this request to the City Council.
NEXT STEPS:
The Planning Commission can provide a positive or negative recommendation for the proposed map
amendment. The recommendation will be sent to the City Council, who will hold a briefing and
additional public hearing on the proposed zoning amendment. The City Council may make
modifications to the proposal and approve or decline to approve the proposed zoning map amendment.
If the zoning map amendment is approved by the City Council, the property owner could propose
development and/or land uses that meet the standards of the FB-UN2 zoning for the entire property.
The parcels will need to be consolidated either before the City Council approves the rezoning or if the
City Council approves the rezoning before the parcels are consolidated, the ordinance would need to list
a condition that it would be published upon the parcels being consolidated.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Applicant’s Narrative
B. Property & Vicinity Photographs
C. City Master Plan Policies
D. Analysis of Standards – Zoning Map Amendment
E. Public Process and Comments
F. Department Review Comments
8
1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment
9
We have been working with Nick Norris and Katia Pace with the Salt Lake City Planning Department
over the past year to draw the information below. We have also met with the Liberty Park
Neighborhood Council with members of the Ballpark Neighborhood Council present where we
received an almost unanimous straw poll vote of support.
Purpose of the Zoning Amendment
We are requesting that parcels #16073580080000 and #16073580080000 currently zoned CC be
changed to FB-UN2.
FB-UN2 allows mixed use at a greater density and is more in alignment with the proposed masterplan
for the State Street Corridor. FB-UN2 allows for increased building height and density to facilitate a
mixed use development that reinforces the cities masterplan. Changing the zoning to FB-UN2 provides a
permissible avenue to achieve increased height and density through the design review process defined
within this Zone. The increased density allows more units. This will lower the costs of the units making
them more affordable. This is another goal of the master plan.
While the height is being increased the building mass will step back at the third floor reducing its impact
on both State Street and the apartments to the east.
Description of the proposed development:
Create a medium density mixed use development that will reinforce the goals of the proposed State
Street Master Plan. The development will consist of:
Provide Street level retail.
Ownership, vested interest: Provide Upper level affordable condominiums with open space.
Provide opportunity to own, a condominium instead of paying rent at close to the same cost.
Neighborhood awareness: Owners would be more likely than renters to monitor activities in the
neighborhood.
Provide onsite secured parking for owners and their guests and patrons of the onsite retail
establishments. The secured parking garage will help reduce car prowls in the area.
Provide Onsite storage units for residence.
Reasons why present zoning is not appropriate:
10
The State Street Community Reinvestment Plan (CURRENT DRAFT) defines the site as Commercial
Corridor, “CC”. This use encourages residential and commercial mid-rise construction with a mix of uses
to include corner shops, small markets and housing. Midrise is typically between 4 to 11 stories. The
proposed development is 5 stories. There are no height restrictions in the draft. The current Zoning of
CC does not accommodate the intent of this Plan.
CC Zoning height is 30 feet with a 15 foot increase to 45 feet. This does not accommodate the
density this site needs to achieve to be able to provide affordable condominiums
The setbacks in the CC zoning will not provide an adequate footprint to achieve the goals of this project.
Narrowing the depth on the basement, first and second story will reduce the parking by almost 50%.
CC Zoning encourages mixed uses within the Zoning district but not necessarily in the same
development or structure.
11
1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment
12
1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment
13
1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment
14
1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment
15
1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment
16
1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment
Central Community Master Plan (2005)
The property is located within the Central Community Master Plan. The plan’s future land use
designation for the property is discussed in Key Consideration 2 of the report. The plan’s text includes
discussion about multi-family mixed-use development and includes a variety of general policies
applicable to them. Those discussions and policies are included below:
Residential Land Use Section
The following policies from the Residential Land Use section of the Central Community Master
Plan support the request for rezoning:
• RLU-1.0 Based on the Future Land Use map, use residential zoning to establish and
maintain a variety of housing opportunities that meet social needs and income levels of a
diverse population.
• RLU-1.5 Use residential mixed-use zones to provide residential land uses with supportive
retail, service, commercial, and small-scale offices and monitor the mix of uses to preserve
the residential component.
• RLU- 2.0 Preserve and protect existing single- and multi-family residential dwellings
within the Central Community through codes, regulations, and design review.
• RLU-3.0 Promote construction of a variety of housing options that are compatible with the
character of the neighborhoods of the Central Community.
• RLU-3.1 Encourage residential land developers to build housing that provides residential
opportunities for a range of income levels, age groups, and family size.
• RLU-3.2 Encourage a mix of affordable and market-rate housing for owner occupancy
throughout the Central Community. Encourage a mix of rental properties for those who
cannot afford or do not choose home ownership.
• RLU-4.0 Encourage mixed use development that provides residents with a commercial and
institutional component while maintaining the residential character of the neighborhood.
• RLU-4.1 Encourage the development of high-density residential and mixed-use projects in
the Central Business District, East Downtown, and Gateway areas.
• RLU-4.2 Support small mixed-use development on the corners of major streets that does
not have significant adverse impacts on residential neighborhoods.
Commercial Land Use Section
Design and scale of commercial property within or adjacent to residential
neighborhoods
The appearance of commercial developments that are adjacent to or surrounded by residential
neighborhoods is an important issue. Desirable characteristics are clean storefronts, limited
signage, compatible scale and building design, and landscaping that improves and
complements the neighborhood character, rather than standardized corporate model
buildings and logos. To promote local businesses, regulations should be appropriate but not
overly restrictive and allow some design flexibility.
Mixed land use designations
The plan identifies new mixed-use designations to support livable communities. Most of these
mixed-use areas are located near mass transit centers and light rail stations in the higher-
density and commercial-intensive neighborhoods of the Central Community.
17
1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment
Urban Design Section
• Policy UD-1.0 Support establishment of guidelines, and regulations for urban design to
improve the quality of living in the Central Community.
• UD-1.2 Support zoning regulations that provide opportunities for unique and creative
urban design solutions.
• UD-1.4 Administer urban design through zoning regulations where possible.
Discussion: One of the key matters emphasized throughout the Central Community Master Plan is
compatibility. The plan speaks repeatedly about compatibility of new residential and commercial
development with existing neighborhoods. In this case, the zoning proposal is not directly adjacent to
low-scale residential zoning, reducing the potential for significant negative impacts.
The Master Plan also speaks to urban design requirements being put in place in the zoning to “improve
the quality of living in the Central Community.” The proposed zoning includes more regulations to
ensure quality urban design for larger developments versus the existing zoning. The proposed zoning
will also continue to allow for mixed-use development. The zoning also implements additional design
guidelines for the property as noted as an implementation measure in the plan.
Plan Salt Lake (2015)
The plan includes policies related to growth and housing in Salt Lake City, as well as related policies:
Neighborhoods:
• Create a safe and convenient place for people to carry out their daily lives.
• Support neighborhood identity and diversity.
• Encourage and support local businesses and neighborhood business districts.
• Provide opportunities for and promotion of social interaction.
Growth:
• Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit
and transportation corridors.
• Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
• Accommodate and promote an increase in the City’s population.
Housing:
• Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing
the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics.
• Increase diversity of housing types for all income levels throughout the city.
• Increase the number of medium density housing types and options.
• Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate.
Air Quality:
• Increase mode-share for public transit, cycling, walking, and carpooling.
• Minimize impact of car emissions.
• Reduce individual and citywide energy consumption.
Discussion: Plan Salt Lake encourages a access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels
throughout the city, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing
18
1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment
demographics and opportunity for social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the
community therein. These are goals that would be better met with the rezoning from CC to FB-UN2.
State Street Community Reinvestment Area Plan
One of the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) of Salt Lake City project areas is the State Street Project Area.
The project is bounded by 2100 South and 300 South on the south and north; Interstate-15, 200 West,
and West Temple on the west; and 200 East on the east.
The overarching vision of the State Street Project Area is to promote a livable urban community with a
strong urban design identity that preserves and enhances the integrity of its existing residential
neighborhoods.
Anticipated changes through redevelopment and revitalization of the Project Area
(related to this project):
• It is anticipated that underutilized and vacant land will be returned to productive use,
thereby helping to reduce crime and improving the physical environment of the
neighborhood. This CRA Plan envisions more people living, working, and shopping on State
Street and in the State Street Project Area, bringing new life to the area, and taking
advantage of the proximity to the downtowns of both Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake.
These changes will likely result in an increase in the number of housing units in this area,
and likely an increase in both the housing and commercial density in the Project Area.
• Although it is anticipated that current single-family land uses will be retained, it is likely that
increases in building intensity and development of underutilized/vacant land would result in
increased population densities.
• It is anticipated that there will be an increase in new, mixed-use infill developments that will
increase building intensities overall in the project area. Buildings with multiple uses, such as
ground floor retail with housing above, will increase the use and activity of the buildings and
bring additional people to the project area overall.
Standards to guide project area development (related to this project):
• Encourage the highest aesthetic standards possible using durable materials while at the
same time providing the greatest possible public value that meets current and future needs.
• Support population growth and stability by providing opportunities for housing, mixed-use
development, and appropriate-scale commercial development while stabilizing existing
neighborhoods.
• Work with Salt Lake City Planning Division to review zoning codes in the project area and
potentially make changes to zoning and allowable land use to promote walkable places and
to allow development to evolve with the changing market.
Objective 4: Housing
• High-quality housing options to provide housing stability for existing residents and establish
the area as an option for increased residential capacity and live-work opportunities.
Discussion: The vision of the State Street Project Area, to promote a livable urban community with a
strong urban design identity that preserves and enhances the integrity of its existing residential
neighborhoods is consistent with this rezoning request through higher aesthetic, with support for
population growth, mixed-use development and provide the area with options for increased residential
capacity.
19
1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment
Life on State (Draft)
In addition to the adopted master plans listed above, Salt Lake City and South Salt Lake have worked
together to study improvements and development opportunities along the State Street corridor.
The outcome of this study was a plan, Life on State, which has not been adopted. However, this draft
formulated a vision for a better street and recommendations for zoning and other development
regulations. The draft plan calls for more density along State Street and more height as well as
development that better engages the sidewalk and street. Public engagement discussions during the
planning process elicited positive attitudes toward higher density, mixed-use development to get more
people living and working along State Street and to keep rents affordable. The proposed rezoning
corresponds to that vision.
20
1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a
matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard.
In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following:
Factor Finding Rationale
1. Whether a proposed
map amendment is
consistent with the
purposes, goals,
objectives, and
policies of the city as
stated through its
various adopted
planning documents;
The proposed
amendment is
generally
consistent with
the goals and
policies of the
applicable
master plans.
Consistency of the zone with the Central Community
Master Plan is discussed under Issue 1. While the
proposed zoning designation doesn’t completely align
with all the aspects discussed in the Future Land Use
designation for the property, it complies with its intent in
supporting mixed-use development.
The Central Community Master Plan encourages mixed-
use development with higher density and better design
guidelines to support livable communities on the corner
of major streets.
Plan Salt Lake promotes common policies, like
neighborhoods that provide better interaction,
development close to transportation, diversity of housing
and more efficient use of energy. These goals will be
better achieved if the zoning of the corner of 1300 South
and State Street is rezoned from the CC zone to the FB-
UN2.
The rezoning is consistent with the vision of the State
Street Project Area, by promoting higher aesthetic
through additional design guidelines, with support for
population growth through additional height, and mixed-
use development.
2. Whether a
proposed map
amendment furthers
the specific purpose
statements of the
zoning ordinance.
The proposal
generally
furthers the
specific
purpose
statements of
the zoning
ordinance.
The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to promote the
health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity, and
welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake
City, to implement the adopted plans of the city, and, in
addition:
A. Lessen congestion in the streets or roads;
B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers;
C. Provide adequate light and air;
D. Classify land uses and distribute land
development and utilization;
E. Protect the tax base;
F. Secure economy in governmental expenditures;
G. Foster the city's industrial, business and
residential development; and
H. Protect the environment.
21
1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment
The CC zone being a lot more permissive, with lower
height requirements, higher setbacks, higher parking
requirements and the lack of design standards can result
in underutilized land. Whereas, the rezoning to the FB-
UN2 zone would facilitate cost-effective mixed-use
building and better urban form that could improve safety
with active street frontage and better sustainable projects
(see Issue 1 for more details).
3. The extent to which
a proposed map
amendment will affect
adjacent properties;
The change in
zoning is not
anticipated to
create any
substantial
new negative
impacts that
wouldn’t be
anticipated
with the
current zoning.
Most of State Street from 900 South to the city boundary
at 2100 South is zoned CC or Institutional. The current
auto-oriented land uses reflect the zoning. The residential
component of the FB-UN2 can provide the population to
support commercial and institutional land uses.
See additional discussion on Issue 3 of this report.
4. Whether a
proposed map
amendment is
consistent with the
purposes and
provisions of any
applicable overlay
zoning districts which
may impose
additional standards
The subject
site is within
the South State
Street Corridor
Overlay
District.
This overlay has additional requirements: maximum
setback, parking setback and it exempts front yard
setback. Furthermore, there are three additional design
requirements: ground floor glass, blank wall maximum
and screening of equipment and service areas.
The requirements and design guidelines are similar if not
stricter in the FB-UN2 zoning than the overlay and
therefore will not impose additional standards.
5. The adequacy of
public facilities and
services intended to
serve the subject
property, including,
but not limited to,
roadways, parks and
recreational facilities,
police and fire
protection, schools,
stormwater drainage
systems, water
supplies, and
wastewater and refuse
collection.
The proposal
does not
increase the
need for
improvements
beyond that
required by
existing zoning
allowances.
The site is located within a developed area of the City. The
change of zoning is not likely to increase the need for
roadways, parks, recreation facilities, police, fire
protection, or schools. Any future development would be
reviewed by the Public Utilities department and if
additional water or sewer capacity is required to serve the
property, the owner/developer would need to make the
necessary public improvements.
22
1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment
Public Notice, Meetings, and Comments
The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related
to the proposed project:
• Project notification sent out May 18, 2020 to Liberty Wells, Central City, and Ball Park
community councils.
• Notices were mailed to property owners/residents within ~300 feet of the proposal on June 3,
2020
• Liberty Wells Community Council online meeting on June 10, 2020
o The applicant responded to questions about the number of units desired for a potential
project, about how it complied with the master plan and about parking. The applicant
responded that the number of units had not been confirmed at the time and that the project
would provide parking according to the necessity of the project.
o Response to the request was positive.
• Online Open House June 18, 2020
• Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included:
o Public hearing notice mailed on August 12, 2020
o Public hearing notice posted on August 12, 2020
o Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve on August 11,
2020
Public Input:
Five emails were received. Four in favor of the rezoning and one against the removal of Coachman’s
Restaurant and gentrification of the area. Please see emails attached.
23
From:
To:Pace, Katia
Subject:(EXTERNAL) 1301 and 1321 Zoning Amendment
Date:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 2:04:16 PM
Hi there,
I live on Coatsville just off of State Street, and fully support this zoning amendment. I think
adding density and mixed-use developments will increase the walkability and safety of the
neighborhood as well as add vibrancy to the State Street corridor.
Thanks!
Janine Donal
24
25
From:
To:Pace, Katia
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Public Comment in support of Petition Number: PLNPCM2020-00328
Date:Monday, June 8, 2020 9:00:56 AM
Katia,
I am a resident of the neighborhood, and want to express support for this rezone. I think it is
great they want to make changes to this property, and even better if they utilize a ped friendly
zoning code to do so.
Than you,
Megan,
26
From:
To:Pace, Katia
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Rezoning of 1300s and State
Date:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 11:26:21 PM
I am against the rezoning. Vehemently opposed. I do not want Coachmans forced out. I'd love
to see some other locations along state street improved but not this gentrification and upending
of wonderful establishments that may happen
I am a resident of in SLC. Please note my opposition
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
27
From:
To:Pace, Katia
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Zone change
Date:Thursday, August 20, 2020 11:09:05 AM
As a member of the community, with a background in City Planning and place making I fully
support the zone change request at 1301 S State and adjacent parcel. Increasing heights and
creating more truly mixed use areas in the City will have many positive impacts.
Greater heights adjacent to wide street has been proven to reduce traffic speeds. While the
allowable heights won’t allow for the ideal traffic calming heights, (as tall as or taller than the
width of the adjacent street) greater heights are still an benefit.
A project here will bring additional residents to the neighborhood, creating more invested
residents, as well as increasing the population base for retail in the area.
State street is hugely under utilized as far as the density that it could accommodate.
Kyle R Deans
84101
28
1301 and 1321 South State Street CC to FB-UN2 Zoning Map Amendment
Planning Staff Note: As this rezone does not substantially change the development potential of the site
and no immediate development has been proposed with the application, City departments, including
Forestry, Police, Building Services, Fire, Engineering, Transportation, and Public Utilities did not have
issues with the rezone.
29
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
C. Agenda/Minutes
August 26, 2020
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
THIRD AMENDMENT
This meeting will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency
Proclamation No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b)
August 26, 2020, at 5:30 p.m.
(The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion)
This Meeting will not have an anchor location at the City and County Building. Commission
Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning
Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are
interested in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the following
platforms:
• YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings
• SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2
If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or provide
general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at:
• http://tiny.cc/slc-pc-08262020
Instructions for using Webex will be provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR AUGUST 12, 2020
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Rosewood Park Alley & Street Vacation - Olga Crump of the Real Estate Services
Department of Salt Lake City is requesting alley and street vacations within Rosewood Park
in order to consolidate the property to simplify the permitting process for future improvement
projects. These streets and alleys were platted as part of the Kinney and Gourlay’s Improved
Subdivision, recorded in 1887, but were never constructed. These requests were brought
before the Planning Commission on January 22, 2020 seeking a recommendation for a street
closure and alley vacation. The request for a street closure has been amended and is now a
request for a street vacation. The property is zoned OS (Open Space) and is located within
Council District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535-7932
or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2019-01036 & PLNPCM2019-
01037
2. West End Alley Vacation at approximately 740 West 900 South - Maximilian Coreth,
property owner, is requesting to vacate a small triangular portion of the alley abutting the west
side of the property at the above said address. This is not a request to vacate the entire
alley. The applicant is requesting to vacate this portion of the alley in order to acquire the
property to square off the southwestern corner of his property for future development. The
property is zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing) and is located within Council District 2,
represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535-7932 or
christopher.earl@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00268
3. Izzy South Design Review at approximately 534 East 2100 South - Ryan McMullen,
Applicant, is requesting Design Review approval for a proposed 71-unit mixed use building
located at approximately 534 East 2100 South by the name of “Izzy South.” The Applicant is
requesting a modification of the maximum height requirement to accommodate architectural
features on the front-facing façade of the proposed building. The property is zoned CB
(Community Business) and is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler.
(Staff Contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 202-4689 or caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2020-00222
4. Gateway Storage Planned Development at approximately 134 South 700 West - Austin
Lundskog, Applicant, is requesting Planned Development and Design Review approval of a
proposed self-storage facility 103,500 sq. ft. in size at approximately 134 South 700 West.
The property is zoned GMU (Gateway Mixed Use) and is located within Council District 4,
represented by Analia Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Caitlyn Miller at (385) 202-4689 or
caitlyn.miller@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00182 and PLNPCM2020-00399
5. Stanford Commons Planned Development & Preliminary Subdivision at approximately
2052 E Michigan Avenue – Jessica Sluder from Alta Development Group, LLC, representing
the property owner, is requesting approval for a new residential development at the above
listed address. The proposal includes demolishing the discontinued pool area on the site and
subdividing the property into four (4) lots for a proposed construction of three (3) single-family
attached dwellings. The proposed project is subject to the following petitions:
a. Planned Development – Planned Development is requested to modify the required
front yard setback, grade changes greater than four feet (4’) within a required yard and
required lot area from 3,000 square feet to approximate lot area ranging between
2,000 and 2,500 square feet for the new lots. Case number PLNPCM2020-00230
b. Preliminary Subdivision – Preliminary Plat approval is needed to create four (4) new
lots. Case number PLNSUB2020-00231
The property is zoned RMF-30 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential) and is located within
Council District 6, represented by Dan Dugan (Staff contact: Linda Mitchell at (385) 386-2763
or linda.mitchell@slcgov.com)
6. Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 1301 & 1321 South State Street - Glen
Anderson, representing the property owner, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment to
rezone the properties at 1301 and 1321 S. State Street currently zoned CC (Corridor
Commercial) to the FB-UN2 (Form Base Urban Neighborhood 2) zoning district. This zoning
amendment will also add this corner to other sites/corners in the FB-UN2 that allow buildings
up to 65 feet in height. The applicant feels that the intent of the FB-UN2 zoning district better
aligns with the potential use of the corner lot and the potential for a new mixed-use building
(to replace the existing buildings on the parcels). The FB-UN2 also has design standards that
were created to reduce the impacts of increase height and density. The properties are located
within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at (801) 535-
6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00328
POSTPONED
POSTPONED
7. ADU & Special Exception at approximately 1362 South 1300 East - Dwight Yee, property
owner representative, is requesting Conditional Use approval to construct a detached
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) in the rear yard of the property located at 1362 S 1300 E. The
ADU will measure 640 square feet with a height of approximately 16 1/2 feet. The applicant is
also requesting Special Exception approval for grade changes and retaining walls exceeding
4 feet in height. The requested grading and retaining walls are located within the rear and side
yards. The property is zoned R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential and is located within
Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at (801) 535-
7660 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00358 &
PLNPCM2020-00454
For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at
slc.gov/planning/public-meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted
two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning
Commission.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission August 26, 2020 Page 1
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
No. 2 of 2020 (2)(b)
Wednesday, August 26, 2020
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at 5:30:17 PM. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period
of time.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Vice Chairperson, Brenda Scheer; Commissioners;
Maurine Bachman, Amy Barry, Carolynn Hoskins, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes, Sara Urquhart,
and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Chairperson Adrienne Bell was excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Nick Norris, Planning Director; Michaela Oktay,
Planning Deputy Director; Paul Nielson, Attorney; Chris Earl, Associate Planner; Katia Pace, Principal
Planner; Amanda Roman, Principal Planner; and Rosa Jimenez, Administrative Secretary.
Michaela Oktay, Planning Deputy Directory provided participation information for the public.
APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 12, 2020, MEETING MINUTES. 5:32:32 PM
MOTION 5:32:41 PM
Commissioner Bachman moved to approve the August 12, 2020 meeting minutes. Commissioner
Lee seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Bachman, Paredes, Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom,
Lee, and Lyon voted “Aye”. Commissioner Urquhart abstained from voting as she was not present
for the said meeting. The motion passed 7-1.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 5:34:09 PM
Chairperson Bell was not present for the said meeting.
Vice Chairperson Scheer stated she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 5:34:17 PM
Nick Norris, Planning Director, provided the commission with updates on projects that the commission
has previously seen that are now up before the City Council.
5:40:09 PM Vice Chairperson Brenda Scheer read the emergency proclamation.
5:41:16 PM
Rosewood Park Alley & Street Vacation - Olga Crump of the Real Estate Services Department of Salt
Lake City is requesting alley and street vacations within Rosewood Park in order to consolidate the
property to simplify the permitting process for future improvement projects. These streets and alleys were
platted as part of the Kinney and Gourlay’s Improved Subdivision, recorded in 1887, but were never
constructed. These requests were brought before the Planning Commission on January 22, 2020 seeking
a recommendation for a street closure and alley vacation. The request for a s treet closure has been
amended and is now a request for a street vacation. The property is zoned OS (Open Space) and is
located within Council District 1, represented by James Rogers. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535-
7932 or christopher.earl@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2019-01036 & PLNPCM2019-01037
Salt Lake City Planning Commission August 26, 2020 Page 2
Christopher Earl, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the
case file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council with the conditions listed in the staff report.
PUBLIC HEARING 5:46:07 PM
Vice-Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak; Vice-Chairperson
Scheer closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION 5:46:51 PM
Commissioner Bachman stated, based on the findings and analysis in the staff report, the policy
considerations for street vacation and alley vacation, and the input received I move that the
Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the street
vacation and alley vacation proposed in PLNPCM2019-01036 and PLNPCM2019-01037 with the
condition listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Bachman, Urquhart,
Paredes, Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom, Lee and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed
unanimously.
5:48:30 PM
West End Alley Vacation at approximately 740 West 900 South - Maximilian Coreth, property owner,
is requesting to vacate a small triangular portion of the alley abutting the west side of the property at the
above said address. This is not a request to vacate the entire alley. The applicant is requesting to vacate
this portion of the alley in order to acquire the property to square off the southwestern corner of his
property for future development. The property is zoned M-1 (Light Manufacturing) and is located within
Council District 2, represented by Andrew Johnston. (Staff contact: Chris Earl at (801) 535-7932 or
christopher.earl@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00268
Christopher Earl, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the
case file). He stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council with the conditions listed in the staff report.
Max Coreth, representing the property owners, was available for questions.
PUBLIC HEARING 5:55:24 PM
Vice-Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak; Vice-Chairperson
Scheer closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION 5:56:58 PM
Commissioner Urquhart stated, based on the findings and analysis in the staff report, the policy
considerations for alley vacation, and the input received I move that the Planning Commission
forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the alley vacation proposed in
PLNPCM2020-00268 with the condition listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Bachman, Urquhart,
Paredes, Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom, Lee, and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed
unanimously.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission August 26, 2020 Page 3
5:58:36 PM
Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 1301 & 1321 South State Street - Glen Anderson,
representing the property owner, is requesting a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone the properties at
1301 and 1321 S. State Street currently zoned CC (Corridor Commercial) to the FB-UN2 (Form Base
Urban Neighborhood 2) zoning district. This zoning amendment will also add this corner to other
sites/corners in the FB-UN2 that allow buildings up to 65 feet in height. The applicant feels that the intent
of the FB-UN2 zoning district better aligns with the potential use of the corner lot and the p otential for a
new mixed-use building (to replace the existing buildings on the parcels). The FB-UN2 also has design
standards that were created to reduce the impacts of increase height and density. The properties are
located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at (801) 535-
6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00328
Katia Pace, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the case
file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation
to the City Council.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification of when the State Street plan, Life on State, will be adopted
Glen Anderson, applicant, provided further detailed information regarding the request.
PUBLIC HEARING 6:24:14 PM
Vice-Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing; seeing no one wished to speak; Vice-Chairperson
Scheer closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION 6:25:28 PM
Commissioner Lyon stated, based on the information in the staff report, the information
presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission
recommend that the City Council approve the proposed map amendment, PLNPCM2020-00328,
at 1301 and 1321 South State Street from CC to FB-UN2 with the condition listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Bachman, Urquhart,
Paredes, Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom, Lee and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed
unanimously.
6:27:46 PM
ADU & Special Exception at approximately 1362 South 1300 East - Dwight Yee, property owner
representative, is requesting Conditional Use approval to construct a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU) in the rear yard of the property located at 1362 S 1300 E. The ADU will measure 640 square feet
with a height of approximately 16 1/2 feet. The applicant is also requesting Special Exception approval
for grade changes and retaining walls exceeding 4 feet in height. The requested grading and retaining
walls are located within the rear and side yards. The property is zoned R-1/5,000 Single-Family
Residential and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Amanda
Roman at (801) 535-7660 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2020-00358 &
PLNPCM2020-00454
Amanda Roman, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the
case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approval with the conditions
listed in the staff report.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission August 26, 2020 Page 4
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification on whether there would still be a special exception for the retaining walls if there were
no ADU
Dwight Yee, representative of the property owner, provided further detailed information.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:
• Clarification on retaining wall
• ADU setback clarification
PUBLIC HEARING 6:49:22 PM
Vice-Chairperson Scheer opened the Public Hearing;
Cynthia – Stated her opposition of the request. She also raised concern with lack of parking.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Vice-Chairperson Scheer closed the Public Hearing.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant further discussed the following:
• Clarification on onsite parking
• Whether the applicant can reduce the rear-yard setback to allow for more parking
Discussion was made to add possible conditions to the motion.
FIRST MOTION 7:16:09 PM
Commissioner Bachman stated, based on the information listed in the staff report, the information
presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Commission approve
the request for Conditional Use for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at 1362 S 1300 E, as
presented in petition PLNPCM2020-00358, with the conditions listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Young-Otterstrom seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Bachman,
Urquhart, Paredes, Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom, Lee, and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed
unanimously.
SECOND MOTION 7:18:09 PM
Commissioner Bachman stated, based on the information listed in the staff report, the information
presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Commission approve
the Special Exception request for grading and retaining walls exceeding four feet (4’) in height at
1362 S 1300 E, as presented in petition PLNPCM2020-00454, with the conditions listed in the staff
report.
Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Commissioners Barry, Bachman, Urquhart,
Paredes, Hoskins, Young-Otterstrom, Lee, and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed
unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 7:19:41 PM
3. PLANNING COMMISSION
E. Staff Presentation Slides
August 26, 2020
Salt Lake City
Planning Commission
August 26, 2020
Zoning Map Amendment
@
1301 and 1321 South State Street
from:
Corridor Commercial (CC)
to:
Form Base Urban Neighborhood 2 (FB-UN2)
Applicant would like to:
1.Consolidate the two parcels
2.Remove existing buildings
3.Build a mixed-use building –
owner occupied and financially
attainable
Recommendation:
For the Planning Commission to
recommend approval to the City
Council. According to the following
analysis and condition.
Site:
1301 & 1321 S.
State Street
Edison StreetState Street1300 South
Current Zoning
State Street1300 South
CC
RMF-45R-1/5,000CC
CC
Key Intersection
•State Street is an important gateway to Salt Lake City
•1300 South is a major east/west arterial street
Plans applicable to this site:
Plan Salt Lake
•access to a wide variety of housing types
•basic human need for safety
•social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community
Central Community Master Plan
•urban design requirements to “improve the quality of living in the Central Community
•need for safety
•new mixed-use designations to support livable communities
Plans applicable to this site:
RDA Project Area
•higher aesthetic
•support for population growth
•mixed-use development options for increased residential capacity
Life on State (Draft)
•more density along State Street
•more height
•development that better engages the sidewalk and street
Zoning:
Current Zoning:
•Corridor Commercial (CC)
•State Street Overlay
Proposed Zoning:
•Form Base Urban Neighborhood 2
(FB-UN2)
•State Street Overlay
Zoning Comparison
CC zoning requires more setbacks, more
parking and less height/density
Zoning Standard CC Zone FB-UN2 Zone
Front Setback*15’
25’ Max. for 35% (SSSC Overlay)
0 Minimum
10’ Maximum
Corner Side Yard 15’ 0 Minimum
10’ Maximum
Interior Side Yard 0 15’ adjacent to single family or FB-
UN1
Rear Yard 10’20’ adjacent to single family or FB-
UN1
Height 30’ with additional 15’ through the
Design Review process 50’ or 65’ on some corner lots
Lot Size (minimum)10,000 square feet 4,000 square feet
Lot Width 75’30’
Parking
• 1 per 1br Unit
• 2 per 2br Unit
• 2 per 1,000 sq. ft. retail
No minimum
Design Standards CC Zone
South State
Street
Corridor
FB-UN2 Zone
Ground floor use Yes
Ground floor use + visual interest Yes
Building materials: ground floor Yes
Building materials: upper floors Yes
Glass: ground floor Yes Yes
Building entrances Yes Yes Yes
Blank wall: maximum length Yes Yes
Upper floor step back Yes
Balconies & Patios Yes
Lighting: parking lot Yes Yes
Screening of equipment and service area Yes
Pedestrian Connections Yes
Open Space Area Yes
Building Fenestration Yes
Parking Yes
Parking setback Yes Yes
Design Guidelines Comparison
FB-UN2 has more design guidelines
Properties
Across the
Street:
•Commercial
•Lower Height
Properties
Across the
Street:
•Drive-
through
•Parking in
front
Properties
Across the
Street:
•Drive-
through
•Parking in
front
Adjacent Properties:
•Multi-family residential
•Government office building
Findings:
Staff finds that development under
the CC zone does not encourage
the type of development the
different master plans call for.
Findings:
The type of development in the FB-
UN2 has the potential for:
•Additional housing
•To be more sustainable
•To be safer
•Better designed
Building Regulation Building Form
Building height and
Placement:
Cottage Development1 Row House Multi-Family
Residential
Mixed Use Storefront
H Height 2.5 stories, 30' maximum
from established grade 4 stories with a maximum of 50'. 5 stories with a maximum of 65' on
parcels located on the corners of West Temple at 800 or 900 South, 200
West at 700, 800 or 900 South, 200 West at Fayette Avenue, 300 West at
800 or 900 South, the southeast corner of 1300 South and State Street
and in the area identified on Figure 21A.27.050C.1. All heights measured
from established grade
Table 21A.27.050E2
FB-UN2 Building Form Standards
Condition of Approval:
In order to add this site to other
corner sites the parcels will need to
be consolidated.
4. ORIGINAL PETITION
Updated 7/1/19
Zoning Amendment
Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance Amend the Zoning Map
OFFICE USE ONLY
Received By: Date Received: Project #:
Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment:
PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
Address of Subject Property (or Area):
Name of Applicant: Phone:
Address of Applicant:
E-mail of Applicant:Cell/Fax:
Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property:
Owner Contractor Architect Other:
Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant):
E-mail of Property Owner:Phone:
Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate
information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and
made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public
review by any interested party.
AVAILABLE CONSULTATION
If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City
Planning Counter at (801) 535-7700 prior to submitting the application.
REQUIRED FEE
Map Amendment: filing fee of $1,034, plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre
Text Amendment: filing fee of $1,035, plus $100 for newspaper notice.
Plus additional fee for mailed public notices.
SIGNATURE
If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required.
Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING 801-201-7718
mike@tray-tag.com
801-908-8818Glenn Anderson
n
glenn@gaarch.com
801-577-1020
n
Updated 7/1/19 Staff Review SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
1.Project Description (please attach additional sheets.)
A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment.
A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned.
List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area.
Is the request amending the Zoning Map?
If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed.
Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance?
If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed.
WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION
Mailing Address: Planning Counter
PO Box 145471
Salt Lake City, UT 84114
In Person: Planning Counter
451 South State Street, Room 215
Telephone: (801) 535-7700
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED
______ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I
understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the
submittal package.
X
X
X
X
We have been working with Nick Norris and Katia Pace with the Salt Lake City Planning Department
over the past year to draw the information below. We have also met with the Liberty Park
Neighborhood Council with members of the Ballpark Neighborhood Council present where we
received an almost unanimous straw poll vote of support.
Purpose of the Zoning Amendment
We are requesting that parcels #16073580080000 and #16073580080000 currently zoned CC be
changed to FB-UN2.
FB-UN2 allows mixed use at a greater density and is more in alignment with the proposed masterplan
for the State Street Corridor. FB-UN2 allows for increased building height and density to facilitate a
mixed use development that reinforces the cities masterplan. Changing the zoning to FB-UN2 provides a
permissible avenue to achieve increased height and density through the design review process defined
within this Zone. The increased density allows more units. This will lower the costs of the units making
them more affordable. This is another goal of the master plan.
While the height is being increased the building mass will step back at the third floor reducing its impact
on both State Street and the apartments to the east.
Description of the proposed development:
Create a medium density mixed use development that will reinforce the goals of the proposed State
Street Master Plan. The development will consist of:
Provide Street level retail.
Ownership, vested interest: Provide Upper level affordable condominiums with open space.
Provide opportunity to own, a condominium instead of paying rent at close to the same cost.
Neighborhood awareness: Owners would be more likely than renters to monitor activities in the
neighborhood.
Provide onsite secured parking for owners and their guests and patrons of the onsite retail
establishments. The secured parking garage will help reduce car prowls in the area.
Provide Onsite storage units for residence.
Reasons why present zoning is not appropriate:
The State Street Community Reinvestment Plan (CURRENT DRAFT) defines the site as Commercial
Corridor, “CC”. This use encourages residential and commercial mid-rise construction with a mix of uses
to include corner shops, small markets and housing. Midrise is typically between 4 to 11 stories. The
proposed development is 5 stories. There are no height restrictions in the draft. The current Zoning of
CC does not accommodate the intent of this Plan.
CC Zoning height is 30 feet with a 15 foot increase to 45 feet. This does not accommodate the
density this site needs to achieve to be able to provide affordable condominiums
The setbacks in the CC zoning will not provide an adequate footprint to achieve the goals of this project.
Narrowing the depth on the basement, first and second story will reduce the parking by almost 50%.
CC Zoning encourages mixed uses within the Zoning district but not necessarily in the same
development or structure.
5. MAILING LIST
1314 PLAZA LLC 2256 S LAKELINE CIR SALT LAKE UT 84109
AMERICAN TOTAL CARE, LLC 150 E 1300 S SALT LAKE UT 84115
ANDREW R ADELMAN & SARA E ADE 1339 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE UT 84115
ANDY TRAN 1330 S STATE ST SALT LAKE UT 84115
ANIKA WEBB 1321 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE UT 84115
AXIOM PROPERTIES III, LLC 351 W 400 S SALT LAKE UT 84101
BROTHERS & SON RETAIL LLC 1302 S STATE ST SALT LAKE UT 84115
FIRST UTAH BANK 3826 S 2300 E SALT LAKE UT 84109
FREE WESLEYAN CHURCH OF TONGA PO BOX 27662 SALT LAKE UT 84127
GARY L PETERSON & KATHRYN A PET 1220 S STATE ST SALT LAKE UT 84111
JARED FOTSCH 154 E 1300 S SALT LAKE UT 84115
JERRY W LOCKHART 1398 N 640 W WEST BOU UT 84087
JOHN NIKOLS 1313 S STATE ST SALT LAKE UT 84115
MICHAEL DURHAM 1345 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE UT 84115
MONICA AGUILAR 1333 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE UT 84115
MORSE LAURELWOOD PROPERTIES L 223 W 700 S SALT LAKE UT 84101
NATE WADE INVESTMENT 1421 S AMBASSADOR WY SALT LAKE UT 84108
NATE WADE INVESTMENT COMPANY1207 S MAIN ST SALT LAKE UT 84111
OLIVER WHITE & DIANA WHITE 1327 S EDISON ST SALT LAKE UT 84115
SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE UT 84114
SHRINERS HOSPITALS FOR CRIPPLED PO BOX 31356 TAMPA FL 33631
SRI REAL ESTATE PROPERTIES LLC PO BOX 95389 SOUTH JOR UT 84095
PROPERTY OWNER 917 E MILLCREEK WY SALT LAKE CUT 84106
PROPERTY OWNER 3703 W 8110 S WEST JORDUT 84088
WILLISTON SLOULIN FIELD PAD LLC; & 5670 WILSHIRE BLVD #1250 LOS ANGEL CA 90036
Current Occupant 1220 S STATE ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84111
Current Occupant 85 E 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84111
Current Occupant 1241 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84111
Current Occupant 40 E 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 60 E 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 1325 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 1331 S MAJOR ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 1302 S STATE ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 1318 S STATE ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 1324 S STATE ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 1330 S STATE ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 1332 S STATE ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 1340 S STATE ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 1350 S STATE ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 1297 S STATE ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 145 E 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 115 E 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 1301 S STATE ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 1321 S STATE ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 1328 S EDISON ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 150 E 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 154 E 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 1315 S EDISON ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 1321 S EDISON ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 1327 S EDISON ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 1333 S EDISON ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 1339 S EDISON ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
Current Occupant 1345 S EDISON ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84115
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Sam Owen, Policy Analyst
DATE:February 2, 2021
RE:Free Metered Parking for SLC Green Vehicles
– Qualifying Vehicles
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
In 2006, the City Council adopted through ordinance a program to established free parking at metered stalls in
the downtown area for qualifying “green” vehicles, i.e. those meeting specific emissions and energy consumption
criteria.
In 2018, the City Council adopted an Administration proposal to render the criteria for vehicles qualifying under
the free parking program more restrictive. The current 2018 criteria are tied to regularly updated national
standards. The 2018 criteria resulted in a significant reduction of the number of qualifying vehicles, as well as a
projected revenue increase in connection with more vehicles being subject to parking fees downtown.
The Administration has now proposed a return to the 2006 ordinance standards. More vehicles would qualify
for free parking downtown, resulting in a projected revenue reduction. From the transmittal: “Based on a 2016
parking study, the Transportation Division estimates that operating under the current ordinance would have
reduced calendar year 2020 city parking revenues by approximately $25K. Under the original [2006] ordinance,
we estimate that parking revenues would have been reduced by $90K. These estimates assume a normal parking
year; one without COVID19 interruptions to parking operations and demand.”
In other words, the difference in projected parking revenue loss between the existing “2018” ordinance and the
proposed return to the “original” 2006 ordinance would have been an estimated $65,000 for a normal (i.e. non-
pandemic) parking year.
TIMELINE (see table on page 2 of staff report)
-2006: Administration proposes & Council adopts free metered parking for “green” vehicles, i.e. vehicles
meeting certain emissions and energy consumption standards
-2018: Administration proposes & Council adopts limitations to qualifying vehicles, significantly
reducing the number of qualifying vehicles by updating emissions and energy consumption standards
-2020: Administration proposes returning to 2006 criteria, i.e. “original ordinance” for vehicle inclusion
in the free metered parking program
Item Schedule:
Briefing: February 2, 2021
Public Hearing: TBD
Potential Action: TBD
Page | 2
Exhibit 3 from Administration transmittal (see attachments)
Page | 3
Attachments
1. Administration transmittal
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The current proposal has a budget impact, reducing annual revenue by an estimated $65,000 (see issue
at-a-glance). Should the Council postpone consideration of the ordinance amendment until it can be
evaluated in the context of the annual budget?
2. In 2018, the amendment to make the ordinance more restrictive was proposed in part to incentivize or
reward greater conservation through the utilization of more efficient vehicles and newer technologies.
Does the Council support broadening the incentive of free parking to again include lower efficiency
vehicles that use older conservation technology?
3. The Council might wish to discuss with the Administration or request more information on how
standards for vehicle inclusion in the free parking program could be updated on a regular basis moving
forward, or if those standards should be updated.
a. In other words, the Council might consider a balancing test between greater inclusion for the
free parking, versus greater emphasis on conservation technology and more restrictive efficiency
standards.
4. Finally, the Council might request revenue change projections over the next several years; does the
Administration anticipate that the “curve” of revenue loss as a result of the current proposal would be
stable over subsequent years, or is there reason to anticipate at some point the loss becoming more
acute as electric vehicle purchases (used and new) increase, perhaps dramatically.
5. The Council might consider the value of a public hearing for the proposed amendment, as it results in
some revenue change for the City as well as a tangible public benefit being extended to a broader group
of community members.
a. In this context, the Council might also consider the equity benefits of the current proposal.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: November 16, 2020
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Free Metered Parking for SLC Green Vehicles – Qualifying Vehicles
STAFF CONTACT: Jon Larsen, PE, Director, Transportation Division, 801-535-6630
Dan Bergenthal, PE, Transportation Engineer, 801-535-7106
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: Pass an ordinance
BUDGET IMPACT: Annual parking revenues will be reduced by an estimated $65K
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Since 2006, “SLC Green Vehicles” have been eligible for a
special parking permit that allows free parking for up to two hours at Salt Lake City parking
meters. As directed by the 2006 ordinance (Exhibit 1 - SLC Code 12.56.205), a qualifying
vehicle was required to either achieve a minimum EPA designated city fuel economy rating of
41 MPG or an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Air Pollution Score (a.k.a. Smog Rating)
of at least 8 (on a scale of 1-10). In 2018, the Salt Lake City Council passed an ordinance,
amending ordinance 12.56.205, to introduce more stringent criteria for vehicles qualifying for
the program. This was done due to the high numbers of vehicles qualifying for the program, the
expected rapid acceleration of new vehicles qualifying and to ensure that the free parking
incentive is only provided, ongoing, to the cleanest, most efficient vehicles. Under the new
criteria (Exhibit 2 - current SLC Code 12.56.205), a qualifying vehicle is required to meet the
thresholds established by the EPA to be designated as “SmartWay Elite” as required for the
current calendar year. For example, for calendar year 2020, a vehicle from model year 2011 must
Lisa Shaffer (Dec 14, 2020 11:10 MST)
12/14/2020
12/14/2020
meet the “SmartWay Elite” thresholds established for model year 2020 vehicles to qualify for
our program.
The Administration understands the intent of the 2018 ordinance amendment but is now
concerned about honoring early adopters of green vehicles, many of whom purchased their
vehicles with the SLC parking incentive in mind. The Administration feels that the city should
continue to reward them for their commitment to improving air quality and reducing our
country’s dependence on foreign oil by returning the program to the vehicle eligibility
requirements of the original ordinance. This change may also encourage program participants to
hold on to their vehicles longer, thereby reducing demand and the accompanying environmental
impact of producing new vehicles, however slight that benefit may be.
Since the revision in 2018, the Administration has had time to observe the impact the current
ordinance’s eligibility requirements have had on the program. In 2017, before adoption of the
new ordinance, 1,222 vehicles (by year, make, model and engine) met the requirements of the
ordinance to receive free parking (model years 2000 – 2017). After the current ordinance was
implemented, that number was reduced to 227 in 2018 (model years 2000 – 2018), 298 in 2019
(model years 2000 – 2019) and 368 in 2020 (model years 2000 – 2020). Returning the program
to its original vehicle eligibility requirements will put the number of qualifying vehicles at 1,407
in 2020 (model years 2000 – 2020). Exhibit 3 compares the number of vehicles qualifying for
program participation under both ordinances for each year, 2017-2020. Exhibits 4, 5 and 6 look
in detail at program year 2020, listing the vehicles qualifying under each ordinance for vehicle
model years 2000-2020.
Based on a 2016 parking study, the Transportation Division estimates that operating under the
current ordinance would have reduced calendar year 2020 city parking revenues by
approximately $25K. Under the original ordinance, we estimate that parking revenues would
have been reduced by $90K. These estimates assume a normal parking year; one without
COVID19 interruptions to parking operations and demand.
PUBLIC PROCESS: None
EXHIBITS:
1) SLC Code 12.56.205 July 2018
2) SLC Code 12.56.205 August 2018
3) Qualifying Vehicle Comparisons – Original and Current Ordinances
4) Qualifying “SLC Green Vehicles" List for Program Year 2020 – Original Ordinance
5) Qualifying “SLC Green Vehicles" List for Program Year 2020 – Current Ordinance
6) Legislative and Clean Ordinance Drafts – 12.56.205
Exhibit 1
12.56.205: PARKING METERS; NO CHARGE FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL, FUEL
EFFICIENT AND LOW POLLUTING VEHICLES; ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING
STATIONS:
A. The following definitions shall apply to this section:
ALTERNATIVE FUEL: Propane, compressed natural gas, electricity, or any motor or
special fuel that meets the clean fuel vehicle standards in the federal clean air act
amendments of 1990, title II, as amended.
ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLE: A vehicle with an engine powered full or part time by an
alternative fuel.
CLEAN FUEL LICENSE PLATE: A special group license plate issued by the Utah
department of motor vehicles as authorized by Utah code section 41-1a-418, or its successor.
DIVISION: The city's transportation division.
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION: A parking stall equipped with electrican
electrical outlet to charge electric vehicles.
FUEL EFFICIENT VEHICLE: A vehicle that is powered by gasoline or diesel that achieves
a city driving fuel efficiency of forty one (41) or more miles per gallon.
LOW POLLUTING VEHICLE: A vehicle that achieves an environmental protection agency
(EPA) air pollution score of at least eight (8) on the EPA vehicle rating scale of zero to ten
(10)..
B. 1. The division shall issue a vehicle windshield sticker to all persons applying for such
sticker who provide evidence acceptable to the division that the vehicle for which the sticker
is desired is a "fuel efficient vehicle" or a "low polluting vehicle" as defined in subsection A
of this section. Motorcycles and other vehicles that are not automobiles shall not be issued a
sticker pursuant to this section.
2. The recipient of the sticker shall affix it only to the bottom of the driver's side of the rear
window of the vehicle for which it is issued so that it is readily visible.
C. Parking spaces may be used without charge on all days of the week at all hours by:
1. Vehicles properly displaying the sticker referred to in subsection B of this section; and
2. Vehicles properly displaying the clean fuel license plate referred to in subsection A of this
section.
D. No person parking a vehicle without charge pursuant to this section shall park or permit such
vehicle to remain parked in any parking space for a continuous period longer than that
designated on the parking meter or on posted signs that correspond to such parking space, nor
shall they park in restricted spaces pursuant to section 12.56.180 of this chapter.
E. In assessing the evidence provided by an applicant for such sticker as set forth in subsection
B1 of this section, the division may consider:
1. The fuel efficiency information for particular years and models of vehicles determined by
the department of energy and the environmental protection agency as shown on their
website at www.fueleconomy.gov or its successor website; and
2. The EPA's annual "Green Vehicle Guide" as found at the website
www.epa.gov/greenvehicles or its successor website.
F. Use of electric vehicle charging stations is restricted to electric vehicles actively charging their
battery at the provided electrical outlet. The division may establish time limits for use of
particular electric vehicle charging stations. No person shall use an electric vehicle charging
station for longer than the time period specified for that station. Failure to comply with this
provision will result in a civil penalty as set forth in section 12.56.550 of this chapter.
Exhibit 2
12.56.205: PARKING METERS; NO CHARGE FOR SLC GREEN VEHICLES;
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS:
A. The following definitions shall apply to this section:
DIVISION: The city's transportation division.
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION: A parking stall equipped with infrastructure
that supplies electric energy for the recharging of electric vehicles.
SLC GREEN VEHICLE: A passenger vehicle that meets the most current model year
standards, established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to qualify as an
EPA SmartWay Elite vehicle.
B. 1. The Division shall issue a vehicle window sticker to all persons applying for such sticker
who provide evidence acceptable to the Division that the vehicle for which the sticker is
desired is a SLC Green Vehicle as defined in subsection A of this section.
2. The recipient of the sticker shall affix it to the bottom left side of the rear window of the
vehicle for which it is issued, so that it is readily visible, or as directed by the Division.
C. Salt Lake City operated on-street metered parking spaces may be used without charge on all
days of the week at all hours by vehicles properly displaying the sticker referred to in
subsection B of this section.
D. No person parking a vehicle without charge pursuant to this section shall park or permit such
vehicle to remain parked in any parking space for a continuous period longer than that
designated on the parking meter pay station or on the posted sign that corresponds to such
parking space, nor shall they park in restricted spaces pursuant to section 12.56.180 of this
chapter.
E. In assessing the evidence provided by an applicant for such sticker as set forth in subsection
B1 of this section, the Division may consider:
1. Vehicle information for particular years and models of vehicles determined by the U.S.
Department of Energy or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that demonstrates a
particular vehicle meets the requirements set to qualify as a current model year EPA
SmartWay Elite; and
2. The EPA's annual "Green Vehicle Guide" as found at the website
www.epa.gov/greenvehicles or its successor website.
3. SmartWay vehicle information as found at the website www.fueleconomy.gov or its
successor website.
F. Use of Salt Lake City operated electric vehicle charging stations is restricted to electric
vehicles actively charging their batteries. The Division may establish time limits for use of
particular electric vehicle charging stations. No person shall use an electric vehicle charging
station and the associated parking stall for longer than the time period specified for that
station. Failure to comply with this provision will result in a civil penalty as set forth in
section 12.56.550 of this chapter.
Exhibit 3
Program Year
# Qualifying Vehicles ‐
Original Ordinance # Qualifying Vehicles ‐ Current Ordinance
2018 1268 227
2019 1336 298
2020 1407 368
Model Year
# Qualifying Vehicles ‐
Original Ordinance
# Qualifying Vehicles ‐ Current Ordinance ‐
2020 Elite Thresholds
2000 4 0
2001 5 0
2002 6 0
2003 14 0
2004 26 2
2005 29 2
2006 40 2
2007 52 1
2008 55 1
2009 70 1
2010 87 3
2011 83 10
2012 83 11
2013 117 18
2014 128 26
2015 123 25
2016 135 27
2017 165 47
2018 46 48
2019 68 69
2020 71 75
Totals 1407 368
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles"
#'s of Qualifying Vehicles from Each Model Year
Original vs. Current SLC Ordinances
Program Year 2020
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles"
#'s of Qualifying Vehicles by Program Year
Original vs. Current SLC Ordinances
Exhibit 4
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
2000 HONDA Accord 2.3 Gasoline YHNXV02.3NL5
2000 HONDA Civic CNG 1.6 CNG
2000 HONDA Insight 1 Gasoline
2000 NISSAN Sentra 1.8 Gasoline YNSXV01.85BA
2001 HONDA Accord 2.3 Gasoline 1HNXV02.3BF9
2001 HONDA Civic CNG 1.7 CNG
2001 HONDA Insight 1 Gasoline 1HNXV01.0HEV
2001 NISSAN Sentra 1.8 Gasoline 1NSXV01.852A
2001 TOYOTA Prius 1.5 Gasoline
2002 FORD Crown Victoria CNG 4.6 CNG
2002 HONDA Accord 2.3 Gasoline 2HNXV02.3FK6
2002 HONDA Civic CNG 1.7 CNG
2002 HONDA Insight 1 Gasoline 2HNXV01.0CCE
2002 NISSAN Sentra 1.8 Gasoline 2NSXV01.852A
2002 TOYOTA Prius 1.5 Gasoline
2003 BMW 325ci 2.5 Gasoline 3BMXV02.5M56
2003 BMW 325i 2.5 Gasoline 3BMXV02.5M56
2003 BMW 325i Sport Wagon 2.5 Gasoline 3BMXV02.5M56
2003 FORD Focus 2.3 Gasoline 3FMXV02.3VLC
2003 FORD Focus Station Wagon 2.3 Gasoline 3FMXV02.3VLC
2003 HONDA Accord 2.4 Gasoline 3HNXV02.4KCP
2003 HONDA Civic CNG 1.7 CNG
2003 HONDA Civic Hybrid 1.3 Gasoline 3HNXV01.36CV
2003 HONDA Insight 1 Gasoline 3HNXV01.0PCE
2003 HYUNDAI Elantra 2 Gasoline 3HYXV02.0XOC
2003 NISSAN Sentra 1.8 Gasoline 3NSXV01.863A
2003 TOYOTA Prius 1.5 Gasoline
2003 VOLVO S60 2.4 Gasoline 3VVXV2.43S2N
2003 VOLVO V70 2.4 Gasoline 3VVXV2.43S2N
2004 BMW 325ci 2.5 Gasoline 4BMXV02.5M56
2004 BMW 325i 2.5 Gasoline 4BMXV02.5M56
2004 BMW 325i Sport Wagon 2.5 Gasoline 4BMXV02.5M56
2004 CHRYSLER Sebring 2.4 Gasoline 4CRXV0148VX0
2004 DODGE Stratus 2.4 Gasoline 4CRXV0148VX0
2004 FORD Focus 2.3 Gasoline 4FMXV02.3VLC
2004 FORD Focus Station Wagon 2.3 Gasoline 4FMXV02.3VLC
2004 HONDA Accord 2.4 Gasoline 4HNXV02.4KCV
2004 HONDA Civic CNG 1.7 CNG
2004 HONDA Civic Hybrid 1.3 Gasoline 4HNXV01.37CP
2004 HONDA Insight 1 Gasoline 4HNXV01.0NCE
2004 HYUNDAI Elantra 2 Gasoline 4HYXV02.0XPC
2004 KIA Spectra 2 Gasoline 4KMXV02.0J01
2004 MAZDA 3 2 Gasoline 4TKXV02.0FJ1
2004 MITSUBISHI Galant 2.4 Gasoline 4DSXV02.4G6G
2004 NISSAN Altima 2.5 Gasoline 4NSXV02.585A
2004 NISSAN Sentra 1.8 Gasoline 4NSXV01.883A
2004 SUBARU Legacy 2.5 Gasoline 4FJXV02.5NKR
2004 SUBARU Legacy Wagon 2.5 Gasoline 4FJXV02.5NKR
2004 SUBARU Outback 2.5 Gasoline 4FJXV02.5NKR
2004 SUBARU Outback Wagon 2.5 Gasoline 4FJXV02.5NKR
2004 TOYOTA Camry 2.4 Gasoline 4TYXV02.4MXA
2004 TOYOTA Prius 1.5 Gasoline
2004 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 2 Gasoline 4VWXV02.0227
2004 VOLVO S60 2.4 Gasoline 4VVXV2.43S2N
2004 VOLVO V70 2.4 Gasoline 4VVXV2.43S2N
2005 BMW 325ci 2.5 Gasoline 5BMXV02.5M56
2005 BMW 325i 2.5 Gasoline 5BMXV02.5M56
2005 BMW 325i Sport Wagon 2.5 Gasoline 5BMXV02.5M56
2005 CHRYSLER Sebring 2.4 Gasoline 5CRXV0148MX0
2005 DODGE Stratus 2.4 Gasoline 5CRXV0148MX0
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
1 of 24
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
2005 FORD Escape HEV 2.3 Gasoline
2005 FORD Focus 2 Gasoline 5FMXV02.01GB
2005 FORD Focus Station Wagon 2 Gasoline 5FMXV02.01GB
2005 HONDA Accord 2.4 Gasoline 5HNXV02.4ECV
2005 HONDA Civic CNG 1.7 CNG
2005 HONDA Civic Hybrid 1.3 Gasoline 5HNXV01.3YCV
2005 HONDA Insight 1 Gasoline 5HNXV01.0XCE
2005 KIA Spectra 2 Gasoline 5KMXV02.0LPC
2005 MAZDA 3 2 Gasoline 5TKXV02.0NG1
2005 MAZDA 6 2.3 Gasoline 5TKXV02.3NG1
2005 MITSUBISHI Galant 2.4 Gasoline 5DSXV02.4G6G
2005 NISSAN Altima 2.5 Gasoline 5NSXV02.585A
2005 NISSAN Sentra 1.8 Gasoline 5NSXV01.883A
2005 SUBARU Legacy 2.5 Gasoline 5FJXX02.5NKR
2005 SUBARU Legacy Wagon 2.5 Gasoline 5FJXX02.5NKR
2005 SUBARU Outback Wagon 2.5 Gasoline 5FJXX02.5NKR
2005 TOYOTA Camry 2.4 Gasoline 5TYXV02.4MXA
2005 TOYOTA Prius 1.5 Gasoline
2005 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 2 Gasoline 5VWXV02.0227
2005 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 2.5 Gasoline 5VWXV02.5257
2005 VOLVO S40 2.4 Gasoline 5VVXV02.4S2N
2005 VOLVO S60 2.4 Gasoline 5VVXV02.4S2N
2005 VOLVO V50 2.4 Gasoline 5VVXV02.4S2N
2005 VOLVO V70 2.4 Gasoline 5VVXV02.4S2N
2006 BMW 325ci 2.5 Gasoline 6BMXV02.5M56
2006 BUICK Allure 3.8 Gasoline 6GMXV03.8044
2006 BUICK LaCrosse 3.8 Gasoline 6GMXV03.8044
2006 CHEVROLET Cobalt 2.2 Gasoline 6GMXV02.2030
2006 FORD Escape Hybrid 2.3 Gasoline
2006 FORD Focus 2 Gasoline 6FMXV02.0VZP
2006 FORD Focus Station 2 Gasoline 6FMXV02.0VZP
2006 FORD Fusion 2.3 Gasoline 6FMXV02.31ZA
2006 HONDA Accord 2.4 Gasoline 6HNXV02.4CMC
2006 HONDA Accord Hybrid 3 Gasoline
2006 HONDA Civic CNG 1.8 CNG
2006 HONDA Civic Hybrid 1.3 Gasoline
2006 HONDA Insight 1 Gasoline 6HNXV01.0VK5
2006 HYUNDAI Elantra 2 Gasoline 6HYXV02.0XPC
2006 KIA Spectra 2 Gasoline 6KMXV02.0LPC
2006 LEXUS RX 400H 3.3 Gasoline
2006 MAZDA 3 2 Gasoline 6TKXV02.0NH1
2006 MAZDA 3 2.3 Gasoline 6TKXV02.3NG1
2006 MAZDA 6 2.3 Gasoline 6TKXV02.3NG2
2006 MAZDA Tribute Hybrid 2.3 Gasoline
2006 MERCURY Mariner Hybrid 2.3 Gasoline
2006 MERCURY Milan 2.3 Gasoline 6FMXV02.31ZA
2006 MITSUBISHI Galant 2.4 Gasoline 6DSXV02.4G6G
2006 NISSAN Altima 2.5 Gasoline 6NSXV02.585A
2006 PONTIAC Grand Prix 3.8 Gasoline 6GMXV03.8044
2006 SATURN Ion 2.2 Gasoline 6GMXV02.2030
2006 SUBARU Legacy 2.5 Gasoline 6FJXX02.5NVD
2006 SUBARU Legacy Wagon 2.5 Gasoline 6FJXX02.5NVD
2006 SUBARU Outback 2.5 Gasoline 6FJXX02.5NVD
2006 SUBARU Outback Wagon 2.5 Gasoline 6FJXX02.5NVD
2006 TOYOTA Camry 2.4 Gasoline 6TYXV02.4MXA
2006 TOYOTA Highlander Hybrid 3.3 Gasoline
2006 TOYOTA Prius 1.5 Gasoline
2006 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 2.5 Gasoline 6VWXV02.5257
2006 VOLKSWAGEN New Beetle 2.5 Gasoline 6VWXV02.5257
2006 VOLKSWAGEN Rabbit 2.5 Gasoline 6VWXV02.5257
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
2 of 24
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
2006 VOLVO S40 2.4 Gasoline 6VVXV02.4S2N
2006 VOLVO S60 2.4 Gasoline 6VVXV02.4S2N
2006 VOLVO V50 2.4 Gasoline 6VVXV02.4S2N
2006 VOLVO V70 2.4 Gasoline 6VVXV02.4S2N
2007 BMW 328ci 3 Gasoline 7BMXV03.0N51
2007 BMW 328ci Convertible 3 Gasoline 7BMXV03.0N51
2007 BMW 328cxi 3 Gasoline 7BMXV03.0N51
2007 BMW 328i 3 Gasoline 7BMXV03.0N51
2007 BMW 328xi 3 Gasoline 7BMXV03.0N51
2007 BUICK Allure 3.8 Gasoline 7GMXV03.8044
2007 BUICK LaCrosse 3.8 Gasoline 7GMXV03.8044
2007 BUICK Lucerne 3.8 Gasoline 7GMXV03.8044
2007 CHEVROLET Cobalt 2.2 Gasoline 7GMXV02.2030
2007 CHEVROLET Impala 3.5 Gasoline 7GMXV03.8044
2007 CHEVROLET Monte Carlo 3.5 Gasoline 7GMXV03.8044
2007 FORD Escape Hybrid 2.3 Gasoline
2007 FORD Focus 2 Gasoline 7FMXV02.0VZP
2007 FORD Focus Station Wagon 2 Gasoline 7FMXV02.0VZP
2007 FORD Fusion 2.3 Gasoline 7FMXV02.3VZT
2007 HONDA Accord 2.4 Gasoline 7HNXV02.4CMC
2007 HONDA Accord Hybrid 3 Gasoline
2007 HONDA Civic 1.8 Gasoline 7HNXV01.8BW3
2007 HONDA Civic Hybrid 1.3 Gasoline
2007 HYUNDAI Elantra 2 Gasoline 7HYXV02.0HPC
2007 KIA Spectra 2 Gasoline 7KMXV02.0LPC
2007 LEXUS GS 450h 3.5 Gasoline
2007 LEXUS RX 400H 3.3 Gasoline
2007 MAZDA 3 2 Gasoline 7TKXV02.0NH1
2007 MAZDA 3 2.3 Gasoline 7TKXV02.3NG1
2007 MAZDA 6 2.3 Gasoline 7TKXV02.3NH1
2007 MERCEDES‐BENZ E350 3.5 Gasoline 7MBXV03.5S2A
2007 MERCURY Mariner Hybrid 2.3 Gasoline
2007 MERCURY Milan 2.3 Gasoline 7FMXV02.3VZT
2007 MITSUBISHI Galant 2.4 Gasoline 7DSXV02.4G6G
2007 MITSUBISHI Outlander 3 Gasoline 7MTXT03.0G6G
2007 NISSAN Altima 2.5 Gasoline 7NSXV02.585A
2007 NISSAN Altima Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2007 PONTIAC G5 2.2 Gasoline 7GMXV02.2030
2007 PONTIAC Grand Prix 3.8 Gasoline 7GMXV03.8044
2007 PONTIAC Pursuit 2.2 Gasoline 7GMXV02.2030
2007 SATURN Ion 2.2 Gasoline 7GMXV02.2030
2007 SUBARU Forester 2.5 Gasoline 7FJXB02.5NVD
2007 SUBARU Legacy 2.5 Gasoline 7FJXB02.5NVD
2007 SUBARU Legacy Wagon 2.5 Gasoline 7FJXB02.5NVD
2007 SUBARU Outback 2.5 Gasoline 7FJXB02.5NVD
2007 SUBARU Outback Wagon 2.5 Gasoline 7FJXB02.5NVD
2007 TOYOTA Camry 2.4 Gasoline 7TYXV02.4HXA
2007 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid 2.4 Gasoline
2007 TOYOTA Highlander Hybrid 3.3 Gasoline
2007 TOYOTA Prius 1.5 Gasoline
2007 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 2.5 Gasoline 7VWXV02.5257
2007 VOLKSWAGEN New Beetle 2.5 Gasoline 7VWXV02.5257
2007 VOLKSWAGEN New Beetle Convertible 2.5 Gasoline 7VWXV02.5257
2007 VOLKSWAGEN Rabbit 2.5 Gasoline 7VWXV02.5257
2007 VOLVO S40 2.4 Gasoline 7VVXV02.4S2N
2007 VOLVO V50 2.4 Gasoline 7VVXV02.4S2N
2008 BMW 328ci 3 Gasoline 8BMXV03.0N51
2008 BMW 328ci Convertible 3 Gasoline 8BMXV03.0N51
2008 BMW 328cxi 3 Gasoline 8BMXV03.0N51
2008 BMW 328i 3 Gasoline 8BMXV03.0N51
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
3 of 24
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
2008 BMW 328xi 3 Gasoline 8BMXV03.0N51
2008 BUICK Allure 3.8 Gasoline 8GMXV03.8044
2008 BUICK LaCrosse 3.8 Gasoline 8GMXV03.8044
2008 BUICK Lucerne 3.8 Gasoline 8GMXV03.8044
2008 CHEVROLET Cobalt 2.2 Gasoline 8GMXV02.2030
2008 CHEVROLET Impala 3.5 Gasoline 8GMXV03.8044
2008 FORD Escape Hybrid 2.3 Gasoline
2008 FORD Focus 2 Gasoline 8FMXV02.0VZP
2008 FORD Fusion 2.3 Gasoline 8FMXV02.3VZT
2008 FORD Taurus 3.5 Gasoline 8FMXV03.51ZL
2008 FORD Taurus X 3.5 Gasoline 8FMXV03.51ZL
2008 HONDA Accord 2.4 Gasoline 8HNXV02.4EMC
2008 HONDA Accord 3.5 Gasoline 8HNXV03.5BMC
2008 HONDA Civic CNG 1.8 CNG 8HNXV01.8XW3
2008 HONDA Civic Hybrid 1.3 Gasoline
2008 HYUNDAI Elantra 2 Gasoline 8HYXV02.0HPC
2008 KIA Spectra 2 Gasoline 8KMXV02.0LPC
2008 LEXUS GS 450h 3.5 Gasoline
2008 LEXUS LS 600HL 5 Gasoline
2008 LEXUS RX 400H 3.3 Gasoline
2008 MAZDA 3 2 Gasoline 8TKXV02.0NH1
2008 MAZDA 3 2.3 Gasoline 8TKXV02.3NH1
2008 MAZDA 6 2.3 Gasoline 8TKXV02.3NH2
2008 MAZDA Tribute Hybrid 2.3 Gasoline
2008 MERCEDES‐BENZ E350 3.5 Gasoline 8MBXV03.5S2A
2008 MERCURY Mariner Hybrid 2.3 Gasoline
2008 MERCURY Milan 2.3 Gasoline 8FMXV02.3VZT
2008 MERCURY Sable 3.5 Gasoline 8FMXV03.51ZL
2008 MITSUBISHI Galant 2.4 Gasoline 8DSXV02.4G6G
2008 MITSUBISHI Lancer 2 Gasoline 8MTXV02.0G6G
2008 MITSUBISHI Outlander 3 Gasoline 8MTXT03.0G6G
2008 NISSAN Altima 2.5 Gasoline 8NSXV02.585A
2008 NISSAN Altima Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2008 NISSAN Rogue 2.5 Gasoline 8NSXT02.585A
2008 PONTIAC G5 2.2 Gasoline 8GMXV02.2030
2008 PONTIAC Grand Prix 3.8 Gasoline 8GMXV03.8044
2008 PONTIAC Pursuit 2.2 Gasoline 8GMXV02.2030
2008 SUBARU Forester 2.5 Gasoline 8FJXB02.5NVD
2008 SUBARU Legacy 2.5 Gasoline 8FJXB02.5NVD
2008 SUBARU Outback Wagon 2.5 Gasoline 8FJXB02.5NVD
2008 TOYOTA Camry 2.4 Gasoline 8TYXV02.4HX2
2008 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid 2.4 Gasoline
2008 TOYOTA Highlander Hybrid 3.3 Gasoline
2008 TOYOTA Prius 1.5 Gasoline
2008 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 2.5 Gasoline 8VWXV02.5257
2008 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta Wagon 2.5 Gasoline 8VWXV02.5257
2008 VOLKSWAGEN New Beetle 2.5 Gasoline 8VWXV02.5257
2008 VOLKSWAGEN New Beetle Convertible 2.5 Gasoline 8VWXV02.5257
2008 VOLKSWAGEN Rabbit 2.5 Gasoline 8VWXV02.5257
2008 VOLVO S40 2.4 Gasoline 8VVXV02.4S2N
2008 VOLVO V50 2.4 Gasoline 8VVXV02.4S2N
2009 AUDI A3 2 Gasoline 9ADXV02.03PA
2009 BMW 128i 3 Gasoline 9BMXV03.0N51
2009 BMW 128i Convertible 3 Gasoline 9BMXV03.0N51
2009 BMW 328ci 3 Gasoline 9BMXV03.0N51
2009 BMW 328ci Convertible 3 Gasoline 9BMXV03.0N51
2009 BMW 328i 3 Gasoline 9BMXV03.0N51
2009 BUICK Allure 3.8 Gasoline 9GMXV03.8044
2009 BUICK LaCrosse 3.8 Gasoline 9GMXV03.8044
2009 BUICK Lucerne 3.9 Gasoline 9GMXV03.9048
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
4 of 24
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
2009 CHEVROLET Cobalt 2.2 Gasoline 9GMXV02.2030
2009 CHEVROLET Cobalt XFE 2.2 Gasoline 9GMXV02.2030
2009 CHEVROLET Impala 3.5 Gasoline 9GMXV03.9048
2009 CHEVROLET Malibu 2.4 Gasoline 9GMXV02.4026
2009 CHEVROLET Malibu 3.5 Gasoline 9GMXV03.9048
2009 CHRYSLER Sebring 2.4 Gasoline 9CRXJ02.4FR0
2009 DODGE Avenger 2.4 Gasoline 9CRXJ02.4FR0
2009 DODGE Caliber 2.4 Gasoline 9CRXJ02.4FR0
2009 DODGE Journey 2.4 Gasoline 9CRXJ02.4FR0
2009 FORD Escape Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2009 FORD Focus 2 Gasoline 9FMXV02.0VZP
2009 FORD Fusion 2.3 Gasoline 9FMXV02.3VZT
2009 HONDA Accord Coupe 2.4 Gasoline 9HNXV02.4TC3
2009 HONDA Accord Coupe 3.5 Gasoline 9HNXV03.5EC3
2009 HONDA Accord Sedan 2.4 Gasoline 9HNXV02.4TC3
2009 HONDA Accord Sedan 3.5 Gasoline 9HNXV03.5EC3
2009 HONDA Civic CNG 1.8 CNG 9HNXV01.8BDT
2009 HONDA Civic Hybrid 1.3 Gasoline
2009 HYUNDAI Elantra 2 Gasoline 9HYXV02.0HPC
2009 HYUNDAI Sonata 2.4 Gasoline 9HYXV02.4SPC
2009 KIA Rondo 2.4 Gasoline 9KMXV02.4UPC
2009 KIA Spectra 2 Gasoline 9KMXV02.0LPC
2009 LEXUS GS 450h 3.5 Gasoline
2009 LEXUS LS 600h L 5 Gasoline
2009 MAZDA 3 2 Gasoline 9TKXV02.0NC1
2009 MAZDA 3 2.3 Gasoline 9TKXV02.3NC1
2009 MAZDA 6 2.5 Gasoline 9TKXV02.5NC1
2009 MAZDA Tribute Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2009 MERCEDES‐BENZ C350 3.5 Gasoline 9MBXJ03.5S2A
2009 MERCEDES‐BENZ E350 3.5 Gasoline 9MBXJ03.5S2A
2009 MERCURY Mariner Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2009 MERCURY Milan 2.3 Gasoline 9FMXV02.3VZT
2009 MITSUBISHI Galant 2.4 Gasoline 9DSXV02.4G6G
2009 MITSUBISHI Lancer 2 Gasoline 9MTXV02.0G6G
2009 MITSUBISHI Lancer Sportback 2.4 Gasoline 9MTXV02.4G6G
2009 NISSAN Altima 2.5 Gasoline 9NSXV02.585A
2009 NISSAN Altima Coupe 2.5 Gasoline 9NSXV02.585A
2009 NISSAN Altima Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2009 NISSAN Rogue 2.5 Gasoline 9NSXT02.585A
2009 NISSAN Sentra 2 Gasoline 9NSXV02.082A
2009 PONTIAC G5 2.2 Gasoline 9GMXV02.2030
2009 PONTIAC G6 2.4 Gasoline 9GMXV02.4026
2009 PONTIAC G6 3.5 Gasoline 9GMXV03.9048
2009 SATURN Aura 2.4 Gasoline 9GMXV02.4026
2009 SUBARU Forester 2.5 Gasoline 9FJXJ02.5NVD
2009 SUBARU Legacy 2.5 Gasoline 9FJXJ02.5NVD
2009 SUBARU Outback Wagon 2.5 Gasoline 9FJXJ02.5NVD
2009 TOYOTA Camry 2.4 Gasoline 9TYXV02.4HE2
2009 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid 2.4 Gasoline
2009 TOYOTA Highlander Hybrid 3.3 Gasoline
2009 TOYOTA Prius 1.5 Gasoline
2009 VOLKSWAGEN GTI 2 Gasoline 9ADXV02.03PA
2009 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 2 Gasoline 9ADXV02.03PA
2009 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 2.5 Gasoline 9VWXV02.5257
2009 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta SportWagen 2 Gasoline 9ADXV02.03PA
2009 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta SportWagen 2.5 Gasoline 9VWXV02.5257
2009 VOLKSWAGEN New Beetle 2.5 Gasoline 9VWXV02.5257
2009 VOLKSWAGEN New Beetle Convertible 2.5 Gasoline 9VWXV02.5257
2009 VOLKSWAGEN Rabbit 2.5 Gasoline 9VWXV02.5257
2009 VOLVO S40 2.4 Gasoline 9VVXV02.4S2N
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
5 of 24
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
2009 VOLVO V50 2.4 Gasoline 9VVXV02.4S2N
2010 AUDI A3 2 Gasoline AADXV02.03PA
2010 BMW 128Ci Convertible 3 Gasoline ABMXV03.051R
2010 BMW 128i 3 Gasoline ABMXV03.051R
2010 BMW 328Ci 3 Gasoline ABMXV03.051R
2010 BMW 328Ci Convertible 3 Gasoline ABMXV03.051R
2010 BMW 328i 3 Gasoline ABMXV03.051R
2010 BMW 328i xDrive 3 Gasoline ABMXV03.051R
2010 BUICK Lucerne 3.9 Gasoline AGMXV03.9048
2010 CHEVROLET Cobalt Coupe 2.2 Gasoline AGMXV02.2030
2010 CHEVROLET Cobalt Sedan 2.2 Gasoline AGMXV02.2030
2010 CHEVROLET Cobalt XFE Sedan 2.2 Gasoline AGMXV02.2030
2010 CHEVROLET Impala 3.5 Gasoline AGMXV03.9048
2010 CHEVROLET Malibu 2.4 Gasoline AGMXV02.4026
2010 CHEVROLET Malibu 3.5 Gasoline AGMXV03.9048
2010 CHRYSLER Sebring 2.4 Gasoline ACRXV02.4FR0
2010 DODGE Avenger 2.4 Gasoline ACRXV02.4FR0
2010 FORD Escape Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2010 FORD Focus 2 Gasoline AFMXV02.0VZX
2010 FORD Fusion Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2010 HONDA Accord Coupe 2.4 Gasoline AHNXV02.4KC3
2010 HONDA Accord Sedan 2.4 Gasoline AHNXV02.4KC3
2010 HONDA Civic CNG 1.8 CNG AHNXV01.8BDT
2010 HONDA Civic Hybrid 1.3 Gasoline
2010 HONDA FCX Hydrogen
2010 HONDA Insight 1.3 Gasoline
2010 HYUNDAI Elantra 2 Gasoline AHYXV02.0HPC
2010 HYUNDAI Sonata 2.4 Gasoline AHYXV02.4SPC
2010 HYUNDAI Tucson 2.4 Gasoline AHYXT02.4LPC
2010 KIA Forte 2 Gasoline AKMXV02.0TPC
2010 KIA Forte 2.4 Gasoline AKMXV02.4DPC
2010 KIA Rondo 2.4 Gasoline AKMXV02.4UPC
2010 LEXUS GS 450h 3.5 Gasoline
2010 LEXUS HS 250h 2.4 Gasoline
2010 LEXUS LS 600h L 5 Gasoline
2010 LEXUS RX 450h 3.5 Gasoline
2010 MAZDA 3 2 Gasoline ATKXV02.0NC1
2010 MAZDA 3 2.5 Gasoline ATKXV02.5NC1
2010 MAZDA 6 2.5 Gasoline ATKXV02.5NC2
2010 MAZDA Tribute Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2010 MERCEDES‐BENZ C300 4Matic 3.5 Gasoline AMBXJ03.5S2A
2010 MERCEDES‐BENZ C350 3.5 Gasoline AMBXJ03.5S2A
2010 MERCEDES‐BENZ E350 3.5 Gasoline AMBXJ03.5S2A
2010 MERCEDES‐BENZ GLK350 3.5 Gasoline
2010 MERCEDES‐BENZ GLK350 4Matic 3.5 Gasoline
2010 MERCEDES‐BENZ S400 Hybrid 3.5 Gasoline
2010 MERCURY Mariner Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2010 MERCURY Milan Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2010 MITSUBISHI Galant 2.4 Gasoline ADSXV02.4G6G
2010 MITSUBISHI Lancer 2 Gasoline AMTXV02.0G6G
2010 MITSUBISHI Lancer 2.4 Gasoline AMTXV02.4G6G
2010 MITSUBISHI Lancer Sportback 2.4 Gasoline AMTXV02.4G6G
2010 MITSUBISHI Outlander 2.4 Gasoline AMTXT02.4G6G
2010 NISSAN Altima 2.5 Gasoline ANSXV02.585A
2010 NISSAN Altima Coupe 2.5 Gasoline ANSXV02.585A
2010 NISSAN Altima Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2010 NISSAN Rogue 2.5 Gasoline ANSXT02.585A
2010 NISSAN Sentra 2 Gasoline ANSXV02.082A
2010 PONTIAC G5 2.2 Gasoline AGMXV02.2030
2010 PONTIAC G5 GT 2.2 Gasoline AGMXV02.2030
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
6 of 24
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
2010 PONTIAC G5 XFE 2.2 Gasoline AGMXV02.2030
2010 PONTIAC G6 2.4 Gasoline AGMXV02.4026
2010 PONTIAC G6 3.5 Gasoline AGMXV03.9048
2010 SUBARU Forester 2.5 Gasoline AFJXJ02.5NVD
2010 SUBARU Legacy 2.5 Gasoline AFJXJ02.5NVD
2010 SUBARU Outback Wagon 2.5 Gasoline AFJXJ02.5NVD
2010 TOYOTA Camry 2.5 Gasoline ATYXV02.5HE2
2010 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid 2.4 Gasoline
2010 TOYOTA FCHV‐adv Hydrogen
2010 TOYOTA Highlander Hybrid 3.3 Gasoline
2010 TOYOTA Prius 1.8 Gasoline
2010 VOLKSWAGEN Eos 2 Gasoline AVWXV02.03SA
2010 VOLKSWAGEN Golf 2.5 Gasoline AVWXV02.5259
2010 VOLKSWAGEN GTI 2 Gasoline AADXV02.03PA
2010 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 2 Gasoline AADXV02.03PA
2010 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 2.5 Gasoline AVWXV02.5259
2010 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta SportWagen 2.5 Gasoline AVWXV02.5259
2010 VOLKSWAGEN New Beetle 2.5 Gasoline AVWXV02.5257
2010 VOLKSWAGEN New Beetle Convertible 2.5 Gasoline AVWXV02.5257
2010 VOLKSWAGEN Passat 2 Gasoline AVWXV02.03PA
2010 VOLKSWAGEN Passat 2 Gasoline AVWXV02.03SA
2010 VOLKSWAGEN Passat Wagon 2 Gasoline AVWXV02.03PA
2010 VOLKSWAGEN Passat Wagon 2 Gasoline AVWXV02.03SA
2010 VOLVO S40 2.4 Gasoline AVVXV02.4S2N
2010 VOLVO S80 3.2 Gasoline AVVXJ03.2S2N
2010 VOLVO V70 3.2 Gasoline AVVXJ03.2S2N
2010 VOLVO XC 60 3.2 Gasoline AVVXJ03.2S2N
2010 VOLVO XC 70 3.2 Gasoline AVVXJ03.2S2N
2011 AUDI A3 2 Gasoline BADXV02.03PA
2011 BMW 128Ci Convertible 3 Gasoline BBMXV03.051R
2011 BMW 128i 3 Gasoline BBMXV03.051R
2011 BMW 1‐Series ActiveE Electricity
2011 BMW 328Ci 3 Gasoline BBMXV03.051R
2011 BMW 328Ci Convertible 3 Gasoline BBMXV03.051R
2011 BMW 328i 3 Gasoline BBMXV03.051R
2011 BUICK Lacrosse 2.4 Gasoline BGMXV02.4050
2011 CHEVROLET Malibu 2.4 Gasoline BGMXV02.4026
2011 CHRYSLER 200 2.4 Gasoline BCRXV02.4FR0
2011 DODGE Avenger 2.4 Gasoline BCRXV02.4FR0
2011 FORD Escape Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2011 FORD Focus 2 Gasoline BFMXV02.0VZC
2011 FORD Fusion Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2011 HONDA Accord Coupe 2.4 Gasoline BHNXV02.4RC3
2011 HONDA Accord Sedan 2.4 Gasoline BHNXV02.4RC3
2011 HONDA Civic CNG 1.8 CNG
2011 HONDA Civic Hybrid 1.3 Gasoline
2011 HONDA CR‐Z 1.5 Gasoline
2011 HONDA FCX Hydrogen
2011 HONDA Insight 1.3 Gasoline BHNXV01.51D3
2011 HYUNDAI Elantra 1.8 Gasoline BHYXV01.8SPC
2011 HYUNDAI Sonata 2.4 Gasoline BHYXV02.4YPC
2011 HYUNDAI Sonata Hybrid 2.4 Gasoline
2011 HYUNDAI Tucson 2.4 Gasoline BHYXT02.4LPC
2011 KIA Forte 2 Gasoline BKMXV02.0TPC
2011 KIA Forte 2.4 Gasoline BKMXV02.4DPC
2011 KIA Forte Eco 2 Gasoline BKMXV02.0TPC
2011 KIA Forte Koup 2 Gasoline BKMXV02.0TPC
2011 KIA Forte Koup 2.4 Gasoline BKMXV02.4DPC
2011 KIA Optima 2.4 Gasoline BKMXV02.4FPC
2011 KIA Optima Hybrid 2.4 Gasoline
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
7 of 24
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
2011 KIA Sportage 2.4 Gasoline BKMXT02.4SPC
2011 LEXUS CT 200h 1.8 Gasoline
2011 LEXUS GS 450h 3.5 Gasoline
2011 LEXUS HS 250h 2.4 Gasoline
2011 LEXUS LS 600h L 5 Gasoline
2011 LEXUS RX 450h 3.5 Gasoline
2011 LINCOLN MKZ Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2011 MAZDA 3 2 Gasoline BTKXV02.0NC1
2011 MAZDA 3 2.5 Gasoline BTKXV02.5NC2
2011 MAZDA 6 2.5 Gasoline BTKXV02.5NC1
2011 MAZDA Tribute Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2011 MERCEDES‐BENZ C300 3 Gasoline BMBXJ03.5S2A
2011 MERCEDES‐BENZ C300 4Matic 3.5 Gasoline
2011 MERCEDES‐BENZ E350 3.5 Gasoline BMBXJ03.5S2A
2011 MERCEDES‐BENZ F‐Cell Hydrogen
2011 MERCEDES‐BENZ GLK350 3.5 Gasoline BMBXJ03.5S2A
2011 MERCEDES‐BENZ GLK350 4Matic 3.5 Gasoline BMBXJ03.5S2A
2011 MERCEDES‐BENZ ML450 Hybrid 4Matic 3.5 Gasoline
2011 MERCEDES‐BENZ S400 Hybrid 3.5 Gasoline
2011 MERCURY Mariner Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2011 MERCURY Milan Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2011 MITSUBISHI Galant 2.4 Gasoline BDSXV02.4G6G
2011 MITSUBISHI Lancer 2 Gasoline BMTXV02.4G6G
2011 MITSUBISHI Lancer 2.4 Gasoline BMTXV02.4G6G
2011 MITSUBISHI Lancer Sportback 2 Gasoline BMTXV02.4G6G
2011 MITSUBISHI Lancer Sportback 2.4 Gasoline BMTXV02.4G6G
2011 MITSUBISHI Outlander Sport 2.4 Gasoline BMTXT02.0G6G
2011 NISSAN Altima Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2011 NISSAN Leaf Electricity
2011 SMART ForTwo Cabriolet Electric Electricity
2011 SMART ForTwo Coupe Electricity
2011 SUBARU Forester 2.5 Gasoline BFJXJ02.5NVD
2011 SUBARU Legacy 2.5 Gasoline BFJXJ02.5NVD
2011 SUBARU Outback Wagon 2.5 Gasoline BFJXJ02.5NVD
2011 TESLA Roadster Electricity
2011 THINK City Electricity
2011 TOYOTA Camry 2.5 Gasoline BTYXV02.5HE2
2011 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid 2.4 Gasoline
2011 TOYOTA FCHV‐adv Hydrogen
2011 TOYOTA Highlander Hybrid 3.5 Gasoline
2011 TOYOTA Prius 1.8 Gasoline
2011 VEHICLE PRODUCTION GROUP MV‐1 4.6 CNG
2011 VOLKSWAGEN CC 2 Gasoline BVWXV02.03PA
2011 VOLKSWAGEN Eos 2 Gasoline
2011 VOLKSWAGEN Golf 2.5 Gasoline BVWXV02.5259
2011 VOLKSWAGEN GTI 2 Gasoline BADXV02.03PA
2011 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 2.5 Gasoline BVWXV02.5259
2011 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta SportWagen 2.5 Gasoline BVWXV02.5259
2011 VOLVO S80 3.2 Gasoline BVVXJ03.2S2N
2011 VOLVO XC 60 3.2 Gasoline BVVXJ03.2S2N
2011 VOLVO XC 70 3.2 Gasoline BVVXJ03.2S2N
2012 AUDI A3 2 Gasoline CADXV02.03PA
2012 Azure Dynamics Transit Connect Electric Electricity
2012 BMW 128Ci Convertible 3 Gasoline CBMXV03.051R
2012 BMW 128i 3 Gasoline CBMXV03.051R
2012 BMW 328Ci Convertible 3 Gasoline CBMXV03.051R
2012 BMW 328i 3 Gasoline CBMXV03.051R
2012 BUICK Lacrosse 2.4 Gasoline CGMXV02.4069
2012 BUICK REGAL 2.4 Gasoline CGMXV02.4069
2012 CHEVROLET Impala 3.6 Gasoline CGMXV03.6048
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
8 of 24
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
2012 CHEVROLET Malibu 2.4 Gasoline CGMXV02.4026
2012 Chevrolet Volt 1.4 Gasoline CGMXV01.4011
2012 CHRYSLER 200 2.4 Gasoline CCRXV02.4FR0
2012 CODA Coda Gasoline
2012 DODGE Avenger 2.4 Gasoline CCRXV02.4FR0
2012 FORD Escape Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2012 FORD Focus 2 Gasoline CFMXV02.0VZ2
2012 FORD Fusion Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2012 HONDA Accord Coupe 2.4 Gasoline CHNXV02.4MC3
2012 HONDA Accord Sedan 2.4 Gasoline CHNXV02.4MC3
2012 HONDA Civic 1.8 Gasoline CHNXV01.8VC2
2012 HONDA Civic HF 1.8 Gasoline CHNXV01.8VC2
2012 HONDA Civic Hybrid 1.5 Gasoline
2012 HONDA CR‐Z 1.5 Gasoline
2012 HONDA Insight 1.3 Gasoline
2012 HYUNDAI Elantra 1.8 Gasoline CHYXV01.8SPC
2012 HYUNDAI Sonata 2.4 Gasoline CHYXV02.4YPC
2012 HYUNDAI Sonata Hybrid 2.4 Gasoline
2012 HYUNDAI Tucson 2.4 Gasoline CHYXT02.4LPC
2012 KIA Forte 2 Gasoline CKMXV02.0TPC
2012 KIA Forte 2.4 Gasoline CKMXV02.4DPC
2012 KIA Forte Eco 2 Gasoline CKMXV02.0TPC
2012 KIA Forte Koup 2 Gasoline CKMXV02.0TPC
2012 KIA Forte Koup 2.4 Gasoline CKMXV02.4DPC
2012 KIA Optima 2.4 Gasoline CKMXV02.4FPC
2012 KIA Optima Hybrid 2.4 Gasoline
2012 KIA Sportage 2.4 Gasoline CKMXT02.4SPC
2012 LEXUS CT 200h 1.8 Gasoline
2012 LEXUS HS 250h 2.4 Gasoline
2012 LEXUS LS 600h L 5 Gasoline
2012 LEXUS RX 450h 3.5 Gasoline
2012 LINCOLN MKZ Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2012 MAZDA 3 2 Gasoline CTKXV02.0NC1
2012 MAZDA 3 2.5 Gasoline CTKXV02.5NC2
2012 MAZDA 6 2.5 Gasoline CTKXV02.5NC1
2012 MERCEDES‐BENZ C300 4Matic 3 Gasoline CMBXJ03.5S2A
2012 MERCEDES‐BENZ F‐Cell Hydrogen
2012 MERCEDES‐BENZ GLK350 3.5 Gasoline CMBXJ03.5S2A
2012 MERCEDES‐BENZ GLK350 4Matic 3.5 Gasoline CMBXJ03.5S2A
2012 MERCEDES‐BENZ S400 Hybrid 3.5 Gasoline
2012 MITSUBISHI i‐MiEV Electricity
2012 NISSAN Altima 2.5 Gasoline CNSXV02.585A
2012 NISSAN Altima Coupe 2.5 Gasoline CNSXV02.585A
2012 NISSAN Cube 1.8 Gasoline CNSXV01.881A
2012 NISSAN Leaf Electricity
2012 NISSAN Sentra 2 Gasoline CNSXV02.082A
2012 SUBARU Forester 2.5 Gasoline CFJXJ02.5NVD
2012 SUBARU Impreza 2 Gasoline CFJXJ02.5NVD
2012 SUBARU Impreza Wagon/Outback Sport 2 Gasoline CFJXJ02.5NVD
2012 SUBARU Legacy 2.5 Gasoline CFJXJ02.5NVD
2012 SUBARU Outback Wagon 2.5 Gasoline CFJXJ02.5NVD
2012 TESLA Model S Electricity
2012 TOYOTA Camry 2.5 Gasoline CTYXV02.5HE2
2012 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid LE 2.5 Gasoline
2012 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid XLE 2.5 Gasoline
2012 TOYOTA Highlander Hybrid 3.5 Gasoline
2012 TOYOTA Prius 1.8 Gasoline
2012 TOYOTA Prius c 1.5 Gasoline
2012 TOYOTA Prius Plug‐in Hybrid 1.8 Gasoline/Electricty
2012 TOYOTA Prius v 1.8 Gasoline
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
9 of 24
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
2012 VEHICLE PRODUCTION GROUP MV‐1 CNG 4.6 Gasoline
2012 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle 2 Gasoline CVWXV02.03PA
2012 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle 2.5 Gasoline CVWXV02.5259
2012 VOLKSWAGEN CC 2 Gasoline CVWXV02.03PA
2012 VOLKSWAGEN Eos 2 Gasoline
2012 VOLKSWAGEN Golf 2.5 Gasoline CVWXV02.5259
2012 VOLKSWAGEN GTI 2 Gasoline CADXV02.03PA
2012 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 2 Gasoline CVWXV02.03PA
2012 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 2.5 Gasoline CVWXV02.5259
2012 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta SportWagen 2.5 Gasoline CVWXV02.5259
2012 VOLKSWAGEN Passat 2.5 Gasoline CVWXV02.5259
2012 VOLVO S80 3.2 Gasoline CVVXJ03.2S2N
2012 VOLVO XC 60 3.2 Gasoline CVVXJ03.2S2N
2012 VOLVO XC 70 3.2 Gasoline CVVXJ03.2S2N
2013 ACURA ILX 1.5 Gasoline DHNXV01.5YD2
2013 AUDI A3 2 Gasoline DADXV02.03PA
2013 BMW 128Ci Convertible 3 Gasoline DBMXV03.051R
2013 BMW 128i 3 Gasoline DBMXV03.051R
2013 BMW 328i 3 Gasoline DBMXV03.051R
2013 BMW 328i Convertible 3 Gasoline DBMXV03.051R
2013 BUICK Lacrosse 3.6 Gasoline DGMXV03.6048
2013 CADILLAC ATS 2.5 Gasoline DGMXJ02.5150
2013 CADILLAC ATS 3.6 Gasoline DGMXV03.6048
2013 CHEVROLET Cruze 1.8 Gasoline DGMXV01.8031
2013 CHEVROLET Equinox 2.4 Gasoline DGMXJ02.5150
2013 CHEVROLET Impala 3.6 Gasoline DGMXV03.6048
2013 CHEVROLET Malibu 2.5 Gasoline DGMXJ02.5150
2013 CHEVROLET Sonic 1.8 Gasoline DGMXV01.8031
2013 CHEVROLET Sonic 5 1.8 Gasoline DGMXV01.8031
2013 CHEVROLET Volt 1.4 Gasoline/Electricity DGMXV01.4011
2013 CHRYSLER 200 2.4 Gasoline DCRXV02.4FR0
2013 CODA Coda N/A Electricity
2013 DODGE Avenger 2.4 Gasoline DCRXV02.4FR0
2013 FIAT 500e N/A Electricity
2013 FORD C‐MAX Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2013 FORD C‐MAX PHEV 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2013 FORD Focus 2 Gasoline DFMXV02.0VZ2
2013 FORD Focus BEV N/A Electricity
2013 FORD Fusion 1.6 Gasoline DFMXV01.6VZF
2013 FORD Fusion Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2013 FORD Fusion PHEV 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2013 GMC Terrain 2.4 Gasoline DGMXJ02.5150
2013 HONDA Accord 2.4 Gasoline DHNXV02.4NC3
2013 HONDA Accord 3.5 Gasoline DHNXV03.5VC3
2013 HONDA Civic 1.8 Gasoline DHNXV01.82C2
2013 HONDA Civic 1.8 CNG
2013 HONDA Civic HF 1.8 Gasoline DHNXV01.82C2
2013 HONDA Civic Hybrid 1.5 Gasoline
2013 HONDA CR‐Z 1.5 Gasoline
2013 HONDA Fit N/A Electricity
2013 HONDA Insight 1.3 Gasoline
2013 HYUNDAI Elantra 1.8 Gasoline DHYXV01.8BDP
2013 HYUNDAI Elantra Blue 1.8 Gasoline DHYXV01.8BDP
2013 HYUNDAI Elantra Coupe 1.8 Gasoline DHYXV01.8BDP
2013 HYUNDAI Elantra GT 1.8 Gasoline DHYXV01.8BDP
2013 HYUNDAI Sonata 2.4 Gasoline DHYXV02.42GP
2013 HYUNDAI Sonata Hybrid 2.4 Gasoline
2013 HYUNDAI Sonata Hybrid Limited 2.4 Gasoline
2013 HYUNDAI Tucson 2.4 Gasoline DHYXT02.42SP
2013 KIA Forte 2 Gasoline DKMXV02.05DP
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
10 of 24
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
2013 KIA Forte 2.4 Gasoline DKMXV02.45EP
2013 KIA Forte Eco 2 Gasoline DKMXV02.05DP
2013 KIA Forte Koup 2 Gasoline DKMXV02.05DP
2013 KIA Forte Koup 2.4 Gasoline DKMXV02.45EP
2013 KIA Optima 2.4 Gasoline DKMXV02.45GP
2013 KIA Optima Hybrid 2.4 Gasoline
2013 KIA Optima Hybrid EX 2.4 Gasoline
2013 KIA Sportage 2.4 Gasoline DKMXT02.45KP
2013 LEXUS CT 200h 1.8 Gasoline
2013 LEXUS ES 300h 2.5 Gasoline
2013 LEXUS GS 450h 3.5 Gasoline
2013 LEXUS LS 600h L 5 Gasoline
2013 LEXUS RX 450h 3.5 Gasoline
2013 LINCOLN MKZ Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2013 MAZDA 3 2 Gasoline DTKXV02.0NC1
2013 MERCEDES‐BENZ C300 4Matic 3.5 Gasoline DMBXJ03.5S2A
2013 MERCEDES‐BENZ C350 3.5 Gasoline DMBXJ03.5S2A
2013 MERCEDES‐BENZ E350 3.5 Gasoline DMBXJ03.5S2A
2013 MERCEDES‐BENZ E350 4Matic 3.5 Gasoline DMBXJ03.5S2A
2013 MERCEDES‐BENZ E350 4Matic (coupe) 3.5 Gasoline DMBXJ03.5S2A
2013 MERCEDES‐BENZ E400 Hybrid 3.5 Gasoline
2013 MERCEDES‐BENZ GLK350 3.5 Gasoline DMBXJ03.5S2A
2013 MERCEDES‐BENZ GLK350 4Matic 3.5 Gasoline DMBXJ03.5S2A
2013 MERCEDES‐BENZ S400 Hybrid 3.5 Gasoline
2013 MITSUBISHI i‐MiEV N/A Electricity
2013 NISSAN Altima 2.5 Gasoline DNSXV02.585A
2013 NISSAN Cube 1.8 Gasoline DNSXV01.881A
2013 NISSAN Leaf N/A Electricity
2013 NISSAN Sentra 1.8 Gasoline DNSXV01.881B
2013 SCION iQ EV N/A Electricity
2013 SMART ForTwo Cabriolet N/A Electricity
2013 SMART ForTwo Coupe N/A Electricity
2013 SUBARU Forester 2.5 Gasoline DFJXJ02.5NKR
2013 SUBARU Impreza 2 Gasoline DFJXJ02.5NKR
2013 SUBARU Impreza Wagon 2 Gasoline DFJXJ02.5NKR
2013 SUBARU Legacy 2.5 Gasoline DFJXJ02.5NKR
2013 SUBARU Outback AWD 2.5 Gasoline DFJXJ02.5NKR
2013 SUBARU XV Crosstrek 2 Gasoline DFJXJ02.5NKR
2013 TESLA Model S N/A Electricity
2013 TOYOTA Avalon Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2013 TOYOTA Camry 2.5 Gasoline DTYXV02.5HE2
2013 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid LE 2.5 Gasoline
2013 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid XLE 2.5 Gasoline
2013 TOYOTA Highlander Hybrid 3.5 Gasoline
2013 TOYOTA Prius 1.8 Gasoline
2013 TOYOTA Prius c 1.5 Gasoline
2013 TOYOTA Prius Plug‐in Hybrid 1.8 Gasoline/Electricty
2013 TOYOTA Prius v 1.8 Gasoline
2013 TOYOTA RAV4 EV N/A Electricity
2013 VEHICLE PRODUCTION GROUP MV‐1 4.6 CNG
2013 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle 2 Gasoline DVWXV02.03PA
2013 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle 2.5 Gasoline DVWXV02.5M59
2013 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle 2.5 Gasoline DVWXV02.5A59
2013 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle Convertible 2 Gasoline DVWXV02.03PA
2013 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle Convertible 2.5 Gasoline DVWXV02.5A59
2013 VOLKSWAGEN CC 2 Gasoline DVWXV02.03PA
2013 VOLKSWAGEN Eos 2 Gasoline
2013 VOLKSWAGEN Golf 2.5 Gasoline DVWXV02.5M59
2013 VOLKSWAGEN Golf 2.5 Gasoline DVWXV02.5A59
2013 VOLKSWAGEN GTI 2 Gasoline DADXV02.03PA
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
11 of 24
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
2013 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 2 Gasoline DVWXV02.03PA
2013 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 2.5 Gasoline DVWXV02.5M59
2013 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 2.5 Gasoline DVWXV02.5A59
2013 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta Hybrid 1.4 Gasoline
2013 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta SportWagen 2.5 Gasoline DVWXV02.5M59
2013 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta SportWagen 2.5 Gasoline DVWXV02.5A59
2013 VOLKSWAGEN Passat 2.5 Gasoline DVWXV02.5M59
2013 VOLKSWAGEN Passat 2.5 Gasoline DVWXV02.5A59
2013 VOLVO S80 3.2 Gasoline DVVXJ03.2S2N
2013 VOLVO XC 60 3.2 Gasoline DVVXJ03.2S2N
2013 VOLVO XC 70 3.2 Gasoline DVVXJ03.2S2N
2014 ACURA ILX 1.5 Gasoline EHNXV01.58D2
2014 ACURA RLX 3.5 Gasoline EHNXV03.52G2
2014 BMW 328i 2 Gasoline EBMXV02.0N26
2014 BMW 428i Coupe 2 Gasoline EBMXV02.0N26
2014 BMW i3 N/A Electricity
2014 BMW i3 REx 0.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2014 BUICK Lacrosse 2.4 Gasoline EGMXV02.4069
2014 BUICK Lacrosse 3.6 Gasoline EGMXV03.6048
2014 BUICK Regal 2.4 Gasoline EGMXV02.4069
2014 BYD e6 N/A Electricity
2014 CADILLAC ATS 2.5 Gasoline EGMXJ02.5150
2014 CADILLAC ATS 3.6 Gasoline EGMXV03.6048
2014 CADILLAC CTS 3.6 Gasoline EGMXV03.6048
2014 CADILLAC ELR 1.4 Gasoline/Electricity
2014 CADILLAC XTS 3.6 Gasoline EGMXV03.6048
2014 CHEVROLET Cruze 1.8 Gasoline EGMXV01.8031
2014 CHEVROLET Equinox 2.4 Gasoline EGMXJ02.5150
2014 CHEVROLET Impala 2.4 Gasoline EGMXV02.4069
2014 CHEVROLET Impala 2.5 Gasoline EGMXJ02.5150
2014 CHEVROLET Impala 3.6 Gasoline EGMXV03.6048
2014 CHEVROLET Malibu 2.4 Gasoline EGMXV02.4069
2014 CHEVROLET Sonic 1.8 Gasoline EGMXV01.8031
2014 CHEVROLET Sonic 5 1.8 Gasoline EGMXV01.8031
2014 CHEVROLET Spark EV N/A Electricity
2014 CHEVROLET Volt 1.4 Gasoline/Electricity EGMXV01.4011
2014 FIAT 500e N/A Electricity
2014 FORD C‐MAX Energi Plug‐In Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2014 FORD C‐MAX Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2014 FORD Focus 2 Gasoline EFMXV02.0VZ2
2014 FORD Focus Electric N/A Electricity
2014 FORD Fusion 1.5 Gasoline EFMXV01.5VZ1
2014 FORD Fusion Energi Plug‐in Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2014 FORD Fusion Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2014 GMC Terrain 2.4 Gasoline EGMXJ02.5150
2014 HONDA Accord 2.4 Gasoline EHNXV02.46C3
2014 HONDA Accord 3.5 Gasoline EHNXV03.5SC3
2014 HONDA Accord Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2014 HONDA Accord Plug‐In Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2014 HONDA Civic 1.8 Gasoline EHNXV01.8WC2
2014 HONDA Civic 1.8 CNG
2014 HONDA Civic HF 1.8 Gasoline EHNXV01.8WC2
2014 HONDA Civic Hybrid 1.5 Gasoline
2014 HONDA CR‐Z 1.5 Gasoline
2014 HONDA FCX N/A Hydrogen
2014 HONDA Fit N/A Electricity
2014 HONDA Insight 1.3 Gasoline
2014 HYUNDAI Elantra 2 Gasoline EKMXV02.0EFP
2014 HYUNDAI Elantra Coupe 2 Gasoline EKMXV02.0EFP
2014 HYUNDAI Elantra Limited 1.8 Gasoline EKMXV01.8EEP
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
12 of 24
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
2014 HYUNDAI Sonata 2.4 Gasoline EHYXV02.42JP
2014 HYUNDAI Sonata Hybrid 2.4 Gasoline
2014 HYUNDAI Sonata Hybrid Limited 2.4 Gasoline
2014 HYUNDAI Tucson 2.4 Gasoline EHYXT02.42UP
2014 KIA Forte 1.8 Gasoline EKMXV01.8EEP
2014 KIA Forte 2 Gasoline EKMXV02.0EFP
2014 KIA Forte 5 2 Gasoline EKMXV02.0EFP
2014 KIA Forte Eco 1.8 Gasoline EKMXV01.8EEP
2014 KIA Forte Koup 2 Gasoline EKMXV02.0EFP
2014 KIA Optima 2.4 Gasoline EKMXV02.45HP
2014 KIA Optima Hybrid 2.4 Gasoline
2014 KIA Optima Hybrid EX 2.4 Gasoline
2014 KIA Sportage 2.4 Gasoline EKMXT02.45NP
2014 LAND ROVER Range Rover Evoque 2 Gasoline
2014 LEXUS CT 200h 1.8 Gasoline
2014 LEXUS ES 300h 2.5 Gasoline
2014 LEXUS GS 450h 3.5 Gasoline
2014 LEXUS LS 600h L 5 Gasoline
2014 LEXUS RX 450h 3.5 Gasoline
2014 LINCOLN MKZ Hybrid 2 Gasoline EFMXV02.0VZS
2014 MAZDA 3 2.5 Gasoline ETKXV02.5NC2
2014 MAZDA 6 2.5 Gasoline ETKXV02.5NC1
2014 MERCEDES‐BENZ B‐Class Electric Drive N/A Electricity
2014 MERCEDES‐BENZ C300 4Matic 3.5 Gasoline EMBXJ03.5S2A
2014 MERCEDES‐BENZ C350 3.5 Gasoline EMBXJ03.5S2A
2014 MERCEDES‐BENZ E350 3.5 Gasoline EMBXJ03.5S2A
2014 MERCEDES‐BENZ E350 4Matic 3.5 Gasoline EMBXJ03.5S2A
2014 MERCEDES‐BENZ E350 4Matic (coupe) 3.5 Gasoline EMBXJ03.5S2A
2014 MERCEDES‐BENZ E400 Hybrid 3.5 Gasoline
2014 MERCEDES‐BENZ GLK350 3.5 Gasoline EMBXJ03.5S2A
2014 MERCEDES‐BENZ GLK350 4Matic 3.5 Gasoline EMBXJ03.5S2A
2014 MITSUBISHI i‐MiEV N/A Electricity
2014 MOBILITY VENTURES MV‐1 4.6 CNG
2014 NISSAN Altima 2.5 Gasoline ENSXV02.585A
2014 NISSAN Leaf N/A Electricity
2014 NISSAN Sentra 1.8 Gasoline ENSXV01.881B
2014 SMART ForTwo Cabriolet N/A Electricity
2014 SMART ForTwo Coupe N/A Electricity
2014 SUBARU Forester 2.5 Gasoline EFJXJ02.5NKR
2014 SUBARU Impreza 2 Gasoline EFJXJ02.5NKR
2014 SUBARU Impreza Wagon 2 Gasoline EFJXJ02.5NKR
2014 SUBARU Legacy 2.5 Gasoline EFJXJ02.5NKR
2014 SUBARU Outback AWD 2.5 Gasoline EFJXJ02.5NKR
2014 SUBARU XV Crosstrek 2 Gasoline EFJXJ02.0GNS
2014 SUBARU XV Crosstrek 2 Gasoline EFJXJ02.5NKR
2014 TESLA Model S N/A Electricity
2014 TOYOTA Avalon Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2014 TOYOTA Camry 2.5 Gasoline ETYXV02.5HE2
2014 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid LE 2.5 Gasoline
2014 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid XLE/SE 2.5 Gasoline
2014 TOYOTA Highlander Hybrid 3.5 Gasoline
2014 TOYOTA Highlander Hybrid LE Plus 3.5 Gasoline
2014 TOYOTA Prius 1.8 Gasoline
2014 TOYOTA Prius c 1.5 Gasoline
2014 TOYOTA Prius Plug‐in Hybrid 1.8 Gasoline/Electricity
2014 TOYOTA Prius v 1.8 Gasoline
2014 TOYOTA RAV4 EV N/A Electricity
2014 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle 1.8 Gasoline EVWXV02.03PA
2014 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle 2 Gasoline EVWXV02.03PA
2014 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle 2.5 Gasoline EVWXV02.5M59
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
13 of 24
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
2014 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle 2.5 Gasoline EVWXV02.5A59
2014 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle Convertible 1.8 Gasoline EVWXV02.03PA
2014 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle Convertible 2 Gasoline EVWXV02.03PA
2014 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle Convertible 2.5 Gasoline EVWXV02.5A59
2014 VOLKSWAGEN CC 2 Gasoline EVWXV02.03PA
2014 VOLKSWAGEN Eos 2 Gasoline
2014 VOLKSWAGEN Golf 2.5 Gasoline EVWXV02.5A59
2014 VOLKSWAGEN GTI 2 Gasoline EADXV02.03PA
2014 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 1.8 Gasoline EVWXV02.03PA
2014 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 2 Gasoline EVWXV02.03PA
2014 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta Hybrid 1.4 Gasoline
2014 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta SportWagen 2.5 Gasoline EVWXV02.5M59
2014 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta SportWagen 2.5 Gasoline EVWXV02.5A59
2014 VOLKSWAGEN Passat 1.8 Gasoline EVWXV02.03PA
2014 VOLKSWAGEN Passat 2.5 Gasoline EVWXV02.5M59
2014 VOLKSWAGEN Passat 2.5 Gasoline EVWXV02.5A59
2014 VOLVO S80 3.2 Gasoline EVVXJ03.2S2N
2014 VOLVO XC 60 3.2 Gasoline EVVXJ03.2S2N
2014 VOLVO XC 70 3.2 Gasoline EVVXJ03.2S2N
2015 AUDI A3 1.8 Gasoline FVGAV02.0APA
2015 AUDI A3 Cabriolet 1.8 Gasoline FVGAV02.0APA
2015 BMW 328i 2 Gasoline FBMXV02.0N26
2015 BMW 328i Gran Turismo 2 Gasoline FBMXV02.0N26
2015 BMW 428i Convertible 2 Gasoline FBMXV02.0N26
2015 BMW 428i Coupe 2 Gasoline FBMXV02.0N26
2015 BMW i3 N/A Electricity
2015 BMW i3 REx 0.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2015 BUICK Lacrosse 3.6 Gasoline FGMXV03.6048
2015 BYD e6 N/A Electricity
2015 CADILLAC ATS 2.5 Gasoline FGMXJ02.5150
2015 CADILLAC ATS 3.6 Gasoline FGMXV03.6048
2015 CADILLAC CTS 3.6 Gasoline FGMXV03.6048
2015 CADILLAC CTS 3.6 Gasoline FGMXV03.6048
2015 CADILLAC ELR 1.4 Gasoline/Electricity FGMXV01.4088
2015 CADILLAC XTS 3.6 Gasoline FGMXV03.6048
2015 CHEVROLET Cruze 1.8 Gasoline FGMXV01.8031
2015 CHEVROLET Equinox 2.4 Gasoline FGMXJ02.5150
2015 CHEVROLET Impala 2.5 Gasoline FGMXJ02.5150
2015 CHEVROLET Impala 3.6 Gasoline FGMXV03.6048
2015 CHEVROLET Malibu 2.5 Gasoline FGMXJ02.5150
2015 CHEVROLET Sonic 1.8 Gasoline FGMXV01.8031
2015 CHEVROLET Sonic 5 1.8 Gasoline FGMXV01.8031
2015 CHEVROLET Spark EV N/A Electricity
2015 CHEVROLET Volt 1.4 Gasoline/Electricity FGMXV01.4088
2015 FIAT 500e N/A Electricity
2015 FORD C‐MAX Energi Plug‐In Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2015 FORD C‐MAX Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2015 FORD Focus 2 Gasoline FFMXV02.0VZ2
2015 FORD Focus Electric N/A Electricity
2015 FORD Fusion 1.5 Gasoline FFMXV01.5VZ1
2015 FORD Fusion Energi Plug‐in Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2015 FORD Fusion Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2015 GMC Terrain 2.4 Gasoline FGMXJ02.5150
2015 HONDA Accord 2.4 Gasoline FHNXV02.43K3
2015 HONDA Accord 2.4 Gasoline FHNXV02.44K3
2015 HONDA Accord 3.5 Gasoline FHNXV03.5MK3
2015 HONDA Accord Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2015 HONDA Civic 1.8 Gasoline FHNXV01.8NC2
2015 HONDA Civic 1.8 CNG
2015 HONDA Civic HF 1.8 Gasoline FHNXV01.8NC2
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
14 of 24
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
2015 HONDA Civic Hybrid 1.5 Gasoline
2015 HONDA CR‐Z 1.5 Gasoline
2015 HYUNDAI Elantra 2 Gasoline FKMXV02.0EFP
2015 HYUNDAI Elantra Limited 1.8 Gasoline FHYXV01.82DP
2015 HYUNDAI Sonata 2.4 Gasoline FHYXV02.42JP
2015 HYUNDAI Sonata Hybrid 2.4 Gasoline
2015 HYUNDAI Sonata Hybrid Limited 2.4 Gasoline
2015 HYUNDAI Sonata Sport/Limited 2.4 Gasoline FHYXV02.42JP
2015 HYUNDAI Tuscon 2.4 Gasoline FHYXT02.42UP
2015 HYUNDAI Tuscon Fuel Cell N/A Hydrogen
2015 JAGUAR XF 3 Gasoline FJLXV03.0FSP
2015 JEEP Cherokee 2.4 Gasoline FCRXJ02.4CP0
2015 JEEP Cherokee 4x4 Active Drive II 2.4 Gasoline FCRXJ02.4CP0
2015 JEEP Cherokee Trailhawk 2.4 Gasoline FCRXJ02.4CP0
2015 KIA Forte 1.8 Gasoline FKMXV01.85EP
2015 KIA Forte 2 Gasoline FKMXV02.0EFP
2015 KIA Optima 2.4 Gasoline FKMXV02.45HP
2015 KIA Optima Hybrid 2.4 Gasoline
2015 KIA Optima Hybrid EX 2.4 Gasoline
2015 KIA Soul Electric N/A Electricity
2015 KIA Sportage 2.4 Gasoline FKMXT02.45NP
2015 LAND ROVER Discovery Sport 2 Gasoline
2015 LAND ROVER Range Rover 3 Gasoline
2015 LAND ROVER Range Rover Evoque 2 Gasoline
2015 LAND ROVER Range Rover LWB 3 Gasoline
2015 LAND ROVER Range Rover Sport 3 Gasoline FJLXT03.0FSP
2015 LEXUS CT 200h 1.8 Gasoline
2015 LEXUS ES 300h 2.5 Gasoline
2015 LEXUS GS 450h 3.5 Gasoline
2015 LEXUS LS 600h L 5 Gasoline
2015 LEXUS NX 300h 2.5 Gasoline
2015 LEXUS RX 450h 3.5 Gasoline
2015 LINCOLN MKZ Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2015 MAZDA 3 2 Gasoline FTKXV02.0ND1
2015 MAZDA 3 2.5 Gasoline FTKXV02.5NC1
2015 MERCEDES‐BENZ B‐Class Electric Drive N/A Electricity
2015 MERCEDES‐BENZ E400 Hybrid 3.5 Gasoline
2015 MERCEDES‐BENZ GLK350 3.5 Gasoline FMBXJ03.5S2A
2015 MERCEDES‐BENZ GLK350 4Matic 3.5 Gasoline FMBXJ03.5S2A
2015 MERCEDES‐BENZ S550e 3 Gasoline/Electricity
2015 MINI Cooper S 2 Gasoline FBMXV02.0B46
2015 NISSAN Altima 2.5 Gasoline FNSXV02.585A
2015 NISSAN Leaf N/A Electricity
2015 NISSAN Sentra 1.8 Gasoline FNSXV01.881B
2015 SMART ForTwo Cabriolet N/A Electricity
2015 SMART ForTwo Coupe N/A Electricity
2015 SUBARU Forester 2.5 Gasoline FFJXJ02.5NKR
2015 SUBARU Impreza 2 Gasoline
2015 SUBARU Impreza Sport 2 Gasoline
2015 SUBARU Impreza Wagon 2 Gasoline
2015 SUBARU XV Crosstrek 2 Gasoline
2015 SUBARU XV Crosstrek Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2015 TESLA Model S N/A Electricity
2015 TESLA Model S AWD N/A Electricity
2015 TOYOTA Avalon Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2015 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid LE 2.5 Gasoline
2015 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid XLE/SE 2.5 Gasoline
2015 TOYOTA Highlander Hybrid 3.5 Gasoline
2015 TOYOTA Highlander Hybrid LE Plus 3.5 Gasoline
2015 TOYOTA Prius 1.8 Gasoline
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
15 of 24
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
2015 TOYOTA Prius c 1.5 Gasoline
2015 TOYOTA Prius Plug‐in Hybrid 1.8 Gasoline/Electricity
2015 TOYOTA Prius v 1.8 Gasoline
2015 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle 1.8 Gasoline FVGAV02.0VPD
2015 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle 2 Gasoline FVGAV02.0VPD
2015 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle Convertible 1.8 Gasoline FVGAV02.0VPD
2015 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle Convertible 2 Gasoline FVGAV02.0VPD
2015 VOLKSWAGEN CC 2 Gasoline FVGAV02.0VPE
2015 VOLKSWAGEN e‐Golf N/A Electricity
2015 VOLKSWAGEN Eos 2 Gasoline
2015 VOLKSWAGEN Golf 1.8 Gasoline FVGAV02.0APA
2015 VOLKSWAGEN Golf SportWagen 1.8 Gasoline FVGAV02.0APA
2015 VOLKSWAGEN GTI 2 Gasoline
2015 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 1.8 Gasoline FVGAV02.0VPD
2015 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 2 Gasoline FVGAV02.0VPD
2015 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta Hybrid 1.4 Gasoline
2015 VOLKSWAGEN Passat 1.8 Gasoline FVGAV02.0VPD
2015 VOLVO S60 2 Gasoline FVVXV02.0S3T
2015 VOLVO S80 2 Gasoline FVVXV02.0S3T
2015 VOLVO V60 2 Gasoline FVVXV02.0S3T
2015 VOLVO XC 60 3.2 Gasoline FVVXT03.2S2N
2015 VOLVO XC 70 3.2 Gasoline FVVXT03.2S2N
2016 ACURA RLX 3.5 Gasoline GHNXV03.5PK3
2016 AUDI A3 1.8 Gasoline
2016 AUDI A3 2 Gasoline
2016 AUDI A3 Cabriolet 1.8 Gasoline
2016 AUDI A3 Cabriolet 2 Gasoline
2016 AUDI A3 e‐tron 1.4 Gasoline/Electricity
2016 AUDI A3 e‐tron ultra 1.4 Gasoline/Electricity
2016 AUDI TT Coupe 2 Gasoline
2016 AUDI TT Roadster 2 Gasoline
2016 BMW 228i 2 Gasoline GBMXV02.0N26
2016 BMW 228i Convertible 2 Gasoline GBMXV02.0N26
2016 BMW 328i 2 Gasoline GBMXV02.0N26
2016 BMW 328i Gran Turismo 2 Gasoline
2016 BMW 428i Convertible 2 Gasoline
2016 BMW 428i Coupe 2 Gasoline GBMXV02.0N26
2016 BMW 428i Gran Coupe 2 Gasoline GBMXV02.0N26
2016 BMW i3 N/A Electricity
2016 BMW i3 REx 0.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2016 BMW X1 xDrive28i 2 Gasoline
2016 BUICK Lacrosse 3.6 Gasoline GGMXV03.6048
2016 CADILLAC ELR 1.4 Gasoline/Electricity
2016 CADILLAC XTS 3.6 Gasoline GGMXV03.6048
2016 CHEVROLET Cruze Limited 1.8 Gasoline GGMXV01.8031
2016 CHEVROLET Impala 3.6 Gasoline GGMXV03.6048
2016 CHEVROLET Malibu Hybrid 1.8 Gasoline
2016 CHEVROLET Sonic 1.8 Gasoline GGMXV01.8031
2016 CHEVROLET Sonic 5 1.8 Gasoline GGMXV01.8031
2016 CHEVROLET Spark EV N/A Electricity
2016 CHEVROLET Volt 1.5 Gasoline/Electricity
2016 CHRYSLER 200 2.4 Gasoline GCRXJ02.4CP0
2016 DODGE Dart 2.4 Gasoline GCRXJ02.4CP0
2016 DODGE Dart GT 2.4 Gasoline GCRXJ02.4CP0
2016 FIAT 500e N/A Electricity
2016 FORD C‐MAX Energi Plug‐In Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2016 FORD C‐MAX Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2016 FORD Focus 2 Gasoline GFMXV02.0VZ2
2016 FORD Focus Electric N/A Electricity
2016 FORD Fusion 1.5 Gasoline GFMXV01.5VZ1
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
16 of 24
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
2016 FORD Fusion Energi Plug‐in Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2016 FORD Fusion Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2016 HONDA Accord 2.4 Gasoline GHNXV02.44K3
2016 HONDA Accord 2.4 Gasoline GHNXV02.45K3
2016 HONDA Accord 3.5 Gasoline GHNXV03.5KK3
2016 HONDA Civic 1.5 Gasoline GHNXV01.56K2
2016 HONDA Civic 2 Gasoline GHNXV02.0BK3
2016 HONDA CR‐Z 1.5 Gasoline
2016 HYUNDAI Elantra 2 Gasoline GKMXV02.0DFP
2016 HYUNDAI Elantra Limited 1.8 Gasoline GHYXV01.82DP
2016 HYUNDAI Sonata 2.4 Gasoline GHYXV02.4BJ2
2016 HYUNDAI Sonata plug‐in hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2016 HYUNDAI Sonata Sport/Limited 2.4 Gasoline GHYXV02.4BJ2
2016 HYUNDAI Tuscon Fuel Cell N/A Hydrogen
2016 JAGUAR F‐Type Convertible 3 Gasoline
2016 JAGUAR F‐Type Coupe 3 Gasoline
2016 JAGUAR F‐Type S Convertible 3 Gasoline
2016 JAGUAR F‐Type S Coupe 3 Gasoline
2016 JAGUAR XF 3 Gasoline
2016 JAGUAR XJ 3 Gasoline
2016 JAGUAR XJL 3 Gasoline
2016 JEEP Cherokee 4x4 Active Drive II 2.4 Gasoline GCRXJ02.4CP0
2016 JEEP Cherokee Trailhawk 2.4 Gasoline GCRXJ02.4CP0
2016 KIA Forte 1.8 Gasoline GKMXV01.85EP
2016 KIA Forte 2 Gasoline GKMXV02.0DFP
2016 KIA Optima 2.4 Gasoline GHYXV02.4BJ2
2016 KIA Optima FE 2.4 Gasoline GHYXV02.4BJ2
2016 KIA Optima Hybrid 2.4 Gasoline
2016 KIA Optima Hybrid EX 2.4 Gasoline
2016 KIA Soul Electric N/A Electricity
2016 KIA Sportage 2.4 Gasoline GKMXT02.45NP
2016 LAND ROVER Discovery Sport 2 Gasoline
2016 LAND ROVER Range Rover 3 Gasoline
2016 LAND ROVER Range Rover Evoque 2 Gasoline
2016 LAND ROVER Range Rover LWB 3 Gasoline
2016 LAND ROVER Range Rover Sport 3 Gasoline
2016 LEXUS CT 200h 1.8 Gasoline
2016 LEXUS ES 300h 2.5 Gasoline
2016 LEXUS GS 450h 3.5 Gasoline
2016 LEXUS LS 600h L 5 Gasoline
2016 LEXUS NX 300h 2.5 Gasoline
2016 LEXUS RX 450h 3.5 Gasoline
2016 LINCOLN MKZ Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2016 MAZDA 3 2 Gasoline GTKXV02.0ND1
2016 MAZDA 3 2.5 Gasoline GTKXV02.5ND2
2016 MAZDA 6 2.5 Gasoline GTKXV02.5ND1
2016 MERCEDES‐BENZ B250e N/A Electricity
2016 MERCEDES‐BENZ S550e 3 Gasoline/Electricity
2016 MINI Cooper Clubman 1.5 Gasoline
2016 MINI Cooper Convertible 1.5 Gasoline
2016 MINI Cooper Hardtop 1.5 Gasoline
2016 MINI Cooper S Clubman 2 Gasoline
2016 MINI Cooper S Convertible 2 Gasoline
2016 MINI Cooper S Hardtop 2 Gasoline
2016 MITSUBISHI i‐MiEV N/A Electricity
2016 NISSAN Altima 2.5 Gasoline GNSXV02.535A
2016 NISSAN Altima SR 2.5 Gasoline GNSXV02.535A
2016 NISSAN Leaf N/A Electricity
2016 NISSAN Sentra 1.8 Gasoline GNSXV01.831A
2016 SMART ForTwo Cabriolet N/A Electricity
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
17 of 24
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
2016 SMART ForTwo Coupe N/A Electricity
2016 SUBARU Crosstrek 2 Gasoline
2016 SUBARU Crosstrek Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2016 SUBARU Forester 2.5 Gasoline
2016 SUBARU Impreza 2 Gasoline
2016 SUBARU Impreza Sport 2 Gasoline
2016 SUBARU Impreza Wagon 2 Gasoline
2016 TESLA Model S N/A Electricity
2016 TESLA Model S AWD N/A Electricity
2016 TESLA Model X AWD N/A Electricity
2016 TOYOTA Avalon Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2016 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid LE 2.5 Gasoline
2016 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid XLE/SE 2.5 Gasoline
2016 TOYOTA Highlander Hybrid 3.5 Gasoline
2016 TOYOTA Highlander Hybrid LE Plus 3.5 Gasoline
2016 TOYOTA Mirai N/A Hydrogen
2016 TOYOTA Prius 1.8 Gasoline
2016 TOYOTA Prius c 1.5 Gasoline
2016 TOYOTA Prius Eco 1.8 Gasoline
2016 TOYOTA Prius v 1.8 Gasoline
2016 TOYOTA RAV4 Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2016 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle 1.8 Gasoline GVGAV02.0VPD
2016 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle 2 Gasoline GVGAV02.0VPD
2016 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle Convertible 1.8 Gasoline GVGAV02.0VPD
2016 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle Convertible 2 Gasoline GVGAV02.0VPD
2016 VOLKSWAGEN CC 2 Gasoline GVGAV02.0VPE
2016 VOLKSWAGEN e‐Golf N/A Electricity
2016 VOLKSWAGEN Eos 2 Gasoline
2016 VOLKSWAGEN Golf 1.8 Gasoline
2016 VOLKSWAGEN Golf SportWagen 1.8 Gasoline
2016 VOLKSWAGEN GTI 2 Gasoline
2016 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 1.8 Gasoline GVGAV02.0VPD
2016 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 2 Gasoline GVGAV02.0VPD
2016 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta Hybrid 1.4 Gasoline
2016 VOLKSWAGEN Passat 1.8 Gasoline GVGAV02.0VPD
2016 VOLVO S60 2 Gasoline GVVXV02.0S3T
2016 VOLVO XC 90 2 Gasoline/Electricity GVVXT02.0P3T
2017 ACURA RLX 3.5 Gasoline HHNXV03.5LK3
2017 AUDI A3 2 Gasoline
2017 AUDI A3 Cabriolet 2 Gasoline
2017 AUDI A3 e‐tron 1.4 Gasoline/Electricity
2017 AUDI TT Coupe 2 Gasoline
2017 AUDI TT Roadster 2 Gasoline
2017 BMW 230i Convertible 2 Gasoline
2017 BMW 230i Coupe 2 Gasoline
2017 BMW 230i xDrive Convertible 2 Gasoline
2017 BMW 230i xDrive Coupe 2 Gasoline
2017 BMW 330i 2 Gasoline
2017 BMW 330i Gran Turismo 2 Gasoline
2017 BMW 330i Sports Wagon 2 Gasoline
2017 BMW 430i Convertible 2 Gasoline
2017 BMW 430i Coupe 2 Gasoline
2017 BMW 430i Gran Coupe 2 Gasoline
2017 BMW 530i 2 Gasoline
2017 BMW i3 BEV N/A Electricity
2017 BMW i3 BEV (60Ah) N/A Electricity
2017 BMW i3 REx 0.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2017 BMW X1 xDrive28i 2 Gasoline
2017 BYD e6 N/A Electricity
2017 CADILLAC XTS 3.6 Gasoline HGMXV03.6048
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
18 of 24
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
2017 CHEVROLET Bolt N/A Electricity
2017 CHEVROLET Impala 3.6 Gasoline HGMXV03.6048
2017 CHEVROLET Malibu Hybrid 1.8 Gasoline
2017 CHEVROLET Sonic 1.8 Gasoline HGMXV01.8031
2017 CHEVROLET Sonic 5 1.8 Gasoline HGMXV01.8031
2017 CHEVROLET Volt 1.5 Gasoline/Electricity
2017 CHRYSLER 200 2.4 Gasoline HCRXJ02.4CP0
2017 CHRYSLER Pacifica Hybrid 3.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2017 FIAT 500e N/A Electricity
2017 FORD C‐MAX Energi Plug‐In Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2017 FORD C‐MAX Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2017 FORD Focus 2 Gasoline HFMXV02.0VZ2
2017 FORD Focus Electric N/A Electricity
2017 FORD Fusion 1.5 Gasoline HFMXV01.5VZ3
2017 FORD Fusion Energi Plug‐in Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2017 FORD Fusion Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2017 HONDA Accord 2.4 Gasoline HHNXV02.42K3
2017 HONDA Accord 2.4 Gasoline HHNXV02.41K3
2017 HONDA Accord 3.5 Gasoline HHNXV03.5GK3
2017 HONDA Accord Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2017 HONDA Civic 2Dr 1.5 Gasoline HHNXV01.5562
2017 HONDA Civic 2Dr 2 Gasoline HHNXV02.0B63
2017 HONDA Civic 4Dr 1.5 Gasoline HHNXV01.5562
2017 HONDA Civic 4Dr 2 Gasoline HHNXV02.0B63
2017 HONDA Civic 5Dr 1.5 Gasoline HHNXV01.5562
2017 HONDA Clarity N/A Electricity
2017 HONDA Clarity N/A Hydrogen
2017 HYUNDAI Elantra 2 Gasoline HHYXV02.01EP
2017 HYUNDAI Elantra SE 2 Gasoline HHYXV02.01EP
2017 HYUNDAI Ioniq 1.6 Gasoline
2017 HYUNDAI Ioniq Blue 1.6 Gasoline
2017 HYUNDAI Ioniq Electric N/A Electricity
2017 HYUNDAI Sonata 2.4 Gasoline HHYXV02.4AJP
2017 HYUNDAI Sonata plug‐in hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2017 HYUNDAI Sonata Sport/Limited 2.4 Gasoline HHYXV02.4AJP
2017 HYUNDAI Tuscon Fuel Cell N/A Hydrogen
2017 JAGUAR F‐Pace 3 Gasoline
2017 JAGUAR F‐Type Convertible 3 Gasoline
2017 JAGUAR F‐Type Coupe 3 Gasoline
2017 JAGUAR F‐Type S Convertible 3 Gasoline
2017 JAGUAR F‐Type S Coupe 3 Gasoline
2017 JAGUAR XE 3 Gasoline HJLXJ03.0FSP
2017 JAGUAR XF 3 Gasoline HJLXJ03.0FSP
2017 JAGUAR XJ 3 Gasoline HJLXJ03.0FSP
2017 JAGUAR XJL 3 Gasoline HJLXJ03.0FSP
2017 JEEP Cherokee 2.4 Gasoline HCRXJ02.4CP0
2017 JEEP Cherokee 4x4 Active Drive II 2.4 Gasoline HCRXJ02.4CP0
2017 KIA Forte 2 Gasoline HKMXV02.04EP
2017 KIA Forte 2 Gasoline HKMXV02.04FP
2017 KIA Niro 1.6 Gasoline
2017 KIA Niro FE 1.6 Gasoline
2017 KIA Niro Touring 1.6 Gasoline
2017 KIA Optima 2.4 Gasoline HHYXV02.4AJP
2017 KIA Optima FE 2.4 Gasoline HHYXV02.4AJP
2017 KIA Optima plug‐in hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2017 KIA Soul 2 Gasoline HKMXV02.04CP
2017 KIA Soul Electric N/A Electricity
2017 KIA Sportage 2.4 Gasoline HKMXT02.44NP
2017 KIA Sportage FE 2.4 Gasoline HKMXT02.44NP
2017 LAND ROVER Discovery 3 Gasoline HJLXT03.0FSP
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
19 of 24
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
2017 LAND ROVER Discovery Sport 2 Gasoline
2017 LAND ROVER Range Rover 3 Gasoline HJLXT03.0FSP
2017 LAND ROVER Range Rover Evoque 2 Gasoline
2017 LAND ROVER Range Rover Evoque 2 Gasoline
2017 LAND ROVER Range Rover Sport 3 Gasoline HJLXT03.0FSP
2017 LEXUS CT 200h 1.8 Gasoline
2017 LEXUS ES 300h 2.5 Gasoline
2017 LEXUS GS 450h 3.5 Gasoline
2017 LEXUS NX 300h 2.5 Gasoline
2017 LEXUS RX 450h 3.5 Gasoline
2017 LINCOLN MKZ Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2017 MAZDA 3 2 Gasoline HTKXV02.0CDA
2017 MAZDA 3 2.5 Gasoline HTKXV02.5CDB
2017 MAZDA 6 2.5 Gasoline
2017 MAZDA CX‐5 2WD 2.5 Gasoline
2017 MAZDA CX‐5 4WD 2.5 Gasoline
2017 MERCEDES‐BENZ B250e N/A Electricity
2017 MERCEDES‐BENZ C350e 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2017 MERCEDES‐BENZ S550e 3 Gasoline/Electricity
2017 MINI Cooper Clubman 1.5 Gasoline
2017 MINI Cooper Convertible 1.5 Gasoline
2017 MINI Cooper Hardtop 1.5 Gasoline
2017 MINI Cooper S Clubman 2 Gasoline
2017 MINI Cooper S Convertible 2 Gasoline
2017 MINI Cooper S Countryman 2 Gasoline
2017 MINI Cooper S Countryman All4 2 Gasoline
2017 MINI Cooper S Hardtop 2 Gasoline
2017 MITSUBISHI i‐MiEV N/A Electricity
2017 NISSAN Altima 2.5 Gasoline HNSXV02.5R5A
2017 NISSAN Altima SR 2.5 Gasoline
2017 NISSAN Leaf N/A Electricity
2017 NISSAN Sentra 1.8 Gasoline HNSXV01.8R1A
2017 SMART ForTwo Elec. Drive (coupe) N/A Electricity
2017 SUBARU Crosstrek 2 Gasoline
2017 SUBARU Forester 2.5 Gasoline HFJXJ02.5HRV
2017 SUBARU Impreza 2 Gasoline
2017 SUBARU Impreza Sport 2 Gasoline
2017 SUBARU Legacy 2.5 Gasoline HFJXJ02.5HRV
2017 SUBARU Outback 2.5 Gasoline HFJXJ02.5HRV
2017 TESLA Model 3 Long Range N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model S 100D N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model S 60D N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model S 60kWh N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model S 75D N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model S 75kWh N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model S 90D N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model S P100D N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model S P90D N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model X 100D N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model X 60D N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model X 75D N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model X 90D N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model X P100D N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model X P90D N/A Electricity
2017 TOYOTA Avalon Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2017 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid LE 2.5 Gasoline
2017 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid XLE/SE 2.5 Gasoline
2017 TOYOTA Highlander Hybrid 3.5 Gasoline
2017 TOYOTA Highlander Hybrid LE Plus 3.5 Gasoline
2017 TOYOTA Mirai N/A Hydrogen
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
20 of 24
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
2017 TOYOTA Prius 1.8 Gasoline
2017 TOYOTA Prius c 1.5 Gasoline
2017 TOYOTA Prius Eco 1.8 Gasoline
2017 TOYOTA Prius Prime 1.8 Gasoline/Electricity
2017 TOYOTA Prius v 1.8 Gasoline
2017 TOYOTA RAV4 Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2017 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle 1.8 Gasoline
2017 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle Convertible 1.8 Gasoline
2017 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle Dune 1.8 Gasoline
2017 VOLKSWAGEN Beetle Dune Convertible 1.8 Gasoline
2017 VOLKSWAGEN CC 2 Gasoline HVGAV02.0VPE
2017 VOLKSWAGEN e‐Golf N/A Electricity
2017 VOLKSWAGEN Golf 1.8 Gasoline
2017 VOLKSWAGEN Golf Alltrack 1.8 Gasoline
2017 VOLKSWAGEN Golf SportWagen 1.8 Gasoline
2017 VOLKSWAGEN Golf SportWagen 4Motion 1.8 Gasoline
2017 VOLKSWAGEN GTI 2 Gasoline
2017 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 1.8 Gasoline HVGAV02.0VPD
2017 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta 2 Gasoline HVGAV02.0VPD
2017 VOLKSWAGEN Passat 1.8 Gasoline HVGAV02.0VPD
2017 VOLVO S60 2 Gasoline HVVXV02.0S3T
2017 VOLVO XC 90 PHEV 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2018 BMW i3 (94Ah) N/A Electricity
2018 BMW i3s (94Ah) N/A Electricity
2018 BYD e6 N/A Electricity
2018 CHEVROLET Bolt EV N/A Electricity
2018 CHEVROLET Malibu Hybrid 1.8 Gasoline
2018 CHEVROLET Volt 1.5 Gasoline/Electricity
2018 FIAT 500e N/A Electricity
2018 FORD C‐MAX Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2018 FORD Focus Electric N/A Electricity
2018 FORD Fusion Energi Plug‐in Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2018 FORD Fusion Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2018 HONDA Accord Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2018 HONDA Clarity 1.5 Gasoline/Electricity
2018 HONDA Clarity N/A Hydrogen
2018 HONDA Clarity N/A Electricity
2018 HYUNDAI Ioniq 1.6 Gasoline
2018 HYUNDAI Ioniq Blue 1.6 Gasoline
2018 HYUNDAI Ioniq Electric N/A Electricity
2018 HYUNDAI Ioniq Plug‐in Hybrid 1.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2018 KIA Niro 1.6 Gasoline
2018 KIA Niro FE 1.6 Gasoline
2018 KIA Niro Plug‐in Hybrid 1.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2018 KIA Niro Touring 1.6 Gasoline
2018 KIA Soul Electric N/A Electricity
2018 LINCOLN MKZ Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2018 NISSAN Leaf N/A Electricity
2018 SMART ForTwo ed N/A Electricity
2018 TESLA Model 3 Long Range N/A Electricity
2018 TESLA Model 3 Long Range Performance N/A Electricity
2018 TESLA Model 3 Mid Range N/A Electricity
2018 TESLA Model 4 Long Range N/A Electricity
2018 TESLA Model S 100D N/A Electricity
2018 TESLA Model S 75D N/A Electricity
2018 TESLA Model S 75kWh N/A Electricity
2018 TESLA Model S P100D N/A Electricity
2018 TESLA Model X 100D N/A Electricity
2018 TESLA Model X 75D N/A Electricity
2018 TESLA Model X P100D N/A Electricity
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
21 of 24
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
2018 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid LE 2.5 Gasoline
2018 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid XLE/SE 2.5 Gasoline
2018 TOYOTA Mirai N/A Hydrogen
2018 TOYOTA Prius 1.8 Gasoline
2018 TOYOTA Prius c 1.5 Gasoline
2018 TOYOTA Prius Eco 1.8 Gasoline
2018 TOYOTA Prius Prime 1.8 Gasoline/Electricity
2018 VOLKSWAGEN e‐Golf N/A Electricity
2019 AUDI e‐tron N/A Electricity
2019 BMW i3 N/A Electricity
2019 BMW i3s N/A Electricity
2019 BYD e6 N/A Electricity
2019 CHEVROLET Bolt EV N/A Electricity
2019 CHEVROLET Malibu 1.8 Gasoline
2019 CHEVROLET Volt 1.5 Gasoline/Electricity
2019 FIAT 500e N/A Electricity
2019 FORD Fusion Energi Plug‐in Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2019 FORD Fusion Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2019 FORD Fusion Hybrid Taxi 2 Gasoline
2019 HONDA Accord Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2019 HONDA Clarity 1.5 Gasoline/Electricity
2019 HONDA Clarity N/A Hydrogen
2019 HONDA Clarity N/A Electricity
2019 HONDA Insight 1.5 Gasoline
2019 HONDA Insight Touring 1.5 Gasoline
2019 HYUNDAI Ioniq 1.6 Gasoline
2019 HYUNDAI Ioniq Blue 1.6 Gasoline
2019 HYUNDAI Ioniq Electric N/A Electricity
2019 HYUNDAI Ioniq Plug‐in Hybrid 1.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2019 HYUNDAI Kona Electric N/A Electricity
2019 HYUNDAI NEXO N/A Hydrogen
2019 HYUNDAI NEXO Blue N/A Hydrogen
2019 JAGUAR I‐PACE N/A Electricity
2019 KIA Niro 1.6 Gasoline
2019 KIA Niro Electric N/A Electricity
2019 KIA Niro FE 1.6 Gasoline
2019 KIA Niro Plug‐in Hybrid 1.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2019 KIA Niro Touring 1.6 Gasoline
2019 KIA Soul Electric N/A Electricity
2019 LEXUS ES 300h 2.5 Gasoline
2019 LEXUS UX 250h 2 Gasoline
2019 LINCOLN MKZ Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2019 NISSAN Leaf N/A Electricity
2019 NISSAN Leaf SV/SL N/A Electricity
2019 SMART EQ fortwo convertible N/A Electricity
2019 SMART EQ fortwo coupe N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model 3 Long Range N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model 3 Long Range Performance N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model 3 Mid Range N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model 3 Standard Range N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model 3 Standard Range Plus N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model 4 Long Range N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model S 100D N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model S 75D N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model S Long Range N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model S Performance (19") N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model S Performance (21") N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model S Standard Range N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model X 100D N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model X 75D N/A Electricity
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
22 of 24
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
2019 TESLA Model X Long Range N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model X P100D N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model X Performance (20") N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model X Performance (22") N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model X Standard Range N/A Electricity
2019 TOYOTA Avalon Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2019 TOYOTA Avalon Hybrid XLE 2.5 Gasoline
2019 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid LE 2.5 Gasoline
2019 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid XLE/SE 2.5 Gasoline
2019 TOYOTA Mirai N/A Hydrogen
2019 TOYOTA Prius 1.8 Gasoline
2019 TOYOTA Prius c 1.5 Gasoline
2019 TOYOTA Prius Eco 1.8 Gasoline
2019 TOYOTA Prius Prime 1.8 Gasoline/Electricity
2019 TOYOTA RAV4 Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2019 VOLKSWAGEN e‐Golf N/A Electricity
2020 AUDI e‐tron Sportback N/A Electricity
2020 BMW i3 N/A Electricity
2020 BMW i3s N/A Electricity
2020 BYD e6 N/A Electricity
2020 CHEVROLET Bolt EV N/A Electricity
2020 FORD Escape HEV 2.5 Gasoline
2020 FORD Escape PHEV 2.5 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 FORD Fusion Energi Plug‐in Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 FORD Fusion Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2020 FORD Fusion Hybrid Taxi 2 Gasoline
2020 FORD Fusion Special Service PHEV 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 HONDA Accord Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2020 HONDA Clarity 1.5 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 HONDA Clarity N/A Hydrogen
2020 HONDA Insight 1.5 Gasoline
2020 HONDA Insight Touring 1.5 Gasoline
2020 HYUNDAI Ioniq 1.6 Gasoline
2020 HYUNDAI Ioniq Blue 1.6 Gasoline
2020 HYUNDAI Ioniq Electric N/A Electricity
2020 HYUNDAI Ioniq Plug‐in Hybrid 1.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 HYUNDAI Kona Electric N/A Electricity
2020 HYUNDAI NEXO N/A Hydrogen
2020 HYUNDAI NEXO Blue N/A Hydrogen
2020 HYUNDAI Sonata Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2020 HYUNDAI Sonata Hybrid Blue 2 Gasoline
2020 JAGUAR I‐PACE N/A Electricity
2020 KIA Niro 1.6 Gasoline
2020 KIA Niro Electric N/A Electricity
2020 KIA Niro FE 1.6 Gasoline
2020 KIA Niro Plug‐in Hybrid 1.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 KIA Niro Touring 1.6 Gasoline
2020 KIA Soul Electric N/A Electricity
2020 LEXUS ES 300h 2.5 Gasoline
2020 LEXUS UX 250h 2 Gasoline
2020 LINCOLN MKZ Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2020 MINI Cooper SE Hardtop N/A Electricity
2020 NISSAN Leaf N/A Electricity
2020 NISSAN Leaf SV/SL N/A Electricity
2020 PORSCHE Taycan 4S Perf Battery Plus N/A Electricity
2020 PORSCHE Taycan Turbo N/A Electricity
2020 PORSCHE Taycan Turbo S N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model 3 Long Range N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model 3 Long Range Perform 18" N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model 3 Long Range Perform 19" N/A Electricity
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
23 of 24
Year Model Engine Size (L) Fuel Underhood Label ID** Smog 8+ MPG 41+
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
EPA Smog Rating 8+ or City MPG 41+*
Model Years 2000 - 2020
Original Ordinance
2020 TESLA Model 3 Long Range Perform 20" N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model 3 Mid Range N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model 3 Standard Range N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model 3 Standard Range Plus N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model 4 Long Range N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model S Long Range N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model S Long Range Plus N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model S Performance (19") N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model S Performance (21") N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model S Standard Range N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model X Long Range N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model X Long Range Plus N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model X Performance (20") N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model X Performance (22") N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model X Standard Range N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model Y Long Range N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model Y Performance N/A Electricity
2020 TOYOTA Avalon Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
2020 TOYOTA Avalon Hybrid XLE 2.5 Gasoline
2020 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid LE 2.5 Gasoline
2020 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid XLE/SE 2.5 Gasoline
2020 TOYOTA Corolla Hybrid 1.8 Gasoline
2020 TOYOTA Mirai N/A Hydrogen
2020 TOYOTA Prius 1.8 Gasoline
2020 TOYOTA Prius Eco 1.8 Gasoline
2020 TOYOTA Prius Prime 1.8 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 TOYOTA RAV4 Hybrid 2.5 Gasoline
*If your vehicle is not listed, please visit www.fueleconomy.gov to determine your vehicle's EPA Smog Rating or City MPG.
**If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label ID with the one given in
the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group. Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID
matches the one given in the table.
24 of 24
Exhibit 5
Year Model Engine Size (L)Fuel Underhood ID*
2004 HONDA Insight 1 Gasoline 4HNXV01.0NCE
2004 TOYOTA Prius 1.5 Gasoline
2005 HONDA Insight 1 Gasoline 5HNXV01.0XCE
2005 TOYOTA Prius 1.5 Gasoline
2006 HONDA Insight 1 Gasoline 6HNXV01.0VK5
2006 TOYOTA Prius 1.5 Gasoline
2007 TOYOTA Prius 1.5 Gasoline
2008 TOYOTA Prius 1.5 Gasoline
2009 TOYOTA Prius 1.5 Gasoline
2010 TOYOTA Prius 1.8 Gasoline
2010 HONDA FCX NA Hydrogen
2010 TOYOTA FCHV‐adv NA Hydrogen
2011 BMW 1‐Series ActiveE NA Electricity
2011 HONDA FCX NA Hydrogen
2011 MERCEDES‐BENZ F‐Cell NA Hydrogen
2011 NISSAN Leaf NA Electricity
2011 SMART ForTwo Cabriolet NA Electricity
2011 SMART ForTwo Coupe NA Electricity
2011 TESLA Roadster NA Electricity
2011 THINK City NA Electricity
2011 TOYOTA FCHV‐adv NA Hydrogen
2011 TOYOTA Prius 1.8 Gasoline
2012 Azure Dynamics Transit Connect Electric NA Electricity
2012 BYD e6 NA Electricity
2012 CHEVROLET Volt 1.4 Electricity/Gasoline CGMXV01.4011
2012 CODA Coda NA Electricity
2012 MITSUBISHI i‐MiEV NA Electricity
2012 NISSAN Leaf NA Electricity
2012 TESLA Model S NA Electricity
2012 TOYOTA Prius 1.8 Gasoline
2012 TOYOTA Prius c 1.5 Gasoline
2012 TOYOTA Prius Plug‐in Hybrid 1.8 Gasoline/Electricity
2012 TOYOTA RAV4 EV NA Electricity
2013 CHEVROLET Volt 1.4 Electricity/Gasoline DGMXV01.4011
2013 CODA Coda NA Electricity
2013 FIAT 500e NA Electricity
2013 FORD C‐MAX PHEV 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2013 FORD Focus BEV NA Electricity
2013 FORD Fusion PHEV 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2013 HONDA Fit NA Electricity
2013 MITSUBISHI i‐MiEV NA Electricity
2013 NISSAN Leaf NA Electricity
2013 SCION iQ EV NA Electricity
2013 SMART ForTwo Cabriolet NA Electricity
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
Based on Model Year 2020 EPA SmartWay Elite Thresholds
Current Ordinance
*If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label
ID with the one given in the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group.
Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID matches the one given in the table.
1 of 9
Year Model Engine Size (L)Fuel Underhood ID*
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
Based on Model Year 2020 EPA SmartWay Elite Thresholds
Current Ordinance
2013 SMART ForTwo Coupe NA Electricity
2013 TESLA Model S NA Electricity
2013 TOYOTA Prius NA Gasoline
2013 TOYOTA Prius c NA Gasoline
2013 TOYOTA Prius Plug‐in Hybrid 1.8 Gasoline/Electricty
2013 TOYOTA RAV4 EV NA Electricity
2013 Volkswagen Jetta Hybrid NA Gasoline
2014 BMW i3 NA Electricity
2014 BMW i3 REx 0.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2014 BYD e6 NA Electricity
2014 CADILLAC ELR 1.4 Electricity/Gasoline
2014 CHEVROLET Spark EV NA Electricity
2014 CHEVROLET Volt 1.4 Electricity/Gasoline EGMXV01.4011
2014 FIAT 500e NA Electricity
2014 FORD C‐MAX Energi Plug‐In Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2014 FORD Focus Electric NA Electricity
2014 FORD Fusion Energi Plug‐in Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2014 HONDA Accord Hybrid NA Gasoline
2014 HONDA Accord Plug‐In Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2014 Honda Civic Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity EHNXV01.58DB
2014 HONDA FCX NA Hydrogen
2014 HONDA Fit NA Electricity
2014 MERCEDES‐BENZ B‐Class Electric Drive NA Electricity
2014 MITSUBISHI i‐MiEV NA Electricity
2014 NISSAN Leaf NA Electricity
2014 SMART ForTwo Cabriolet NA Electricity
2014 SMART ForTwo Coupe NA Electricity
2014 TESLA Model S NA Electricity
2014 TOYOTA Prius NA Gasoline
2014 TOYOTA Prius c 1.5 Gasoline
2014 TOYOTA Prius Plug‐in Hybrid 1.8 Gasoline/Electricity
2014 TOYOTA RAV4 EV NA Electricity
2014 Volkswagen Jetta Hybrid 1.4 Gasoline
2015 BMW i3 NA Electricity
2015 BMW i3 REx 0.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2015 BYD e6 NA Electricity
2015 CADILLAC ELR 1.4 Gasoline/Electricity
2015 CHEVROLET Spark EV NA Electricity
2015 CHEVROLET Volt 1.4 Gasoline/Electricity FGMXV01.4088
2015 FIAT 500e NA Electricity
2015 FORD C‐MAX Energi Plug‐In Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2015 FORD Focus Electric NA Electricity
2015 FORD Fusion Energi Plug‐in Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2015 HONDA Accord Hybrid 2 Gasoline
*If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label
ID with the one given in the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group.
Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID matches the one given in the table.
2 of 9
Year Model Engine Size (L)Fuel Underhood ID*
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
Based on Model Year 2020 EPA SmartWay Elite Thresholds
Current Ordinance
2015 HONDA Civic Hybrid 1.5 Gasoline FHNXV01.55DB
2015 HYUNDAI Tuscon Fuel Cell NA Hydrogen
2015 KIA Soul Electric NA Electricity
2015 MERCEDES‐BENZ B‐Class Electric Drive NA Electricity
2015 NISSAN Leaf NA Electricity
2015 SMART ForTwo Cabriolet NA Electricity
2015 SMART ForTwo Coupe NA Electricity
2015 TESLA Model S NA Electricity
2015 TESLA Model S AWD NA Electricity
2015 TOYOTA Prius 1.8 Gasoline
2015 TOYOTA Prius c 1.5 Gasoline
2015 TOYOTA Prius Plug‐in Hybrid 1.8 Gasoline/Electricity
2015 VOLKSWAGEN e‐Golf NA Electricity
2015 VOLKSWAGEN Jetta Hybrid 1.4 Gasoline
2016 AUDI A3 e‐tron 1.4 Gasoline/Electricity
2016 AUDI A3 e‐tron ultra 1.4 Gasoline/Electricity
2016 BMW i3 NA Electricity
2016 BMW i3 REX 0.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2016 CADILLAC ELR 1.4 Gasoline/Electricity
2016 CHEVROLET Spark EV NA Electricity
2016 CHEVROLET VOLT 1.5 Gasoline/Electricity GGMXV01.5030
2016 FIAT 500e NA Electricity
2016 FORD C‐MAX Energi Plug‐In Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2016 FORD Focus Electric NA Electricity
2016 FORD Fusion Energi Plug‐in Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2016 HYUNDAI Sonata plug‐in hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2016 HYUNDAI Tuscon Fuel Cell NA Hydrogen
2016 KIA Soul Electric NA Electricity
2016 MERCEDES‐BENZ B250e NA Electricity
2016 MITSUBISHI i‐MiEV NA Electricity
2016 NISSAN Leaf NA Electricity
2016 SMART ForTwo Cabriolet NA Electricity
2016 SMART ForTwo Coupe NA Electricity
2016 TESLA Model S NA Electricity
2016 TESLA Model S AWD NA Electricity
2016 TESLA Model X AWD NA Electricity
2016 TOYOTA Mirai NA Hydrogen
2016 TOYOTA Prius 1.8 Gasoline
2016 TOYOTA Prius c 1.5 Gasoline
2016 TOYOTA Prius Eco 1.8 Gasoline
2016 VOLKSWAGEN e‐Golf NA Electricity
2017 AUDI A3 e‐tron 1.4 Gasoline/Electricity
2017 BMW i3 BEV N/A Electricity
2017 BMW i3 BEV (60Ah) N/A Electricity
*If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label
ID with the one given in the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group.
Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID matches the one given in the table.
3 of 9
Year Model Engine Size (L)Fuel Underhood ID*
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
Based on Model Year 2020 EPA SmartWay Elite Thresholds
Current Ordinance
2017 BMW i3 REx 0.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2017 BYD e6 N/A Electricity
2017 CHEVROLET Bolt N/A Electricity
2017 CHEVROLET Volt 1.5 Gasoline/Electricity HGMXV01.5030
2017 CHRYSLER Pacifica Hybrid 3.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2017 FIAT 500e N/A Electricity
2017 FORD C‐MAX Energi Plug‐In Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2017 FORD Focus Electric N/A Electricity
2017 FORD Fusion Energi Plug‐in Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2017 HONDA Accord Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2017 HONDA Clarity N/A Electricity
2017 HONDA Clarity N/A Hydrogen
2017 HYUNDAI Ioniq Electric N/A Electricity
2017 HYUNDAI Ioniq 1.6 Gasoline
2017 HYUNDAI Ioniq Blue 1.6 Gasoline
2017 HYUNDAI Sonata plug‐in hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2017 HYUNDAI Tuscon Fuel Cell N/A Hydrogen
2017 KIA Niro 1.6 Gasoline
2017 KIA Niro FE 1.6 Gasoline
2017 KIA Optima plug‐in hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2017 KIA Soul Electric N/A Electricity
2017 MERCEDES‐BENZ B250e N/A Electricity
2017 MITSUBISHI i‐MiEV N/A Electricity
2017 NISSAN Leaf N/A Electricity
2017 SMART ForTwo Elec. Drive (coupe) N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model 4 Long Range N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model S 100D N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model S 60D N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model S 60kWh N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model S 75D N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model S 75kWh N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model S 90D N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model S P100D N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model S P90D N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model X 60D N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model X 75D N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model X 90D N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model X P100D N/A Electricity
2017 TESLA Model X P90D N/A Electricity
2017 TOYOTA Mirai N/A Hydrogen
2017 TOYOTA Prius 1.8 Gasoline
2017 TOYOTA Prius c 1.5 Gasoline
2017 TOYOTA Prius Eco 1.8 Gasoline
2017 TOYOTA Prius Prime 1.8 Gasoline/Electricity
*If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label
ID with the one given in the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group.
Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID matches the one given in the table.
4 of 9
Year Model Engine Size (L)Fuel Underhood ID*
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
Based on Model Year 2020 EPA SmartWay Elite Thresholds
Current Ordinance
2017 VOLKSWAGEN e‐Golf N/A Electricity
2018 AUDI A3 e‐tron 1.4 Gasoline/Electricity
2018 BMW 530e 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2018 BMW i3 (94Ah) 0.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2018 BMW i3s (94Ah) 0.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2018 BYD e6 N/A Electricity
2018 CHEVROLET Bolt EV N/A Electricity
2018 CHEVROLET Volt 1.5 Gasoline/Electricity JGMXV01.5030
2018 CHRYSLER Pacifica Hybrid 3.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2018 FIAT 500e N/A Electricity
2018 FORD Focus Electric N/A Electricity
2018 FORD Fusion Energi Plug‐in Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2018 HONDA Accord Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2018 HONDA Clarity N/A Hydrogen
2018 HONDA Clarity N/A Electricity
2018 HONDA Clarity PHEV 1.5 Gasoline/Electricity
2018 HYUNDAI Ioniq 1.6 Gasoline
2018 HYUNDAI Ioniq Blue 1.6 Gasoline
2018 HYUNDAI Ioniq Electric N/A Electricity
2018 HYUNDAI Ioniq Plug‐in Hybrid 1.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2018 HYUNDAI Sonata plug‐in hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2018 KIA Niro (not the Touring model) 1.6 Gasoline
2018 KIA Niro FE 1.6 Gasoline
2018 KIA Niro Plug‐in Hybrid 1.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2018 KIA Optima plug‐in hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2018 KIA Soul Electric N/A Electricity
2018 MITSUBISHI Outlander PHEV 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2018 NISSAN Leaf N/A Electricity
2018 SMART ForTwo ed N/A Electricity
2018 TESLA Model 4 Long Range N/A Electricity
2018 TESLA Model S 100D N/A Electricity
2018 TESLA Model S 75D N/A Electricity
2018 TESLA Model S 75kWh N/A Electricity
2018 TESLA Model S P100D N/A Electricity
2018 TESLA Model X 100D N/A Electricity
2018 TESLA Model X 75D N/A Electricity
2018 TESLA Model X P100D N/A Electricity
2018 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid LE 2.5 Gasoline
2018 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid XLE/SE 2.5 Gasoline
2018 TOYOTA Mirai N/A Hydrogen
2018 TOYOTA Prius 1.8 Gasoline
2018 TOYOTA Prius c 1.5 Gasoline
2018 TOYOTA Prius Eco 1.8 Gasoline
2018 TOYOTA Prius Prime 1.8 Gasoline/Electricity
*If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label
ID with the one given in the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group.
Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID matches the one given in the table.
5 of 9
Year Model Engine Size (L)Fuel Underhood ID*
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
Based on Model Year 2020 EPA SmartWay Elite Thresholds
Current Ordinance
2018 VOLKSWAGEN e‐Golf N/A Electricity
2018 VOLVO S90 PHEV 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2018 VOLVO XC 60 PHEV 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2018 VOLVO XC 90 PHEV 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2019 AUDI e‐tron N/A Electricity
2019 BMW 530e 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2019 BMW i3 0.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2019 BMW i3 N/A Electricity
2019 BMW i3s 0.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2019 BMW i3s N/A Electricity
2019 BYD e6 N/A Electricity
2019 CHEVROLET Bolt EV N/A Electricity
2019 CHEVROLET Volt 1.5 Gasoline/Electricity KGMXV01.5030
2019 CHRYSLER Pacifica Hybrid 3.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2019 FIAT 500e N/A Electricity
2019 FORD Fusion Energi Plug‐in Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2019 HONDA Accord Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2019 HONDA Clarity PHEV 1.5 Gasoline/Electricity
2019 HONDA Clarity N/A Electricity
2019 HONDA Clarity N/A Hydrogen
2019 HONDA Insight 1.5 Gasoline
2019 HONDA Insight Touring 1.5 Gasoline
2019 HYUNDAI Ioniq 1.6 Gasoline
2019 HYUNDAI Ioniq Blue 1.6 Gasoline
2019 HYUNDAI Ioniq Electric N/A Electricity
2019 HYUNDAI Ioniq Plug‐in Hybrid 1.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2019 HYUNDAI Kona Electric N/A Electricity
2019 HYUNDAI NEXO N/A Hydrogen
2019 HYUNDAI NEXO Blue N/A Hydrogen
2019 HYUNDAI Sonata plug‐in hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2019 JAGUAR I‐PACE N/A Electricity
2019 KIA Niro 1.6 Gasoline
2019 KIA Niro Electric N/A Electricity
2019 KIA Niro FE 1.6 Gasoline
2019 KIA Niro Plug‐in Hybrid 1.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2019 KIA Optima plug‐in hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2019 KIA Soul Electric N/A Electricity
2019 MITSUBISHI Outlander PHEV 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2019 NISSAN Leaf N/A Electricity
2019 NISSAN Leaf SV/SL N/A Electricity
2019 SMART EQ fortwo convertible N/A Electricity
2019 SMART EQ fortwo coupe N/A Electricity
2019 SUBARU Crosstrek Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2019 TESLA Model 3 Long Range N/A Electricity
*If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label
ID with the one given in the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group.
Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID matches the one given in the table.
6 of 9
Year Model Engine Size (L)Fuel Underhood ID*
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
Based on Model Year 2020 EPA SmartWay Elite Thresholds
Current Ordinance
2019 TESLA Model 3 Long Range Performance N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model 3 Mid Range N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model 3 Standard Range N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model 3 Standard Range Plus N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model 4 Long Range N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model S 100D N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model S 75D N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model S Long Range N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model S Performance (19") N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model S Performance (21") N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model S Standard Range N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model X 100D N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model X 75D N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model X Long Range N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model X P100D N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model X Performance (20") N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model X Performance (22") N/A Electricity
2019 TESLA Model X Standard Range N/A Electricity
2019 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid LE 2.5 Gasoline
2019 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid XLE/SE 2.5 Gasoline
2019 TOYOTA Mirai N/A Hydrogen
2019 TOYOTA Prius 1.8 Gasoline
2019 TOYOTA Prius 1.8 Gasoline
2019 TOYOTA Prius Eco 1.8 Gasoline
2019 TOYOTA Prius Prime 1.8 Gasoline/Electricity
2019 TOYOTA Prius c 1.5 Gasoline
2019 VOLKSWAGEN e‐Golf N/A Electricity
2019 VOLVO S60 PHEV 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2019 VOLVO S90 PHEV 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 AUDI e‐tron Sportback N/A Electricity
2020 AUDI Q5 Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 BMW 530e 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 BMW i3 N/A Electricity
2020 BMW i3 0.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 BMW i3s N/A Electricity
2020 BMW i3s 0.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 BYD e6 N/A Electricity
2020 CHEVROLET Bolt EV N/A Electricity
2020 CHRYSLER Pacifica Hybrid 3.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 FORD Escape PHEV 2.5 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 FORD Fusion Energi Plug‐in Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 FORD Fusion Special Service PHEV 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 HONDA Accord Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2020 HONDA Clarity PHEV 1.5 Gasoline/Electricity
*If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label
ID with the one given in the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group.
Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID matches the one given in the table.
7 of 9
Year Model Engine Size (L)Fuel Underhood ID*
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
Based on Model Year 2020 EPA SmartWay Elite Thresholds
Current Ordinance
2020 HONDA Clarity N/A Hydrogen
2020 HONDA Insight 1.5 Gasoline
2020 HONDA Insight Touring 1.5 Gasoline
2020 HYUNDAI Ioniq 1.6 Gasoline
2020 HYUNDAI Ioniq Blue 1.6 Gasoline
2020 HYUNDAI Ioniq Electric N/A Electricity
2020 HYUNDAI Ioniq Plug‐in Hybrid 1.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 HYUNDAI Kona Electric N/A Electricity
2020 HYUNDAI NEXO N/A Hydrogen
2020 HYUNDAI NEXO Blue N/A Hydrogen
2020 HYUNDAI Sonata Hybrid 2 Gasoline
2020 HYUNDAI Sonata Hybrid Blue 2 Gasoline
2020 JAGUAR I‐PACE N/A Electricity
2020 KARMA Revero GT (21‐inch wheels) 1.5 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 KIA Niro 1.6 Gasoline
2020 KIA Niro Electric N/A Electricity
2020 KIA Niro FE 1.6 Gasoline
2020 KIA Niro Plug‐in Hybrid 1.6 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 KIA Optima plug‐in hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 KIA Soul Electric N/A Electricity
2020 MINI Cooper SE Hardtop N/A Electricity
2020 MITSUBISHI Outlander PHEV 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 NISSAN Leaf N/A Electricity
2020 NISSAN Leaf SV/SL N/A Electricity
2020 PORSCHE Taycan 4S Perf Battery Plus N/A Electricity
2020 PORSCHE Taycan Turbo N/A Electricity
2020 PORSCHE Taycan Turbo S N/A Electricity
2020 SUBARU Crosstrek Hybrid 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 TESLA Model 3 Long Range N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model 3 Long Range Perform 18" N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model 3 Long Range Perform 19" N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model 3 Long Range Perform 20" N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model 3 Mid Range N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model 3 Standard Range N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model 3 Standard Range Plus N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model 4 Long Range N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model S Long Range N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model S Long Range Plus N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model S Performance (19") N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model S Performance (21") N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model S Standard Range N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model X Long Range N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model X Long Range Plus N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model X Performance (20") N/A Electricity
*If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label
ID with the one given in the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group.
Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID matches the one given in the table.
8 of 9
Year Model Engine Size (L)Fuel Underhood ID*
Salt Lake City "Green Vehicles" for Program Year 2020
Based on Model Year 2020 EPA SmartWay Elite Thresholds
Current Ordinance
2020 TESLA Model X Performance (22") N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model X Standard Range N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model Y Long Range N/A Electricity
2020 TESLA Model Y Performance N/A Electricity
2020 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid LE 2.5 Gasoline
2020 TOYOTA Camry Hybrid XLE/SE 2.5 Gasoline
2020 TOYOTA Corolla Hybrid 1.8 Gasoline
2020 TOYOTA Mirai N/A Hydrogen
2020 TOYOTA Prius 1.8 Gasoline
2020 TOYOTA Prius Eco 1.8 Gasoline
2020 TOYOTA Prius Prime 1.8 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 VOLVO S60 PHEV 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 VOLVO S90 PHEV 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 VOLVO V60 PHEV 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 VOLVO XC60 PHEV 2 Gasoline/Electricity
2020 VOLVO XC90 PHEV 2 Gasoline/Electricity
*If your vehicle is shown in green shading, you will need to verify your vehicle’s eligibility by comparing your vehicle's Underhood Label
ID with the one given in the table. The label is found in the engine compartment and indicates engine family or EPA vehicle test group.
Your vehicle only qualifies if its Underhood Label ID matches the one given in the table.
9 of 9
Exhibit 6
LEGISLATIVE VERSION
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1
No. _____ of 2020 2
3
(Amending 12.56.205 with changes to the Salt Lake City Green Vehicle Parking Program.) 4
5
An ordinance amending Section 12.56.205 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to no 6
charge for alternative fuel; fuel efficient and low polluting vehicles; electric vehicle charging 7
stations. 8
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City desires to honor early adopters of SLC green vehicles, many 9
of whom purchased their vehicles with the 2006-2018 SLC parking incentive in mind; and 10
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City desires to continue to reward early adopters of SLC green 11
vehicles for their commitment to improving air quality and reducing our country’s dependence 12
on foreign oil by returning the program to its original vehicle eligibility requirements;. 13
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 14
SECTION 1. That Section 12.56.205 of the Salt Lake City Code is hereby amended to 15
read as follows: 16
12.56.205: PARKING METERS; NO CHARGE FOR SLC GREEN VEHICLES; 17
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS: 18
A. The following definitions shall apply to this section: 19
20
DIVISION: The city's transportation division. 21
22
ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION: A parking stall equipped with infrastructure 23
that supplies electric energy for the recharging of electric vehicles. 24
25
SLC GREEN VEHICLE: A vehicle that achieves a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 26
(EPA) Air Pollution Score or Smog Rating of at least eight (8) on the EPA vehicle rating 27
scale of zero to ten (10) or a vehicle that is powered by gasoline, compressed natural gas, or 28
diesel that achieves a city driving fuel efficiency of forty-one (41) or more miles per gallon.A 29
passenger vehicle that meets the most current model year standards, established by the U.S. 30
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to qualify as an EPA SmartWay Elite vehicle. 31
32
LEGISLATIVE VERSION
B. 1. The Division shall issue a vehicle window stickerpermit to all persons applying for such 33
sticker permit who provide evidence acceptable to the Division that the vehicle for which the 34
sticker permit is desired is a SLC Green Vehicle as defined in subsection A of this section. 35
2. The recipient of the sticker permit shall affix it to the bottom left side of the rear window 36
of the vehicle for which it is issued, so that it is readily visible, or as directed by the Division. 37
C. Salt Lake City operated on-street metered parking spaces may be used without charge on all 38
days of the week at all hours by vehicles properly displaying the sticker permit referred to in 39
subsection B of this section. 40
41
D. No person parking a vehicle without charge pursuant to this section shall park or permit such 42
vehicle to remain parked in any parking space for a continuous period longer than that 43
designated on the parking meter pay station or on the posted sign that corresponds to such 44
parking space, nor shall they park in restricted spaces pursuant to section 12.56.180 of this 45
chapter. 46
E. In assessing the evidence provided by an applicant for such sticker permit as set forth in 47
subsection B1 of this section, the Division may consider: 48
1. The fuel efficiency information for particular years and models of vehicles determined by 49
the U.S. Department of Energy or the EPA as shown on their website at 50
www.fueleconomy.gov or its successor websiteVehicle information for particular years and 51
models of vehicles determined by the U.S. Department of Energy or the U.S. 52
Environmental Protection Agency that demonstrates a particular vehicle meets the 53
requirements set to qualify as a current model year EPA SmartWay Elite vehicle; and 54
55
2. The EPA's annual "Green Vehicle Guide" as found at the website 56
www.epa.gov/greenvehicles or its successor website. 57
58
3. SmartWay vehicle information as found at the website www.fueleconomy.gov or its 59
successor website. 60
F. Use of Salt Lake City operated electric vehicle charging stations is restricted to electric 61
vehicles actively charging their batteries. The Division may establish time limits for use of 62
particular electric vehicle charging stations. No person shall use an electric vehicle charging 63
station and the associated parking stall for longer than the time period specified for that 64
station. Failure to comply with this provision will result in a civil penalty as set forth in 65
section 12.56.550 of this chapter. 66
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 67
first publication. 68
LEGISLATIVE VERSION
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 69
2020. 70
______________________________ 71
CHAIRPERSON 72
73
74
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 75
76
______________________________ 77
CITY RECORDER 78
79
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 80
81
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 82
83
______________________________ 84
MAYOR 85
86
______________________________ 87
CITY RECORDER 88
89
90
(SEAL) 91
92
Bill No. ________ of 2020. 93
Published: ______________ 94
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
E. Russell Vetter, Senior City Attorney
Salt Lake City Public Utilities
2021 Water Supply Update
February 2, 2021
Salt Lake City Public Utilities
Water Service Area
•We provide drinking water to more than 360,000
people
•Our water service area includes all of Salt Lake City
and large portions of Mill Creek, Holladay,
Cottonwood Heights.
•Our water service area includes small portions of
South Salt Lake, Murray, and Midvale
***Service Area Map: https://www.slc.gov/utilities/ ***
SLCPU 2/2/20 2
Water Supply Sources
SLCPU 2/2/20
•Surface Water – 80-90%
•Canyon Streams – 50-
60%
•Provo River Project
(Deer Creek) through
MWDSLS – 30-40%
•Groundwater – 10-15%
•Deep Wells
•Springs
3
Getting Clean Water to Your
Tap Reliably
•Source Water Protection
•Water Treatment
•Water Distribution
•Water Quality Monitoring from the Source to your Tap
•We exceed all Safe Drinking Water Act requirements
•***Water Quality Information:
https://www.slc.gov/utilities/water-quality/ ***
SLCPU 2/2/20 4
Determining
Annual Water
Supply Outlook
•What we will start the water year with:
•Very low soil moisture
•Utah recorded its driest and 7th hottest year on record in 2020
•Snowpack below normal to date
•Most of Utah in Extreme or Exceptional Drought
•High probability of below average water supplies
•La Nina conditions typically deliver less precipitation to Utah
•Snowpack will likely be below normal by April 1st.
•Runoff will be inefficient due to low soil moisture
SLCPU 2/2/20 5
Stream Flow Projections are
Below Average
•Source streams are projected
to be 40-61% if average
water yield (as of January
31st).
SLCPU 2/2/20 6
Reservoir
Projections
•Deer Creek currently at 75% capacity
•Reservoir storage is lower than this
time last year
•Reservoirs are insurance to help us
through consecutive drought years,
but not indefinitely
SLCPU 2/2/20 7
Water Conservation and Demand
Management
•Reducing overall water use and
demand during the summer peak is
critical, especially during drought
years
•Based on current snowpack, climate,
and soil moisture data, Salt Lake City
may initiate its Water Shortage
Contingency Plan this year
•Our recently updated Water
Conservation Plan helps our
community identify ways to help
reduce water during seasonal drought
or for long term water resource
management purposes
SLCPU 2/2/20 8
References
and
Resources
•Salt Lake City Public Utilities Drought and
Water Conservation Information:
https://www.slc.gov/utilities/conservation/dr
ought-information/ and
https://www.slc.gov/utilities/conservation/
•Slow the Flow: https://slowtheflow.org/
•US National Weather Service/National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Colorado
Basin River Forecast Center:
https://www.cbrfc.noaa.gov/
•USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Snow Survey and Water Supply:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
main/national/water/snowsurvey/
•Western Water Assessment Intermountain
West Climate Dashboard:
https://wwa.colorado.edu/resources/iwc_das
hboard.html
SLCPU 2/2/20 9
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
______________________________
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Received: 12/22/2020
Date Sent to Council: 12/28/2020
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 12/22/2020
Chris Wharton, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Bicycle Advisory Committee
STAFF CONTACT: Sandy Casement
sandy.casement@slcgov.com
Board Appointment Recommendation:
Bicycle Advisory Committee
DOCUMENT TYPE:
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Rachel
Manko as a member of the Bicycle Advisory Committee.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
December 22, 2020
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Wharton,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Bicycle Advisory Committee:
Rachel Manko – to be appointed for a term ending in three years starting the date of City Council advice and
consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
1
7
1
0
3
City Council Announcements
February 2, 2021
For Your Information
A. Limit / Avoid In-person meeting with Council Staff attendance
Chair and Vice-chair have advised staff that in-person meetings should not take place until
significant progress is made with COVID vaccines to ensure safety for all attendees.
B. Grant Holding Account Items for Budget Amendment No. 7 -Fiscal Year 2020-21
The Fire Department applies for and receives the Bureau of Emergency Services (BEMS) Per
Capita Grant annually. Last year, the City received $9,635, which provided emergency supplies
for the Fire Department. Recently, the City received an additional $6,275 in conjunction with
this same grant. A public hearing for the original grant award was held April 7, 2020. This
grant appears on tonight’s Formal Agenda under Consent as Item G-5: Grant Holding Account
Items (Batch Number 4) Associated with Budget Amendment Number 7.
Council staff wanted the Council to be aware of the additional funding. Please let staff
know if Council Member have any questions.
City Council Announcements
February 2, 2021
For Your Information (03:48:15)
A. Limit / Avoid In-person meeting with Council Staff attendance
Chair and Vice-chair have advised staff that in-person meetings should not take place until
significant progress is made with COVID vaccines to ensure safety for all attendees.
Cindy Gust-Jenson said due to recent illness in the office, the Council Office/Staff will be
limiting/avoiding in-person meetings and encouraged the continued use of electronic
meetings via Zoom, Webex, etc. (No further discussion was held)
B. Grant Holding Account Items for Budget Amendment No. 7 -Fiscal Year 2020-21
The Fire Department applies for and receives the Bureau of Emergency Services (BEMS) Per
Capita Grant annually. Last year, the City received $9,635, which provided emergency supplies
for the Fire Department. Recently, the City received an additional $6,275 in conjunction with
this same grant. A public hearing for the original grant award was held April 7, 2020. This
grant appears on tonight’s Formal Agenda under Consent as Item G-5: Grant Holding Account
Items (Batch Number 4) Associated with Budget Amendment Number 7.
➢ Council staff wanted the Council to be aware of the additional funding. Please let staff
know if Council Member have any questions.
There were no questions or discussion from Council Members.