HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/14/2021 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
FORMAL MEETING
December 14,2021 Tuesday 7:00 PM
Council Chambers
451 South State Street Room 326
Salt Lake City,UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Amy Fowler,Chair
District 7
Chris Wharton,Vice Chair
District 3
Victoria Petro-Eschler
District 1
Dennis Faris
District 2
Ana Valdemoros
District 4
Darin Mano
District 5
Dan Dugan
District 6
Generated:10:52:52
The Council has returned to a hybrid meeting approach.Hybrid Council meetings
allow people to join online through Webex or in person at the City &County
Building.
Public Comments:The public can give comments to the Council during their 7
p.m.formal meetings online through Webex and in-person in Room 326 of the
City and County Building.For more information,including Webex connection
information,please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings.(A phone line will
also be available for people whose only option is to call in.)
What to Expect:The hybrid format allows in-person participation and remains
mindful of existing COVID-19 protocols and gathering limits.A maximum of 24
people,including Council members and City staff,will be permitted in a meeting
room.If the capacity has been reached in the primary meeting room,overflow
space will be provided.Social distancing will be maintained.
Per an executive order signed by Mayor Mendenhall,face coverings are required
for vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals inside Salt Lake City facilities.
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 Amy Fowler will conduct the formal meeting.
2.Pledge of Allegiance.
3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules.
4.The Council will approve the work session meeting minutes of Tuesday,July 20,
2021.
5.Recognition of James Rogers for his service as Council Member for District 1 from
January 2014 to October 2021.
6.Recognition of City Council Member Dennis Faris for his service to Salt Lake City
District 2.
7.Recognition of City Council Member Amy Fowler for her service to Salt Lake City
as 2021 Council Chair.
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NONE.
C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:
1.Ordinance:Master Plan Amendment and Rezone at 129 S 700 East and
758 East Bueno Avenue
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of
properties at 724,728,732,738,744,750 and 754 East Bueno Avenue from SR-3
(Special Development Pattern Residential District)to RMF-45 (Moderate/High
Density Multi-Family Residential District).The applicant is proposing to amend
the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map for the aforementioned
properties from Medium Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential.
The project proposes to consolidate 10 parcels and replace the existing structures
with two buildings:a single-story amenity building fronting 700 East and a 4-story
rooming (boarding)house on the interior of the site.The rooming house would
consist of 65 units ranging from 1 bedroom to 4-bedroom units.Consideration may
be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar
characteristics.Petition No.:PLNPCM2021-00048 and PLNPCM2021-00047
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 16,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 14,2021
Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s).
2.Ordinance:Rezone at Redwood Road and Indiana Avenue
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of
the properties at approximately 835 South Redwood Road and 1668 West Indiana
Avenue from R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District)to R-MU-45
(Residential/Mixed Use District).The property at 1668 W Indiana currently
contains an individual single-family dwelling while the other property is vacant.
No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this time.The change
is consistent with changes identified in the Westside Master Plan which identified
the intersection of Redwood and Indiana as the location of a future Community
Node.The Master Plan is not being changed.Consideration may be given to
rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics.
Petition No.:PLNPCM2021-00249
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,December 7,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 16,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 14,2021
Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s).
3.Ordinance:Allowing Commercial Uses on Rooftops which Exceed 2
Stories
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the FB-SE
(Form Based Special Purpose Corridor Edge Subdistrict)zoning district to allow
for rooftop commercial uses above the second story,subject to meeting a height of
30-feet.The proposed amendment affects section 21A.27.040.D FB-SE Building
Form Standards.All properties,citywide,in the FB-SE (Form Based Special
Purpose Corridor Edge Subdistrict)would be impacted.The FB-SE zone currently
limits commercial or nonresidential uses to first two stories and a height of 30
feet.Related provisions of Title 21A Zoning may also be amended as part of this
petition.Petition No.:PLNPCM2021-00431
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,November 16,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 16,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,December 7,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 14,2021
Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s).
4.Ordinance:Budget Amendment No.4 for Fiscal Year 2021-22
The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the final
budget of Salt Lake City,including the employment staffing document,for Fiscal
Year 2021-22.Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect
adjustments to the City’s budgets,including proposed project additions and
modifications.This amendment includes creating a new Community Health
Access Team or CHAT program,creating a new park ranger pilot program,several
items to spend American Rescue Plan Act or ARPA funds including a new
Westside perpetual housing fund,one-time community grants for non-profits and
businesses,and additional funding for the Community Commitment Program,
among other items.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,November 9,2021;Tuesday,November 16,2021;Tuesday,
December 7,2021;and Tuesday,December 14,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,November 9,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,November 16,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 14,2021
Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s).
5.Ordinance:2020 Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan
The Council will consider an ordinance that would adopt the 2020 Street Lighting
Master Plan.Some major changes in the proposed plan include adjustments to
how the City chooses lighting in public spaces based on pedestrian activity and
transportation needs,as well as identifies new street lighting standards for retrofit
and new construction.The plan was reviewed by the Council previously and has
since been reviewed by the City’s Planning Commission as well.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,March 2,2021 and Tuesday,August 17,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,August 24,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,September 21,2021 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 14,2021
Staff Recommendation -Refer to motion sheet(s).
D.COMMENTS:
1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council.
2.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.)
E.NEW BUSINESS:
1.Resolution:Local Emergency Declaration Extension (COVID)
The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would extend the Mayor’s
August 20 proclamation that declared a local emergency related to COVID-19,
rising cases,and resurgence of the Delta variant.If extended,the related
emergency order for masks in K-12 schools,would also be extended.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,September 14,2021;Tuesday,October 12,2021;and Tuesday,
December 14,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 14,2021
Staff Recommendation -Suspend the rules and consider motions.
F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
NONE.
G.CONSENT:
1.Board Appointment:Art Design Advisory Board –Michael Mejia
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Michael Mejia to the Art
Design Advisory Board for a term ending December 14,2024.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,December 14,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 14,2021
Staff Recommendation -Approve.
2.Board Appointment:Business Advisory Board –Andy Robertson
The Council will consider approving the appointment of Andy Robertson to the
Business Advisory Board for a term ending December 29,2025.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,December 14,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,December 14,2021
Staff Recommendation -Approve.
3.Ordinance:Budget Amendment No.5 for Fiscal Year 2021-22
The Council will set the date of Tuesday,January 4,2022 at 7 p.m.to accept public
comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the final budget
of Salt Lake City,including the employment staffing document,for Fiscal Year
2020-21.Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect
adjustments to the City’s budgets,including proposed project additions and
modifications.The proposed amendment includes funding for low income senior
and veteran transitional housing and public safety overtime in neighborhoods
hosting homeless shelters.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,January 4,2022
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,December 14,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,January 4,2022 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -TBD
Staff Recommendation -Set date.
H.ADJOURNMENT:
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.
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.
PENDING MINUTES – NOT APPROVED
The City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah,met in Work Session on Tuesday,July 20,2021 in a Hybrid
meeting.
The following Council Members were present:
Dennis Faris,James Rogers,Amy Fowler,Ana Valdemoros,Chris Wharton,Daniel Dugan
The following Council Members were absent:
Darin Mano
Present Legislative leadership:
Cindy Gust-Jenson,Executive Director;Jennifer Bruno,Deputy Director;Lehua Weaver,Associate
Deputy Director
Present Administrative leadership:
Mayor Erin Mendenhall;Rachel Otto,Chief of Staff;Lisa Shaffer,Chief Administrative Officer
Present City Staff:
Brian Fullmer –Constituent Liaison,Policy Analyst,Kira Luke –Policy Analyst/Public Engagement,
Nick Tarbet –Senior Public Policy Analyst,Cindy Lou Trishman –City Recorder,Andrew Johnston
–Director of Homelessness Policy and Outreach,Lauren Shafer –Assistant City Recorder,Nick
Norris –Planning Division Director,Thais Stewart –Minutes and Records Clerk,Jesse Stewart
–Public Utilities Deputy Director,Kristin Riker –Public Lands Department Director,Caitlyn Tubbs
–Attendee,Daniel Echeverria –Attendee
Full Meeting Audio
Meeting Packet Material
Councilmember Amy Fowler presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 3:30 pm
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,July 20,2021
1
Work Session Items
1.Informational:Updates from the Administration ~3:30 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive an update from the Administration on major items or projects,
including but not limited to:
•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
Minutes:
Mayor Mendenhall provided a COVID-19 update including case and vaccination rates,
updates on people experiencing homelessness including shelter/resource center bed
availability,current details of the Kayak Court initiative,and location details for camp
abatements.
Andrew Johnston provided additional information regarding people experiencing
homelessness including vacancy rates in resource centers,Community Commitment Program
(CCP)updates including unsheltered status (300 +individuals in the City),housing needs,
system structure,partners,etc.
Jesse Stewart provided updates regarding the current drought including water supplies,
reserves,forecasts,public outreach on water conservation,and details of stage two status of
water shortage contingency plan.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,July 20,2021
2
2.Informational:Updates on Racial Equity and Policing ~4:00 p.m.
15 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
Minutes:
Item not held.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,July 20,2021
3
3.Ordinance:Text Amendment Eliminating the Special Exception Process
from the Zoning Ordinance ~4:15 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would delete and eliminate the special
exception process from the zoning ordinance.A special exception is a minor alteration of a
dimensional requirement of the zoning ordinance or addresses accessory uses and structures.The
purpose of this proposal is to amend the zoning ordinance related to special exceptions to
accomplish the following:
•Simplify the zoning ordinance by updating regulations and eliminating special exceptions;
•Reallocate staff resources away from processing land use applications that favor individual
properties and towards updating zoning codes to align with adopted master plans;and,
•Increase predictability and reduce neighbor conflicts that are created by requests for
exceptions to the zoning regulations;
There are more than forty special exceptions authorized in the zoning ordinance.The proposal
addresses each special exception and results in each special exception being deleted,permitted,or
authorized through a different process in the zoning ordinance.Some special exceptions that will
become permitted include changes to standards to add flexibility and reduce impacts.Special
exceptions are approved by staff of the Planning Division,the Planning Commission,or Historic
Landmark Commission.Related provisions of Title 21A-Zoning and Title 14 may be amended as
part of this petition.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,August 17,2021 at 6 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24,2021
Minutes:
Nick Norris provided information regarding what constituted a special exception,how many
special exceptions the department processed (average of 156 per year),key issues regarding
fence height,outdoor dining,Historic Landmark Commission (HLC)authority,grade changes,
accessory building height,etc.,and ways the text amendment would simplify the process.
Councilmember Wharton inquired how the public would benefit from the amendment.Mr.
Norris said it directly affected property rights/individual property owners,providing flexibility
in property use,reduced impacts to the neighborhood,and enhanced predictability.He added
that it allowed the City to create reasonable standards to promote re-use/appropriate expansion
of historic properties by retaining that ability with the HLC while also granting more flexibility
outside of historic districts for preservation.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,July 20,2021
4
4.Ordinance:Administrative Decision Appeals Text Amendment ~4:35 p.m.
20 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning
ordinance pertaining to appeals of administrative decisions.Administrative decisions are those
made by the Planning Commission,Historic Landmark Commission,or the Zoning
Administrator in the administration of the zoning ordinance.The amendments primarily clarify
what matters can be decided by the City's Appeals Hearing Officer,who can appeal decisions,
and when an appeal can stay a decision,modify City Code to align with State law,related case
law,and make other clarifications to the appeals chapter of the zoning ordinance,including:
•Clarify that the City Appeals Hearing Officer can only make decisions regarding the
interpretation and application of provisions of Salt Lake City Code,not provisions
regarding the interpretation and application of provisions of the Utah State Code,the Utah
Constitution,Utah common law or federal law.
•Modify the list of allowed appellants to the land use applicant,City board or officer,or “an
adversely affected party”to comply with new State Code.
•Eliminate automatic stays of decisions.An appellant would have to specifically request and
justify a “stay”(a hold on further proceedings on a matter)when appealing an
administrative decision.
The proposed amendments affect Chapter 21A.16 of the zoning ordinance.Related provisions
of Title 21A-Zoning may be amended as part of this petition.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,August 17,2021 at 6 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24,2021
Minutes:
Nick Tarbet provided a brief introduction to the proposal.
Daniel Echeverria provided information regarding background/overview of appeals process
and key changes,including clarifying authority of Appeals Hearing Officer,aligning allowed
appellant definition with State Code,stay of decisions with appeals (appeals not automatically
staying decisions),and updating clarifying language.
Nick Norris provided clarification regarding the City Appeals Officer not hearing appeals
related to State Code,stating it did not prevent submittal of those appeals,it only prevented the
Appeals Officer from making a decision regarding the matter.
Councilmember Fowler noted it would be helpful to provide a deadline regarding the stay
decision when an appeal was submitted.Mr.Norris said that could be looked into further in
conjunction with the Attorney’s Office to see what could be added if it did not already exist in
the code.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,July 20,2021
5
5.Ordinance:Rezone at 329-331 South 600 East (Encircle)~4:55 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would rezone the property at 329-331
South 600 East from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-family Residential District)to R-MU-35
(Residential/Mixed Use District).The proposed rezone to R-MU would allow for a café eatery
within the existing building,which is not currently permitted under the existing RMF-35 zoning
designation.This property houses the offices of Encircle Family and Youth Services Center a
nonprofit working with LGBTQ+people and their friends and families.Consideration may be
given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,August 17,2021 at 6 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24,2021
Minutes:
Nick Tarbet provided a brief introduction to the proposal.
Caitlyn Tubbs provided information regarding request details including current zoning
district,proposed zoning district,proposed use,and lot size.
Wade Budge (Applicant’s Representative),provided information regarding offered
programming,details of implementing the café (located on the first level),and reasoning for the
addition of the café (activation of the main level,employment opportunities,etc.).
Nick Norris clarified the rezone would not impact adjacent properties,and would help
preserve the long-rem use of the historic building.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,July 20,2021
6
6.Ordinance:Rosewood Park Street and Alley Vacation at 1400 North 1200
West ~5:10 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would vacate five unimproved City-
owned alleys and six unimproved City-owned streets,situated within Rosewood Park located at
approximately 1400 North 1200 West.The proposal would allow for the consolidation of
property to simplify the permitting process for future improvement projects.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,August 17,2021 at 6 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24,2021
Minutes:
Brian Fullmer provided a brief introduction to the proposal.
Kristin Riker shared information relating to the request,including the planned Public
Utilities project at Rosewood Park (slated to begin when Rosewood Golf Course project began)
which would increase the parks functionality,including a new walkway,concrete pads for
picnic tables,trees installed along the walkway,new ADA sidewalk entrance,and removal of
two softball fields,new fence,parking lot paving,etc.
Councilmember Rogers commented on the popularity of the park and asked about a timeline
for completion of the project.Jesse Stewart indicated a forthcoming email would be provided
to the Council regarding a timeline.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,July 20,2021
7
7.Resolution:Funding Our Future:Addenda to Transit Master Plan
Implementation Interlocal Agreement with Utah Transit Authority (UTA)~5:25 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about a resolution that would authorize the Mayor to enter into
two proposed agreements (the fourth and fifth addenda to date)for the City’s interlocal agreement
(ILA)with UTA.The fourth addendum continues service on East-West connecting Routes 2 (200
South),9 (900 South)and 21 (2100 South).The fifth addendum initiates mobilization on Route 1
(1000 North)which allows UTA to gather the resources needed,such as additional vehicles,to
launch the new service.The ILA is a twenty-year agreement with a goal of full implementation of the
Frequent Transit Network as described in the City’s Transit Master Plan.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 17,2021
Minutes:
Kira Luke provided a brief introduction and information concerning Phase I
implementations.
Jonathan Larsen indicated he was seeking the Council’s approval for entering into the
interlocal agreement (ILA)and noted that 600 North was not included in the project due to
Utah Transit Authority (UTA)providing funding for the route.He added that Capital
Improvement Project (CIP)funding had been used to build bus stops throughout the City,fund
the 600 North corridor study,and a proposed North Temple hub.
Councilmember Rogers expressed concern that the 600 North route would be bypassed by
UTA.Nichol Bourdeaux,Chief Planning and Engagement Officer at UTA,confirmed that the
205 extension would not be included in the ILA but explained that it would be part of the
August Change Day 2022 and was within UTA’s five-year service plan.
Mr.Larsen commented that an update concerning the groundwork being implemented is
required for this project.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,July 20,2021
8
8.Resolution:Capital Improvement Program Projects Follow-up ~5:40 p.m.
45 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about the City's Capital Improvement Program
(CIP)which involves the construction,purchase or renovation of buildings,parks,streets or
other physical structures.Generally,projects have a useful life of five or more years and cost
$50,000 or more.The Council approves debt service and overall CIP funding in the annual
budget process,while project-specific funding is approved by September 1 of the same year.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,June 1,2021;Tuesday,July 13,2021;and Tuesday,July 20,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,June 8,2021
Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,July 13,2021 at 7 p.m.and Tuesday,August
17,2021 at 6 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 24,2021
Minutes:
Council Members indicated line items they wanted to see prioritized in the budget:
Councilmember Dugan spoke in support of Item 54 –he noted that reconstruction was
necessary to continued use if the courts,they were the only public tennis courts open year-
round in the City,and there was a limited need for Engineering support staff (straightforward
approach to removing/replacing elements of the courts).
Councilmember Valdemoros Spoke in support of Item 3 –she noted her support for utilizing
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)funds for the full $500,000.
Councilmember Rogers and Councilmember Wharton spoke in support of Item 68 –they noted
the project would be specifically helpful to the Marmalade and surrounding area by providing
safer traffic routes and was critical to saving lives.
Councilmember Fowler spoke in suport of Iitem 72 –she noted the original applicant modified
the request to $300,000 (down from $500,000)and wanted to fund the project at that
amount,or utilize $35,000 for the study itself (with the possible intent to move it up in priority
through the CIP process).
Benjamin Luedtke,Jennifer Bruno,and Kristin Riker were present to provide further
details,answer questions regarding specific line items,funding availability,and possible ARPA
approved projects.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,July 20,2021
9
9.Ordinance:Campaign Finance Reporting and Personal Campaign
Committees ~6:25 p.m.
5 min.
The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend sections of the Salt
Lake City Code relating to campaign finance reporting and personal campaign committees.The
proposed ordinance would add a new campaign finance report requirement when participating
in the Municipal Alternate Voting Method Pilot Program (commonly known as Ranked Choice
Voting).The proposed ordinance also has general campaign finance changes to align City
ordinance with current State Code.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Minutes:
Lauren Shafer provided information regarding campaign finance reporting for traditional
voting (six report periods/dates),and a new proposed reporting period of June 29,2021
through September 6,2021 with a due date of September 9,2021 (replacing previous
unenforceable reporting and for enhanced transparency prior to the general election).
Council Members discussed the pilot program impact and the consideration of the state’s
decisions.
10.Resolution:Utah Performing Arts Center Interlocal Agreement Written Briefing
The Council will receive a written briefing about a resolution ratifying execution of a second
amendment to an interlocal agreement between Salt Lake City,the Redevelopment Agency
(RDA),and the Utah Performing Arts Center Agency (UPACA),for operation of the George S.
and Delores Dore Eccles Theater.
FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Set Public Hearing Date -n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,July 20,2021
Minutes:
Written briefing only.There was no discussion.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,July 20,2021
10
Standing Items
11.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
Minutes:
Item not held.
12.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 scheduling items.
Minutes:
Item not held.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,July 20,2021
11
13.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.
Minutes:
The Council did not hold a closed session.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,July 20,2021
12
Meeting adjourned at 6:18 PM
Minutes Approved:
_______________________________
City Council Chair
_______________________________
City Recorder
This document is not intended to serve as a full transcript as other items may have been discussed;
please refer to the audio or video for entire content pursuant to Utah Code §52-4-203(2)(b).
This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council
Work Session meeting held Tuesday,July 20,2021.
MINUTES OF THE SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday,July 20,2021
13
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
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Brian Fullmer
Policy Analyst
DATE:December 14, 2021
RE: Bueno Avenue Apartments Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment
at Approximately 129 South 700 East
PLNPCM2021-00047 & PLNPCM2021-00048
MOTION 1 (adopt with legislative action)
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance subject to:
(1) the property owner executing and recording in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder a restrictive
covenant that prohibits the rental or lease of any units or rooms for periods less than 30 days, and
(2) the property owner shall make best efforts to salvage building materials from the existing dwellings and
either reuse the materials themselves or donate them
I further move that the Council direct staff to draft a legislative intent in collaboration with the Administration
for review and consider adopting at a future Council meeting. The purpose of the legislative intent would
include, but not be limited to the following purposes:
Consider a policy that would outline Council expectations when considering discretionary zoning
applications in order to protect existing affordable housing or replace it if it is demolished in order to
facilitate new construction.
Consider policies outlining steps the City could take to help preserve and expand housing stock when
considering zoning amendments.
Consider including in the review of the housing loss mitigation being conducted by the Administration, a
policy to help mitigate the impact to existing naturally occurring affordable housing either through
preservation or replacement of these units.
MOTION 2 (adopt without legislative action)
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance.
MOTION 3 (defer action)
I move that the Council defer action to a future Council meeting.
MOTION 4 (reject)
I move that the Council reject the ordinance.
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:December 14, 2021
RE: Bueno Avenue Apartments Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment
at Approximately 129 South 700 East and 758 East Bueno Avenue
PLNPCM2021-00047 & PLNPCM2021-00048
PUBLIC HEARING UPDATE
Fifteen people spoke at the December 7, 2021 public hearing. Seven were opposed to the proposed master
plan and zoning map amendments and eight were supportive. Those opposed cited parking and affordable
housing concerns, negative impact on the neighborhood, potential for short-term stays, and stated this is
not the type of housing renters desire. Comments were also shared about the two Planning Commission
public hearings and the Commission’s vote changing from a positive recommendation to the Council after
the first hearing to a negative recommendation following the second hearing.
Those supportive of the master plan and zoning map amendments discussed the planned rooming house
filling a need for high quality attainable housing by using an innovative design not provided elsewhere in
the city. Commentors who work for the development company discussed the poor condition of homes on
the property; providing relocation assistance to previous tenants of the existing homes; and the proposed
development providing a creative way to help alleviate housing pressure in the city.
The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future meeting.
The following information was provided for the December 7, 2021 public hearing. It is
provided again for background purposes.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: November 16, 2021
Set Date: November 16, 2021
Public Hearing: December 7, 2021
Potential Action: December 14, 2021
Page | 2
BRIEFING UPDATE
At the November 16, 2021 briefing a Council Member asked about condition of the Bueno Avenue road and
whether it is a City owned street. Planning staff noted the private street is mainly a dirt road with a small
amount of asphalt near the 700 East entrance. Another question was raised about why the Planning
Commission initially voted to forward a positive recommendation to the Council for the master plan and
zoning map amendments and the second vote was a negative recommendation, and whether the housing
loss mitigation plan was a factor. Planning explained there were different Commissioners for the second
vote and the mitigation plan was not a factor in the second vote.
A Council Member asked about the apartments being used for short-term vacation housing. Planning staff
acknowledged there is potential for this and stated the units would need to be licensed for that use. The
proposed RMF-45 zoning designation would allow for month-to-month rentals under certain uses such as
“rooming house.” In response to a Council Member inquiry about a single entrance/exit for the proposed
development, Planning staff stated there were no concerns raised from the Transportation Division or Fire
Department.
A Council Member asked about the difference between an SRO (Single Room Occupancy) building and a
rooming/boarding house (referred to as co-living by the applicant). Planning staff outlined some key
differences at the briefing and in a subsequent email to Council staff. The following table summarizes the
two.
SRO Rooming/boarding house
Definition (abbreviated)Residential dwelling facility
containing individual, self-
contained, dwelling units none
of which may exceed 500 sq ft
in size (essentially a micro or
studio unit).
A building or group of attached
buildings containing in
combination of at least three
lodging units for occupancy on
at least a monthly basis.
Minimum rental period 30 days 30 days
Occupant limit None None
Parking requirement Varies based on zoning district 1 stall per 2 occupants
The applicant addressed the Council stating this is the first-of-its-kind co-living project in Salt Lake City
and will provide housing for 192 individuals. He stated rents would be approximately 40% below market
rate.
The Council received additional constituent feedback expressing concern about 72 on-site parking stalls for
192 potential residents at the proposed development. The constituents believe at the price point for rooms,
nearly all residents will have a vehicle. There is reportedly a lack of on-street parking in the area. Another
concern raised is rooms may be used as short-term vacation housing or an extended stay hotel.
Following the public hearing a Council Member asked staff about parking requirements for a rooming
house within the RMF-45 zoning designation. One parking stall is required per two people for whom
rooming accommodations are provided. Thus, if the proposed rooming/co-living development
accommodates 192 residents in the building, 96 parking stalls would be required. The applicant proposes a
25% reduction in required parking stalls based on transportation management strategies outlined in City
Code. Reducing the required 96 parking stalls by 25% would result in 72 parking stalls, which is what the
applicant is proposing. A Council Member asked staff to check with the Attorney’s Office about fair housing
concerns from a constituent, and no issues were raised.
Page | 3
The Planning Commission voted to table planned development and conditional use applications associated
with the master plan and zoning map amendments before the Council. If amendments are approved by the
Council, the Planning Commission will then review the other applications that are part of this proposal. If
the Council votes against the master plan and zoning map amendments, the other applications will not be
able to move forward.
The Council’s role is to determine whether the proposed RMF-45 zoning designation is appropriate for
these parcels. For reference, staff prepared the table below which includes conditional and permitted uses
that differ between the current SR-3 and proposed RMF-45 zoning districts.
Use SR-3 RMF-45
Community garden C P
Dwelling, assisted living facility (large)P
Dwelling, assisted living facility (limited capacity)P
Dwelling, assisted living facility (small)P
Dwelling, congregate care facility (large)C
Dwelling, congregate care facility (small)C P
Dwelling, group home (large)C
Dwelling, multi-family P
Dwelling, residential support (large)C
Dwelling, residential support (small)C
Dwelling, rooming (boarding) house C
Dwelling, twin home and two-family P
Nursing care facility P
The following information was provided for the November 16, 2021 Council briefing. It
is provided again for background purposes.
The Council will be briefed about an ordinance that would amend zoning of the properties at 724, 728, 732,
738, 744, 750 and 754 East Bueno Avenue from SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District) to
RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District). The applicant is also proposing to
consolidate these and parcels at 129 South 700 East, and 758 East Bueno Avenue already zoned RMF-45
into one parcel. Additionally, the proposal would amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land
Use Map for the properties from Medium-Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential.
The property is on the block interior bordered by 100 and 200 South and between 700 and 800 East as
shown in the image below. The applicant proposes constructing a 4-story apartment building with 65 1–4-
bedroom apartments (192 bedrooms total). Each bedroom would be leased individually and have a private
bathroom. Kitchen and living room spaces in each apartment would be shared among residents within the
unit. 72 on-site parking spaces are included in the proposal. A single-story amenity and leasing building
fronting on 700 East is also proposed as part of the development.
Page | 4
According to the applicant’s proposal, “This development provides attainably priced housing with a
bedroom rental to be at or near the 60% AMI Rent restriction level. This is achieved without the
requirement of city, state, or federal funding, or any other type of public incentive.”
Under the proposed development a six-unit multi-family building and seven single-family homes on the
private, unpaved road would be removed. The homes are reportedly in poor condition as shown in the
Housing Condition Report found on pages 141-183 of the Planning Commission staff report. The applicant
states it is economically unfeasible to rehabilitate the homes.
It should be noted the applicant stated in their application the homes will be removed regardless of the
outcome of the master plan and zoning map amendments. If the proposed amendments are not approved,
the applicant’s expressed plans are to construct luxury for sale townhomes on the site which would be
allowed “by right” under current zoning.
These proposed master plan and zoning map amendments were reviewed at the June 23, 2021 Planning
Commission meeting and a public hearing was held. Several people spoke or had their comments read
during the hearing. Most expressed opposition to the proposal. The Planning Commission voted to table
planned development and conditional use applications associated with this proposal and may review them
at a future date depending on the City Council’s decision on the master plan and zoning map amendments.
The Council’s role is to determine if the proposed master plan amendment and rezone are appropriate for
the interior block parcels.
On June 23 the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the Council on the
proposed master plan and zoning map amendments. However, that vote was recalled at the July 14
Planning Commission meeting when it was discovered a housing mitigation loss report was not presented
to the Planning Commission.
Acco0rding to the Housing Mitigation ordinance, “any petition for a zoning change that would permit a
nonresidential use of land, that includes within its boundaries residential dwelling units, may not be
approved until a housing mitigation plan is approved by the city.” (18.97.020.A) Because existing use of the
property is residential and the proposed RMF-45 zoning district would allow nonresidential land uses, the
proposed amendment is subject to the housing loss mitigation process. The report found the petition
amending zoning for the subject parcels from SR-3 to RMF-45 would replace lost housing stock. It further
found replacement costs exceed market value of the existing homes, so no mitigation fee is required. The
Community and Neighborhoods Director signed the report associated with this proposal.
This proposal was reviewed again at the September 8, 2021 Planning Commission meeting and a housing
mitigation report was presented. A second public hearing on the proposal was held and more than 20
people spoke or provided written comments with the majority expressing opposition. Planning staff
recommended the Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
The Commission voted 3-2 to forward a negative recommendation on the master plan and zoning map
amendments. Commissioners who voted to forward a negative recommendation stated the proposed
rezone was not compatible with the master plan and neighborhood context. A desire for lower density
development in the area was also expressed. Commissioners who voted in support of forwarding a positive
recommendation to the City Council did not comment.
Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments, determine if the
Council supports moving forward with the proposal.
Page | 5
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. The Council may wish to discuss how impacts such as additional residents and traffic in this area
would be managed.
2. The Council may wish to ask what the minimum lease period is. Will it be less than six months?
3. Does each bedroom accommodate only one individual?
a. If so, how will this be monitored and enforced?
b. Is that permitted under the Fair Housing Act?
4. The Council may wish to discuss how and if this project helps address housing demands and needs
of the city and neighborhood
5. This type of project is raising concerns about the loss of naturally occurring affordable housing in
favor of newer, market rate units.
a. The Council may wish to ask the administration for a status report on updates to the
housing loss mitigation plan.
6. The dense nature of this project raised questions about traffic flow in and out of the property as
there is only one entrance/exit. Was this addressed by the Administration?
7. Did the Administration discuss potential parking issues with the proposed development given the
lack of on-street parking in the area? Are the 72 on-site parking spaces adequate to serve 192
residents of the development plus visitors?
Proposed Bueno Avenue Apartments Site Plan
Page | 6
Vicinity zoning map with subject project area outlined in yellow.
Parcels proposed to be rezoned from SR-3 to RMF-45 outlined in red.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Planning staff identified three key issues with this proposal. They are summarized below. Please see pages
11-13 for full details.
Issue 1-Zoning and Master Plan Amendment
There are separate planned development and conditional use applications associated with this proposal.
They are dependent on the zoning and master plan amendments being approved and will be considered by
the Planning Commission later if the zoning and master plan amendments are approved.
As stated above, if the zoning and master plan amendments are not approved development on the site
under existing zoning designations could result in development of luxury townhomes and a loss of
affordable housing stock.
Issue 2-Housing Mitigation
As noted above, a housing loss mitigation report was reviewed by the Administration and the Community
and Neighborhoods Director approved the report. No housing loss mitigation fee is required.
Issue 3-Rooming House/Co-Living - Innovative Housing Development
An objective of the Growing SLC Housing Plan is to “lead in the construction of innovative housing
solutions.” Rooming houses/co-living buildings are new to Salt Lake City, but, according to Planning staff,
is popular in many metro areas. (The Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance uses the term “rooming (boarding)
house.” Co-living is an updated term and used by the applicant.)
Page | 7
Development of co-living communities is largely in response to rising housing costs and need for more
affordable housing options. Co-living is often targeted toward 25- to 35-year-olds who are entering the
workforce and priced out of the market but is not limited to this age range.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The table below compares building height and yard requirements for the SR-3 zoning designation with
RMF-45 zoning.
SR-3 RMF-45
Maximum Building Height The maximum height of buildings
with pitched roofs shall be:
a. Twenty-eight feet (28')
measured to the ridge of the roof;
or
b. The average height of
other principal buildings on the
block face.
2. The maximum height of a
flat roof building shall be twenty
feet (20').
The maximum building height
permitted in this district is forty
five feet (45').
General Yard Requirements 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 ten feet
(10'). Where the minimum front
yard is specified in the recorded
subdivision plat, the requirement
specified on the plat shall prevail.
For buildings legally existing on
April 12, 1995, the required front
yard shall be no greater than the
established setback line of the
existing building.
2. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet
(10'). For buildings legally existing
on April 12, 1995, the required
corner side yard shall be no greater
than the established setback line of
the existing building.
3. Interior Side Yard:
a. Single-family detached
dwellings: Four feet (4').
b. Single-family attached and
twin home dwellings: When
abutting a single-family dwelling, a
four foot (4') yard is required,
otherwise no interior yard is
required. Where a yard is provided,
it shall be not less than four feet
(4').
Minimum Yard Requirements:
1. Front Yard: Twenty percent
(20%) of lot depth, but need not
exceed twenty five feet (25'). For
buildings legally existing on April
12, 1995, the required front yard
shall be no greater than the existing
yard.
2. Corner Side Yard:
a. Single-family attached
dwellings: Ten feet (10').
b. Multi-family dwellings:
Twenty feet (20').
c. All other permitted and
conditional uses: Twenty feet (20').
3. Interior Side Yard:
a. Single-family attached
dwelling: No yard is required,
however if one is provided it shall
not be less than four feet (4').
b. Multi-family dwellings:
The minimum yard shall be eight
feet (8'); provided, that no
principal building is erected within
ten feet (10') of a building on an
adjacent lot.
c. All other permitted and
conditional uses: Ten feet (10') on
each side.
4. Rear Yard: The rear yard
shall be twenty five percent (25%)
of the lot depth, but need not
exceed thirty feet (30').
Page | 8
4. Rear Yard: Twenty percent
(20%) of the lot depth but not less
than fifteen feet (15') and need not
exceed thirty feet (30').
MASTER PLAN CONSIDERATIONS
Planning staff identified master plan considerations applicable to the proposed master plan and zoning
map amendments which are summarized below. Please see pages 91-92 of the staff report for additional
information.
Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan 2018-2022
A goal to increase housing options is included in Growing SLC. The following objectives are listed:
Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of
a growing, pioneering city.
Objective 2: Remove impediments in City processes to encourage housing development.
Objective 3: Lead in the construction of innovative housing solutions.
Plan Salt Lake (2015)
Plan Salt Lake, the citywide master plan includes policies related to providing additional housing options.
Policies related to the proposed project include growth, housing, and air quality. Planning staff identified
several objectives of these policies that align with the proposal such as:
Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.
Increase diversity of housing types for all income levels throughout the city.
Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate.
Promote high density residential in areas served by transit.
Minimize impact of car emissions.
Central Community Master Plan (2005)
The subject properties are in the Bryant neighborhood and within the Central Community Master Plan
area. The associated Future Land Use Map designates the SR-3 zoned parcels as “medium-density
residential” and the RMF-45 parcels as “medium-high density residential.” Planning staff stated the
medium-density residential designation is due to the block’s interior and existing lower density housing.
Planning staff listed several residential land use goals and policies along with residential new construction
policies in the Master Plan including:
Reduce excessive density potential, stabilize the neighborhood, and conserve the neighborhood’s
residential character.
Ensure new multi-family development is carefully sited, well designed, and compatible in scale.
Provide more affordable housing (owner occupied and rental).
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.
Promote construction of a variety of housing options that are compatible with the character of the
neighborhoods of the Central Community.
Planning staff stated “Further development on this site under the current zoning and master plan
designation could result in the removal of affordable housing stock, to be replaced by very high-priced
housing. This would be counterproductive to the growing need of increasing attainably priced housing
stock in the area.
Page | 9
The requested master plan amendment would promote the redevelopment of this site and would help meet
City growth and housing goals.”
ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS
Attachment I (pages 95-97) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment
standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Planning staff found the
proposed amendment complies with all applicable standards, provided the Master Plan future land use
map is amended. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for full details.
PUBLIC PROCESS
• March 1, 2021-Notice of the project and request for comments sent to East Central Community
Council and Central City Neighborhood Council chairs. The East Central Community Council
Chair submitted a letter to Planning staff expressing opposition to the proposal.
• March 26, 2021-Early notification sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the
project area.
• April 5, 2021-Project included in Planning Division online open house.
• June 23, 2021-Planning Commission public hearing. The Commission tabled associated planned
development and conditional use items until a City Council vote on the Master Plan and zoning
map amendments. The Commission voted 4-3 to forward a positive recommendation to the City
Council.
• July 14, 2021-Planning Commission recalled vote from June 23, 2o21 meeting because a housing
mitigation report was not considered prior to making recommendation to the City Council.
• September 8, 2021-Planning Commission was presented a housing mitigation report. A second
public hearing was held, and the Commission voted 3-2 to forward a negative recommendation to
the City Council for the proposed Master Plan and zoning map amendments.
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:
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Bueno Apartments @ 724, 728, 732, 738, 744, 750 and 754 East Bueno Avenue -
Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00048) from SR-3 to RMF-45 and Master Plan
Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00047)
STAFF CONTACT: Katia Pace, Principal Planner, katia.pace@slcgov.com, 385-226-8499
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
•Planning Staff recommended approval.
•On June 23, 2021 the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation
to the City Council.
•On July 14, 2021 the Planning Commission recalled the vote from the June 23, 2021
meeting because the Planning Commission is required to consider a housing mitigation
report for zoning amendments prior to making a recommendation to the City Council.
•On September 8, 2021 the Planning Commission held a second public hearing and voted
to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Kevin Perry, representing the property owner, is requesting approval for a master plan and
zoning map amendment to accommodate the Bueno Avenue Apartments, a Rooming (boarding)
House. The location would be at approximately 129 S 700 East and 758 East Bueno Avenue
October 18, 2021
Lisa Shaffer (Oct 19, 2021 15:58 MDT)
10/19/2021
10/19/2021
(already RMF-45 parcels), together with the properties at 724, 728, 732, 738, 744, 750 and 754
East Bueno Avenue to be rezoned.
Area in red shows the parcels that would be rezoned from SR-3 to RMF-45 and have the master
plan designation changed from Medium Density to Medium Hight Density. Area in blue is the
remainder area for the project that is zoned RMF-45.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 23, 2021. The commission voted to
table the Planned Development and Conditional Use and voted 4-2 to forward a positive
recommendation for the master plan and zoning map amendment to the City Council.
The vote from the June 23rd meeting was recalled at the following Planning Commission
meeting, on July 14, 2021, because according to Salt Lake City Code Section 18.97, Mitigation
of Residential Housing Loss, the Planning Commission is required to consider a housing loss
mitigation report for the zoning amendment prior to making a recommendation to the City
Council and the report was not presented to the Planning Commission before the vote on the
June 23rd meeting.
On September 8, 2021, the Planning Commission held a second public hearing and reviewed the
housing loss mitigation report. The report was approved and signed by the Department of
Community and Neighborhoods director prior to being presented to the Planning Commission.
The commission voted to recommend denial to the City Council for the following applications:
a. Zoning Map Amendment – To rezone 7 parcels on the site from SR-3 to RMF-45.
b. Master Plan Map Amendment - To amend the Central Community Master Plan future
land use map from "Medium Density Residential" to "Medium High Density Residential"
Proposed Project
The final project proposes to consolidate 10 parcels and replace the existing structures with two
buildings: a single-story amenity building fronting 700 East and a 4-story rooming house on the
interior of the site. The rooming house would consist of 65 units ranging from 1 bedroom to 4-
bedroom units. Each unit would share cooking and living room facilities and would have a
bathroom for each bedroom. The total site is approximately 1.55 acres or 67,518 square feet.
The breakdown of the 65 units would be:
1 Bed – 4 units (1 x 4 = 4)
2 Bed – 24 units (2 x 24 = 48)
3 Bed – 8 units (3 x 8 = 24)
4 Bed – 29 units (4 x 29 = 116)
Existing Conditions
Bueno Avenue is a private right-of-way, that runs across the site granting exclusive access to the
parcels on this site and to the adjacent parcel to the south. At the entrance of the site, there is an
existing multifamily building with garages/storage facilities. At the interior of the site there are
seven single family homes. Several of these homes are currently vacant and have major
structural and foundation issues, electrical code deficiencies, and plumbing problems.
The condition of Bueno Avenue on this block is in disrepair, with an unmaintained dirt roadway.
The utilities are severely outdated and require replacement.
Housing Loss Mitigation Report
The site is divided between RMF-45 and SR-3 zoning designation. Seven of the parcels with
single-family homes and a vacant parcel are zoned SR-3; the other parcels are zoned RMF-45.
The Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss ordinance (Salt Lake City Code Section 18.97)
requires that any petition for a zoning change that would permit a nonresidential use of land and
includes within its boundaries residential dwelling units, may not be approved until a housing
mitigation plan is reviewed by the city.
Because the proposed RMF-45 zoning district would allow for nonresidential land uses, the
zoning amendment is subject to the housing loss mitigation process. As required by the housing
loss mitigation ordinance, the Director of the Department of Community and Neighborhoods has
signed the report. The report found that the petition to rezone these parcels from SR-3 to RMF-
45 zone would result in replacement of housing stock that allows for housing for 192 individuals.
Block showing site in yellow line and RMF-45, RMF-35, and SR-3 zoning designations
Recommendations
On June 23, 2021, the Planning Commission voted 4-2 to forward a positive recommendation for
the master plan and zoning map amendment to the City Council based on the initial staff report
and the information presented and the input received in the public hearing.
On September 8, 2021, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to forward a negative
recommendation for denial based on the request not being compatible with the master plan and
the context of the neighborhood.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• Notice of the project and request for comments was sent to the East Central Community
Council and the Central City Neighborhood Council on March 1, 2021. The East Central
Community Council wrote a letter with a negative recommendation based on the loss of
affordable housing. The Central City Neighborhood Council did not respond.
• Notices were mailed to property owners/residents within ~300 feet of the proposal on
March 26, 2021.
• Online Open House with information about the proposal, was published on April 5, 2021
in the Salt Lake City Planning’s website https://www.slc.gov/planning/open-houses/.
• The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 23, 2021. The commission voted
to table the Planned Development and Conditional Use and voted 4-2 to forward a positive
recommendation for the Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to the City Council.
• On July 14, 2021 the Planning Commission recalled the vote from the June 23, 2021
meeting because the Planning Commission is required to consider a housing mitigation
report for zoning amendments prior to making a recommendation to the City Council.
• On September 8, 2021 the Planning Commission held a second public hearing as decided
by the Chair and voted 3-2 to forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for
the proposed master plan and zoning map amendment.
Planning Commission Records:
a) Planning Commission Agenda of June 23, 2021 (Click to Access)
b) Planning Commission Minutes of June 23, 2021 (Click to Access)
c) Planning Commission Staff Report of June 23,2021 (Click to Access Report)
d) Planning Commission Minutes of July 14, 2021 (Click to Access)
e) Planning Commission Agenda of September 8, 2021 (Click to Access)
f) Planning Commission Minutes of September 8, 2021 (Click to Access)
g) Planning Commission Staff Report of September 8, 2021 with Housing Loss Mitigation
Report (Click to Access Report)
EXHIBITS:
1. Project Chronology
2. Additional Comments (Not on Staff Report)
3. Notice of City Council Public Hearing
4. Original Petition
5. Mailing List
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2021
(Amending the zoning of properties located at 724, 728, 732, 738, 744, 750 and 754 East Bueno
Avenue from SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District) to RMF-45
(Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District), and amending the Central
Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map for the aforementioned properties from Medium
Density Residential to Medium High Density Residential)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to properties located at 724, 728, 732,
738, 744, 750 and 754 East Bueno Avenue from SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential
District) to RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District) pursuant to
Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00048 and amending the Central Community Master Plan Future
Land Use Map for the aforementioned properties from Medium Density Residential to Medium
High Density Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00047.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) held
a public hearing on June 23, 2021 on an application submitted by Kevin Perry representing Alta
Terra Real Estate, on behalf of- Four Square Holdings LLC, the owner of real property located at
located at 724, 728, 732, 738, 744, 750 and 754 East Bueno Avenue (the “Properties”), to rezone
the Properties from SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District) to RMF-45
(Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District) pursuant to Petition No.
PLNPCM2021-00048, and to amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map
(the “Future Land Use Map”) with respect to the Properties from Medium Density Residential to
Medium High Density Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00047;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission during their June 23, 2021 meeting voted to favor
a recommendation to approve the rezone and amendments to the Future Land Use Map pursuant
to the aforementioned petitions (the “June 23rd vote”);
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2021 during a regularly scheduled meeting the Planning
Commission recalled the June 23rd vote;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a subsequent public hearing on the
aforementioned petitions on September 8, 2021 and following the public hearing voted to
forward a recommendation to the City Council to deny the request to rezone and amend the
Future Land Use Map as requested in the aforementioned petitions;
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that
adopting this ordinance to amend the Salt Lake City zoning map to change the underlying zoning
and amend the Future Land Use Map as set forth herein 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 Properties identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be
and hereby are rezoned from SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District) to RMF-
45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District).
SECTION 2. Amending the Central Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use
Map of the Central Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the future
land use designation of the Properties identified in Exhibit “A” from Medium Density
Residential to Medium High Density Residential.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has
been published in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah
Code §10-3-713.
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: ___________________________________
Hannah Vickery, Senior City Attorney
10/13/21
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description of Properties to be Rezoned
and Subject to Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment:
724 East Bueno Avenue
Parcel ID No. 16-05-107-002-0000
BEG 10 RD E FR SW COR LOT 4 BLK 54 PLAT B SLC SUR E 2.5 RD N 71.25 FT W 2.5 RD S
71.25 FT TO BEG.
CONTAINS 3.049 SQUARE FEET OR 0.07 ACRE, MORE OR LESS.
728 East Bueno Avenue
Parcel ID No. 16-05-107-003-0000
BEG 12.5 RD E FR SW COR LOT 4 BLK 54 PLAT B SLC SUR E 2.5 RD N 71.25 FT W 2.5 RD
S 71.25 FT TO BEG.
CONTAINS 2,940 SQUARE FEET OR 0.0675 ACRE, MORE OR LESS.
732 East Bueno Avenue
Parcel ID No. 16-05-107-004-0000
BEG 2.5 RD W FR SE COR LOT 4 BLK 54 PLAT B SLC SUR W 2.5 RD N 71.25 FT; E 2.5
RDS; S 71.25 FT TO BEG.
CONTAINS 2,940 SQUARE FEET OR 0.0675 ACRE, MORE OR LESS.
738 East Bueno Avenue
Parcel ID No. 16-05-107-005-0000
BEG AT SE COR LOT 4 BLK 54 PLAT B SLC SUR N 5 RDS W 2.5 RDS S 5 RDS E 2.5 RDS
TO BEG.
CONTAINS 2,971 SQUARE FEET OR 0.0682 ACRE, MORE OR LESS.
744 East Bueno Avenue
Parcel ID No. 16-05-155-001-0000
BEG 248 FT W & 8.5 FT S FR NE COR LOT 7 BLK 54 PLAT B SLC SUR W 63 FT S 45^ W
14.14 FT S 31.5 FT E 73 FT M OR L TO PT DUE S FR BEG N 42 FT TO BEG.
CONTAINS 2,945 SQUARE FEET OR 0.0676 ACRE, MORE OR LESS.
750 East Bueno Avenue
Parcel ID No. 16-05-155-002-0000
BEG AT SW COR LOT 7 BLK 54 PLAT B SLC SUR E 82 FT N 7 RD W 57.25 FT S 2 RD W 1.5
RD S 5 RD TO BEG.
CONTAINS 8,725 SQUARE FEET OR 0.2003 ACRE, MORE OR LESS.
754 East Bueno Avenue
Parcel ID No. 16-05-155-003-0000
BEG 205 FT W & 8.5 FT S OF THE NE COR LOT 7, BLK 54, PLAT B, SLC SUR; W 43 FT; S
42 FT; E 43 FT; N 42 FT TO BEG, ALSO COM 82 FT E FR SW COR SD LOT 7; E 43 FT; N 7
RDS; W 43 FT; S 7 RDS TO*
CONTAINS 6,730 SQUARE FEET OR 0.1545 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petitions: PLNPCM2021-00048 & PLNPCM2021-00047
January 15, 2021 The following petitions were received by the Planning Division:
• Planned Development (PLNPCM2021-00045)
• Conditional Use (PLNPCM2021-00046)
• Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00048)
• Master Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00047)
February 17, 2021 Petitions were assigned to Katia Pace.
March 1, 2021 Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the
Chairs of the East Central Community Council and the
Central City Neighborhood Council.
March 26, 2021 Early notification was sent to property owners and residents
within 300 feet of the project area.
April 5, 2021 Online Open House with information about the proposal,
where to get more information, and who to contact for
questions and comments.
April 14, 2021 Planning Staff emailed applicant with issue that the height
of the Rooming House building exceeded requirement.
May 24, 2021 Received new information from applicant with building
height.
June 23, 2021 Planning Commission held a public hearing. The commission
voted to table the Planned Development and Conditional Use until
the City Council decides on the Master Plan and Zoning Map
Amendment. The commission also voted 4-2 to forward a positive
recommendation to City Council.
July 14, 2021 Planning Commission recalled the vote from the June 23, 2021
meeting because the Planning Commission is required to consider
a housing mitigation report for zoning amendments prior to
making a recommendation to the City Council.
September 8, 2021 Planning Commission held a second public hearing, were
presented a Housing Loss Mitigation Report and voted 3-2 to
forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the
proposed Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment.
2. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
(Not on Staff Report)
From:
To:Planning Public Comments; Pace, Katia
Subject:(EXTERNAL) NO on Bueno apartments spot up-zone request!
Date:Monday, June 21, 2021 11:24:12 PM
Attachments:Comments re proposed re-zone of Bueno Avenue Apartments.docx
Salt Lake Planning Commission and Planning Staff:
Please read and consider my attached comments re the proposed up-zone
for the mid-block properties referred to as the Bueno Apartments. It
is discouraging (to put it mildly) to have to continually prod the
city to uphold its own planning documents and codes in the face of
pressure from opportunistic developers who evidently see easy money in
requesting spot up-zones in lieu of pursuing proposals on properties
already zoned for the uses they propose. The city's failures in this
regard are in part responsible for the many tracts of under-developed
and derelict properties that plague the central city and the
concurrent run-away price increases for properties in adjacent
neighborhoods. Please work with the developer in question at these
properties to devise a plan that doesn't entail tearing down existing
affordable housing and that is compatible with the stated goals of the
existing neighborhood planning documents.
Thank you for your diligent work on this matter,
Rich
Rich Wilcox
Comments re proposed re-zone of Bueno Avenue Apartments
It was disheartening to see a SLC Planning Staff report in favor of a proposal to grant a spot up-zone to a
developer who plans to tear down existing affordable housing on Bueno Avenue to built a single-room
occupancy “dorm” in this location. SRO units, if really needed, should be built in areas already zoned for
this use (in which there are many lots suitable for building or redevelopment), or as part of a university
housing project, on campus. This is not a good time to be demolishing occupied, affordable housing
units in our city. The positive report from the planning staff flies in the face of the negative
recommendation from the East Central Community Council and is in direct conflict with the Central
Community Master Plan. It also is further fuel for the bonfire of speculative investment in our
community, where the city’s willingness to grant up-zoning requests from developers is driving property
and housing costs through the roof. The city needs to encourage this type of development in areas
already zoned for these purposes by standing by its own planning and land use documents. Failure to
do so will result in the underdeveloped and blighted properties of downtown remaining in that state,
while turning the surrounding neighborhoods into a sea of cookie-cutter apartments that won’t meet
the housing needs of low- and moderate-income families.
Any developer with an imagination and a constructive vision could come up with a proposal for this
property that preserves the existing housing while adding additional units in place of the abandoned
garage structures. The city planning staff and planning council should have the ability and motivation to
push a developer lacking these characteristics into a better development plan.
Please stand by the city’s own clear planning and land use documents, and the housing needs of the
low-income residents already living on these properties, by voting “no” on the re-zoning request for
these properties on Bueno Avenue. And (an apparently needed) nudge towards a proposal that
preserves the existing affordable housing would be a helpful step.
From:Anderson, John
To:nils adey; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Pace, Katia
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Support for zoning change SR-3 to RMF-45 for Bueno Avenue
Date:Wednesday, September 8, 2021 9:00:22 AM
Nils,
Your comments are appreciated and will be shared with the Planning Commission prior to their meeting tonight. If you'd
like to participate in that meeting please follow the instructions found on the agenda:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/09.%20September/PC09.08.2021agendaAMENDED.pdf
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as
accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to
application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a
complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at
their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
-----Original Message-----
From: nils adey <nilsadey1@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 9:21 PM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Support for zoning change SR-3 to RMF-45 for Bueno Avenue
To whom it concerns,
I am writing to show my support for the proposed SR-3 to RMF-45 zoning change for Bueno Avenue. Salt Lake City is in
significant need for additional housing, particularly affordable housing, and this zoning change would be a step in the
right direction.
Thank you,
Nils Adey
From:Anderson, John
To:Bojan Tomic; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Pace, Katia
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Bueno Ave. Rezone
Date:Wednesday, September 8, 2021 9:00:39 AM
Bojan,
Your comments are appreciated and will be shared with the Planning Commission prior to
their meeting tonight. If you'd like to participate in that meeting please follow the
instructions found on the agenda:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/09.%20September/PC
09.08.2021agendaAMENDED.pdf
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
From: Bojan Tomic
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 10:16 PM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Bueno Ave. Rezone
To whom it may concern,
After reviewing the attached file, I believe this would be a worth while concept. Living in Salt
Lake City has become hard for many individuals. A concept such as Bueno Avenue Apartments could
help residents who may bot be able to afford living in the city.
Best,
Bojan Tomic
From:Mills, Wayne
To:Rankins, Marlene
Cc:Pace, Katia; Clark, Aubrey
Subject:FW: (EXTERNAL) Bueno Avenue Apartments
Date:Wednesday, September 8, 2021 9:54:36 AM
Hi Marlene-
I think your doing the meeting tonight. Please forward these comments to the PC. Thanks.
WAYNE MILLS
Planning Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7282
FAX 801-535-6174
WWW.slc.gov/planning
Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights.
From: hunter
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 8:52 PM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Bueno Avenue Apartments
To whom it may concern,
I'm a Park City, UT resident, but I work in Salt Lake City. I am writing to you in support of the
affordable housing option being proposed in the Bueno Avenue Apartments. As you likely know, the
proposed strategy has proven effective in other cities where affordable housing has been
challenging. Affordable housing will allow SLC's continued economic growth by providing a safe,
clean, and desirable housing option within the community to attract the best job applicants.
Allowing continued growth without providing strong living options for all economic levels will lead to
tremendous challenges in the future. Now is the time to be proactive. I strongly urge you to vote in
favor of the rezoning so that Bueno Avenue Apartments can move forward. I hope that a similar
proposal will be brought forward to the PC community too as we are in desperate need of affordable
housing.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Hunter Underhill
From:John Davis
To:Pace, Katia
Subject:(EXTERNAL) "Bueno Avenue Co-Living Apartments" Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment
Date:Wednesday, September 8, 2021 10:03:24 AM
Master Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00047)
Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00048)
"Bueno Avenue Co-Living Apartments" Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment
Katia: Please ensure my comments below are received by the Planning
Commissioners. Thank you!
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I want to thank you all for the time and attention you have given thus far in
carefully considering the myriad of planning applications associated with the Bueno
Avenue development proposal. As I am sure you appreciate, this is a massively
complex proposal, touching on housing affordability issues, displacement of existing
residents, compatible neighborhood infill development, and a co-living housing type
that is relatively new to our City in this context. After considering the proposal, I
strongly encourage that you vote to forward a negative recommendation
relative to the master plan and zoning map amendment proposals.
I strongly believe that any planning proposal that directly results in (or is likely to
result in) a loss or erosion of existing housing should be denied until Salt Lake City
has targeted and effective housing loss mitigation and displacement policies in place.
The instant proposal will result in a direct loss of existing naturally occurring
affordable housing, with many current residents in the area likely unable to find new
housing within Salt Lake City. In fact, current residents have communicated to others
in the neighborhood that this redevelopment proposal will result in their displacement
and that they will likely find themselves subsequently unhoused and seeking
emergency shelter.
Housing loss mitigation and displacement policies are essential to ensure our City
grows in a way that is sensitive to existing housing-vulnerable residents. Housing
loss mitigation and displacement policies are currently in the process of being
developed and refined by the Administration, and decisionmakers including
yourselves should be extraordinarily careful in considering proposals that impact
housing in our City until these important protections are in place.
In addition, while well intended, I am not convinced that the proposed co-living space
is a true solution to addressing affordability in the way it is being marketed by the
developers, especially when defined affordably is not explicitly required and enforced
as a condition of approval. In many growing cities in the U.S., market developed co-
living spaces – either new construction or rehabilitation/conversion of existing
buildings – have not resulted in new affordable housing. Instead, many of these
market rate co-living spaces are designed and marketed as luxury co-living and/or co-
working arrangements for affluent students and young professionals. While more
affordable than normal market rate one bedroom or studio units, they are often not
the type of deeply affordable housing Salt Lake City requires. Moreover, co-living
units by their nature will often not be suitable for families and other multi-generational
households.
The vast majority of the new development in our City in the last decade has indeed
been primarily studio/1-bedroom units, and the housing needs of both families with
children and multigenerational households have been ignored by the private
development market and not fully supported by the City through effective policy. This
immediate proposal appears to be a continuation of this trend.
Thank you for your time in considering the above.
Jack Davis
From:Anderson, John
To:Stephanie Anglin; Planning Public Comments
Cc:Pace, Katia
Subject:RE: (EXTERNAL) Vote Against The Bueno Avenue Apartments Proposal
Date:Wednesday, September 8, 2021 10:44:20 AM
Stephanie,
Your comments are appreciated and will be shared with the Planning Commission prior to
their meeting tonight. If you'd like to participate in that meeting please follow the
instructions found on the agenda:
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/09.%20September/PC
09.08.2021agendaAMENDED.pdf
JOHN ANDERSON
Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL
CEL 385-226-6479
EMAIL john.anderson@slcgov.com
www.SLC.GOV/PLANNING
www.ourneighborhoodscan.com
"Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights."
From: Stephanie Anglin
Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 10:16 AM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Vote Against The Bueno Avenue Apartments Proposal
I am asking you to vote against the proposal for the Bueno Avenue apartments.
This rezone will negatively impact the standard of living in the East Central neighborhood. The city
should not allow developers to force working-class people to share kitchens. It is becoming ever
more clear that COVID-19 isn't going away any time soon. Even without COVID-19, people still get
sick and will be forced to use a communal kitchen, threatening the safety of their neighbors. After
working all day, would you want to cook in a communal kitchen where you are elbowing your
neighbors for space to make dinner? Or would you rather have your own kitchen where you can
cook with your family, safely and without as much stress?
Furthermore, these apartments will dramatically increase rent in the area. Some micro-apartments
in the valley have increased rent by almost 30% in only one year. There are no requirements for
affordability in this proposal.
This proposal is not a solution to the housing shortage. In fact, these apartments will displace
mothers, children, and families. Frankly, this proposal is extremely disrespectful to the people in the
East Central area.
I am urging you to vote against this disrespectful and harmful proposal. You have the power to
change the course of people's lives. Why would you want to put their lives in danger by voting for a
proposal like this? Please, do the right thing.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Anglin
From:cindy cromer
To:Pace, Katia; Planning Public Comments
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Re: zoning amendments: Bueno Ave.
Date:Wednesday, September 8, 2021 2:33:19 PM
To members of the Planning Commission
From cindy cromer
comment on zoning amendments: Bueno
9/8/21 part 2
First, thank you for separating the planned development and conditional use from the
requests in front of you tonight. The bundling of the 4 requests conveyed that the project was
a done deal to tenants, property owners, and business people on the block. Your vote in favor
of the rezoning led some tenants to move soon after your vote. Never doubt that what you
do and say makes a difference in people's lives.
Secondly, the most important thing I learned from Izzy Wagner was the concept of "sweating
the land." That is what this proposal does....It pushes the land beyond its carrying capacity, if
you can think of a parallel between people and livestock.
In previous messages, I have emphasized the development potential on this block and the
constraints imposed by the existing condominiums. The staff report emphasizes the existing
RMF-45 zoning but the reality is that the condominiums dating from the 1970's and 1990's
determine the potential for a large portion of the block. The perimeter can certainly
redevelop as RMF-45 and RMU-45 but the interior will be considerably lower based on divided
ownership.
Standard 1 for a zoning amendment: It has been the City's clear intent to protect the interior
block streets in the older portions of the City since the adoption of the SR-3 zone in 1995.
Standards 2 and 3 Without a major fire or earthquake and the proposed zoning change, the
average height on the interior of this block would continue to be that of the Watts condos.
The staff report refers to zoning, but because of the condominiums, the adjacent zoning is
irrelevant to the impact on properties which are not going to redevelop.
I suspect that you believe that proposals you addressed years ago have now been adopted by
the City Council but they haven't been. There is a log jam of ordinances in the City Council
office which are relevant to this proposal. You are being asked to support loopholes in
ordinances such as housing loss mitigation which should have been taken care of years ago.
From:JIM WELLS
To:Pace, Katia
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Comments on proposed re-zone on129 S. 700 E. Bueno boarding house
Date:Wednesday, September 8, 2021 6:54:44 PM
I oppose the re-zone for this project for 2 reasons
1. The 4 bedroom apt. described would rent for 4x $900 =$3600/month. That is an
expensive apt. especially when you have no control over who your room mates are.
2. Parking depicted appears to account for ~ 20% of the rooms. They would be making a
bad situation worse.
Thanks , Jim Wells
From:Mills, Wayne
To:Pace, Katia
Cc:Planning Public Comments
Subject:FW: (EXTERNAL) Bueno Park Apartment Project 100 S 700 E
Date:Monday, September 13, 2021 3:30:26 PM
Katia-
Please include these comments in your transmittal to the City Council.
Thanks.
WAYNE MILLS
Planning Manager
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
TEL 801-535-7282
FAX 801-535-6174
WWW.slc.gov/planning
Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions
as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or
prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in
response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written
feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights.
From: Casey Walrath <
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2021 3:25 PM
To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>; Council Comments
<Comments.Council@slcgov.com>
Subject: (EXTERNAL) Bueno Park Apartment Project 100 S 700 E
Regarding the Planning Commission's recent negative recommendation of the proposed Bueno Park
apartments zoning and master plan amendment on the 100 S 700 E block, I am disappointed and
angry that, in the midst of an unprecedented housing crisis caused primarily by a regional shortage
of affordable market-rate units, that a planning commissioner member would oppose an SRO project
on the grounds that she "would much rather see a lower scale of development like townhouses" on
the site.
Simply put, we need more, not less, intensive development in this city, particularly near the
downtown area, and for an appointed official whose home value, per county records, has
appreciated nearly 40% in just five years to deny an affordable market rate project on the basis of
arbitrary aesthetic preferences is deeply insulting to those of us being priced out of the city, whether
we as individuals prefer the typology or not.
I am writing this as an SLC resident to urge Planning Commission members to remember the needs
of people who are not in a position to profit from the housing shortage, and for the council to ignore
the commission's recommendation on this project and future ones like it. Thank you.
- Casey Walrath
3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2021-00048 & PLNPCM2021-
00047 - Bueno Avenue Apartments - Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment - Kevin
Perry, representing the property owner, is requesting approval for a master plan and zoning map
amendment to accommodate a new residential development, the Bueno Avenue Apartments, at
the stated location. The project proposes to consolidate 10 parcels and replace the existing
structures with two buildings: a single-story amenity building fronting 700 East and a 4-story
rooming (boarding) house on the interior of the site. The rooming house would consist of 65
units ranging from 1 bedroom to 4-bedroom units. The total site is approximately 1.55 acres.
This project requires both a Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment.
a. Zoning Map Amendment – The current zoning of 7 of parcels on the site is SR-3, and
zoning on 3 of the parcels is RMF-45. As part of the Zoning Amendment the Planning
Commission will review a Housing Loss Mitigation Report. The applicant is requesting
to amend the zoning map designation of the seven parcels zoned SR-3 to RMF-45. Case
number PLNPCM2021-00048
b. Master Plan Map Amendment - The associated future land use map in the Central
Community Master Plan currently designates the property as "Medium Density
Residential". The petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map for the parcels
to be "Medium High Density Residential". Case number PLNPCM2021-00047
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:
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.
4. ORIGINAL PETITION
5. MAILING LIST
150 SOUTH, LLC 2236 S BERKELEY ST SALT LAKE CUT 84109
AARON H LEIFER; NORMAN LEIFER; CAROL 150 S 800 E #I-1 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
ADELE BREEDEN 126 S 700 E SALT LAKE CUT 84102
AIRA GYLLENBOGEL 127 S 800 E # 14 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
ALLISON UCHIDA 150 S 800 E #A2 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
AMEL STOVRAG; SELMA HERCINOVIC (JT)110 S 800 E # 406 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
ANDREW STORY; JENNIFER THOMPSON (JT2593 POLI ST VENTURA CA 93003
ARNOLD LIU; STEPHANIE YI-FANG LIU (JT)PO BOX 541 SANDY UT 84091
BELINDA TRIEU 1619 E KENSINGTON AV SALT LAKE CUT 84105
BIRTOK LLC 561 KEYSTONE AVE #42 RENO NV 89503
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF S L CITY 440 E 100 S SALT LAKE CUT 84111
BRAD RASMUSSEN; PAULA RASMUSSEN (J 1487 E VINEYARD CT BOUNTIFULUT 84010
BRADLEY D HARPER 150 S 800 E # D6 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
BRIAN VOGEL 110 S 800 E # 202 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
BUTTERFLY RENTAL PROPERTIES LLC 952 E AVILA CT SANDY UT 84094
C FAM TR 512 KEELSON CIR REDWOOD CA 94065
CARY A SELF; JUDY H SELF (JT)2254 E LONSDALE DR COTTONWO UT 84121
CHARLES H LIVSEY 3893 MONARCH DR BOUNTIFULUT 84010
CLARENCE R III HENRIKSEN 155 E 900 S SALT LAKE CUT 84111
CONOR MCMULLIN; PAUL & KAREN MCM 1057 E 400 S SALT LAKE CUT 84102
CRAIG P LINDSEY 446 E DOWNINGTON A SALT LAKE CUT 84115
CRAIG WALKER 1450 E LOGAN AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84105
CREED WARDROP 150 S 800 E # H3 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
Current Occupant 77 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 717 E 100 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 40 S 800 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 680 E 100 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 682 E 100 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 684 E 100 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 688 E 100 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 114 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 118 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 122 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 144 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 154 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 130 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 136 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 113 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 125 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 129 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 732 E 100 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 736 E 100 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 740 E 100 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 742 E 100 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 750 E 100 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 760 E 100 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 116 S 800 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 110 S 800 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #200 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #201 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #202 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #203 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #205 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #206 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #300 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #301 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #302 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #303 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #304 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #305 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #306 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #307 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #402 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #403 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #404 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #405 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #406 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 110 S 800 E #407 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 135 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 724 E BUENO AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 728 E BUENO AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 732 E BUENO AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 738 E BUENO AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 145 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 149 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #A1 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #A4 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #A5 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #A6 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #A7 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #A8 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #A9 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #A10 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #A11 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #A12 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #B1 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #C1 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #C2 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #C3 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #C4 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #D1 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #D2 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #D5 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #D6 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #D10 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #E1 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #E2 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #E3 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #E4 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #E7 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #E8 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #E9 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #E10 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #E11 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #E12 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #F1 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #F2 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #G-3 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #G-4 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #G-5 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #G-6 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #G-7 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #G-8 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #G-9 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #G-10 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #H-8 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #H-9 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #I-2 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E #I-3 Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 150 S 800 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 744 E BUENO AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 750 E BUENO AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 754 E BUENO AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 758 E BUENO AVE #FRO Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 758 E BUENO AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 161 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 165 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 717 E 200 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 745 E 200 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 753 E 200 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 755 E 200 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 130 S 800 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 140 S 800 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 105 S 800 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
Current Occupant 139 S 800 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84102
CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 10 SALT LAKE CUT 84103
CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 12 SALT LAKE CUT 84105
CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 13 SALT LAKE CUT 84106
CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 15 SALT LAKE CUT 84108
CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 17 SALT LAKE CUT 84110
CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 21 SALT LAKE CUT 84112
CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 22 SALT LAKE CUT 84113
CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 23 SALT LAKE CUT 84114
CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 24 SALT LAKE CUT 84115
CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 25 SALT LAKE CUT 84116
CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 27 SALT LAKE CUT 84118
CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 31 SALT LAKE CUT 84120
CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 32 SALT LAKE CUT 84121
CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 33 SALT LAKE CUT 84122
CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 34 SALT LAKE CUT 84123
CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 35 SALT LAKE CUT 84124
CURRENT OCCUPANT 127 S 800 E # 36 SALT LAKE CUT 84125
DANIEL A LOEWN PO BOX 695 CENTERVIL UT 84014
DANIEL PAINTER 150 S 800 E #E6 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
DARISA, LLC 3 E JOY DR FARMINGT UT 84025
DARREN L STIRLAND; CHIUNG-TZU WU (JT 150 S 800 E # C2 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
DARYL TUNG 1034 SUTTER ST #3 SAN FRANCCA 94109
DEXINGHUI KONG 127 S 800 E # 11 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
DIGITAL RAFT ENTERPRISES LLC PO BOX 901286 SANDY UT 84090
DOUGLAS BABB; SUE BABB (JT)1785 E MEADOW DOW COTTONWO UT 84121
DOUGLASS G ADAMS; DIANE S ADAMS PO BOX 95452 SOUTH JOR UT 84095
DOW D YANG; LIYAN REN (JT)2127 E AVELINE AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84109
DRS TR 2084 E HARVARD OAKS SALT LAKE CUT 84108
DSSLCE11 LLC 150 S 800 E # E11 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
DSSLCE12 LLC 150 S 800 E # E11 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
DSSLCG1 LLC 150 S 800 E #G- SALT LAKE CUT 84102
DWIGHT H BUTLER; CHARLES C BUTLER (T 702 E 100 S SALT LAKE CUT 84102
EASTGATE CONDM COMMON AREA MAST PO BOX 9243 SALT LAKE CUT 84109
ELIZABETH BENNETT 150 S 800 E # D2 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
ERIC & KARLA MASCHOFF FAMILY TRUST D 150 S 800 E # A7 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
FOURSQUARE HOLDINGS LLC 6055 S HOLLADAY BLVD HOLLADAY UT 84121
GEORGE AUN; HOLLY AUN (JT)2012 W FARM RIDGE R TAYLORSVI UT 84129
GEORGE E MULLIGAN FAMILY TRUST 03/0 147 S 700 E SALT LAKE CUT 84102
GEORGE GOLDHOFF 1504 RACE ST CINCINNAT OH 45202
GREGORY K MORRELL; SUSAN B TALLEY (JT110 S 800 E # 405 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
H FAM TRUST; ALLAN R HODGSON; MARG 1996 PADDINGTON DR PARK CITY UT 84060
HARVARD PLUMB LLC 1468 E HARVARD AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84105
HIVE 55, LLC 350 S 200 E SALT LAKE CUT 84111
HUGH BROWN; JANE BROWN (JT)150 N SNOW CANYON IVINS UT 84738
IRONWOOD PROPERTIES LC 1967 S 300 W SALT LAKE CUT 84115
JAMES L JANNEY 127 S 800 E # 20 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
JAMIE YOUNG 1952 BLUEBELL DR BOUNTIFULUT 84010
JEREMY MOORE; SAYA MOORE (JT)160 S 700 E SALT LAKE CUT 84102
JOHN C BOUZEK 407 E 300 S SALT LAKE CUT 84111
JOHN CHRISTOPHER BOUZEK 15 SAINT MORITZ TERR PARK CITY UT 84098
JOHN H NEWTON 4514 S BUTTERNUT RD HOLLADAY UT 84117
JOHN HANSEN 637 RANCHO ARROYO FREMONT CA 94336
JOHN MICHAEL HEAGIN 110 S 800 E # 403 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
JONATHAN JUDD; CHRISTI JUDD (JT)127 S 800 E # 26 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
JONNICA KAIRN; JEFFREY L KAIRN (JT)19282 MAUNA LN HUNTINGTO CA 92646
JOSHUA S MORRILL 127 S 800 E # 30 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
JRD HOLDINGS LLC 8791 S TERRA POINTE W WEST JORDUT 84088
JULIANA POWELL 9863 S COUNTRYWOOD SANDY UT 84092
JULIE M BRADFORD 150 S 800 E # A12 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
KEMEI LIN 150 S 800 E #A3 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
KESI SAINSBURY 110 S 800 E # 404 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
KIMBERLI D BROWN 3006 MOUNTAIN RIDG PARK CITY UT 84060
KRIDIT INVESTMENTS, LLC PO BOX 695 CENTERVIL UT 84014
KRISTEN KANACK 654 E OXFORD HOLLOW MURRAY UT 84107
KRISTIAN KALLAKER 127 S 800 E #16 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
KURT S WERDER; KRISTIN N BAER-WERDER150 S 800 E # A8 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
KYLE K RICHARDS 143 S 800 E SALT LAKE CUT 84102
LAS TRUST 110 S 800 E # 307 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
LEE LIVENGOOD; MELISSA LIVENGOOD (JT 490 E NORTHMONT WY SALT LAKE CUT 84103
LEIGH ANNE BERNAL 846 E GARFIELD AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84105
LESLIE C HAARUP 838 E SOUTHTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CUT 84102
LEVI P GEPHART; LINDSAY GEPHART (JT)11241 S TRENT DR SOUTH JOR UT 84095
LOUIS D CURTIS; JULIET T CURTIS (JT)2007 E MALIBU DR TEMPE AZ 85282
LP 150 APARTMENTS 3021 CITRUS CIR WALNUT C CA 94598
LUND 700 LLC 357 W 200 S # 200 SALT LAKE CUT 84101
MARCI MOON 730 E 100 S SALT LAKE CUT 84102
MARIANNE C NEWELL; ANGELINA B NEWE 110 S 800 E #20 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
MARK F ROARK 249 S 100 W PROVIDENCUT 84332
MARK S THORSEN; GIGI N THORSEN (JT)150 S 800 E # C1 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
MFSF 13 MARLBOROUGH STR CAULFIELD IC 3161
MICHAEL D HILL 14737 S ALPINE VIEW D HERRIMAN UT 84096
MICHELLE O ILK; MICHAEL J ILK (JT)3558 E DOVERHILL DR COTTONWO UT 84121
MILLAR 2016 FAMILY TRUST 12/14/2016; 4085 HIGHWAY 4 ANGELS CA CA 95222
NATHAN J MEMMOTT 110 S 800 E # 407 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
NIC CITY INVESTMENTS LLC 380 E OAK FOREST RD SALT LAKE CUT 84103
NORA C GALLEGOS; JOE M GALLEGOS (JT)231 E HAMPTON AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84111
OLIVER FLATT; MATTHEW RAYMOND FLAT 2285 S BENCHMARK CI SALT LAKE CUT 84109
PADDOCK PROPERTY LLC 150 S 800 E #G- SALT LAKE CUT 84102
PAIGE N ROCKWELL 150 S 800 E #E5 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
PARTRIDGE PLACE 25 LLC 2070 W 5025 S ROY UT 84067
PATRICK ECCLES 150 S 800 E # A11 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
PETER HASLAM 751 E 200 S SALT LAKE CUT 84102
PETER HILDYARD 147 S 800 E SALT LAKE CUT 84102
PRINCETON LOFTS LLC 357 W 200 S # 250 SALT LAKE CUT 84101
R CORY LLEWELYN; KOREY C LLEWELYN (JT127 S 800 E # 37 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
RAHMAN BADARANE; DEYZE B BADARANE 9245 REGENTS RD # M1 LA JOLLA CA 92037
RICHARD & JANICE WRIGHT LIVING TRUST 634 E 4630 S MURRAY UT 84107
ROBERT L GRAHAM 7911 S PONDEROSA WY SANDY UT 84094
ROGER L NIELSON; NYRA S NIELSON (JT)476 E 300 N EPHRAIM UT 84627
RYAN M ANDERSON 127 S 800 E #18 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 440 E 100 S SALT LAKE CUT 84111
SAMUEL G TURNER; TIERNEY D TURNER (J 110 S 800 E #20 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
SANDRINE C MCDONALD LIVING TRUST 122322 E ELLISONWOODS COTTONWO UT 84121
SERIES PARTRIDGE PLACE 32 OF SYCAMOR 231 E 400 S SALT LAKE CUT 84111
SHARA J HILLIER 110 S 800 E # 207 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
SMITHS FORK LLC 30125 HILLSIDE TERRAC SAN JUAN CCA 92675
SNOWBALL CAPITAL LLC 1649 N 2600 W LEHI UT 84043
STOKER ENTERPRISES LLC 144 S 700 E # 2 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
TABOR LUTHERAN CHURCH 175 S 700 E SALT LAKE CUT 84102
TERRY J HARDING; DEBRA J HARDING (JT)4218 S FOOTHILL DR BOUNTIFULUT 84010
TROLLEY REGENT CONDOMINIUMS PH 1 2 5200 S HIGHLAND DR # HOLLADAY UT 84117
OCCUPANT/PROPERTY OWNER 768 E 800 S SALT LAKE CUT 84102
OCCUPANT/PROPERTY OWNER 17065 EDGEWATER LN HUNTINGTO CA 92649
OCCUPANT/PROPERTY OWNER 8625 E VIA DEL PALACIO SCOTTSDALAZ 85258
OCCUPANT/PROPERTY OWNER 485 TOWERS DR SALEM UT 84653
OCCUPANT/PROPERTY OWNER 1685 CORONADO ST IDAHO FAL ID 83404
OCCUPANT/PROPERTY OWNER 150 S 800 E # G4 SALT LAKE CUT 84102
OCCUPANT/PROPERTY OWNER 315 W HUENEME RD CAMARILLOCA 93012
TUTTO TRANQUILO, LLC 8690 S ESCALADE CIR COTTONWO UT 84121
UTAH COMPLEX, LLC PO BOX 520697 SALT LAKE CUT 84152
UTNV PARKLANE LLC 1422 CLARKVIEW ROAD BALTIMOREMD 21209
VICTOR MIELE 1411 S UTAH ST # 6 SALT LAKE CUT 84104
WALTER GOINS 4671 W DAYBREAK RIM SOUTH JOR UT 84009
WANDA I RAMOS; F LAMAR PENOVICH (JT 1620 E CREEK RD SANDY UT 84093
WASATCH PROPERTIES SLC LLC 3693 E COVEPOINT DR SALT LAKE CUT 84109
WISE NG; KUO-YEN HWANG (JT)1783 S MOHAWK WY SALT LAKE CUT 84108
Kevin Perry Alta Terra Real Estate 3100 Pinebrook Rd. Ste Park City UT 84098
Item C2
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
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet
Policy Analyst
DATE:December 14, 2021
RE: Rezone: 835 S Redwood Road & 1668 W Indiana Avenue
from R-1/5,000 to R-MU-45 PLNPCM2021-00249
MOTION 1
I move the Council adopt the ordinance.
MOTION 2
I move the Council reject the ordinance.
MOTION 3
I move the Council defer action to a future Council meeting.
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE: December 14, 2021
RE:Rezone: 835 S Redwood Road &
1668 W Indiana Avenue
from R-1/5,000 to R-MU-45
PLNPCM2021-00249
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: Dec 7, 2021
Set Date: November 16, 2021
Public Hearing: Dec 7, 2021
Potential Action: Dec 14, 2021
Work Session Briefing and Public Hearing Summary
During the work session briefing the Council did not raise any significant questions or concerns about
the proposed changes.
The public hearing was also held on December 7 and no one spoke. The council closed the public
hearing and deferred action to a future council meeting.
The following information was provided for the December 7 work session briefing. It
is provided again for background purposes
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning of properties at
approximately 835 South Redwood Road and 1668 West Indiana Avenue from R-1/5,000 (Single-Family
Residential District) to R-MU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use District). The property at 1668 West Indiana
currently contains an individual single-family dwelling while the other property is vacant. No specific site
development proposal has been submitted at this time. However, the applicant has indicated that if the
Page | 2
zoning change is approved, they intend to consolidate the parcels and develop a mixed use on the
combined property with ground floor commercial/retail and upper floor apartments.
The change is consistent with changes identified in the Westside Master Plan which identified the
intersection of Redwood and Indiana as the location of a future Community Node.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 9, 2021 and forwarded a positive
recommendation to the City Council by a majority vote of 4-2.
Vicinity and Zoning Map
(pages 2-3 of the Planning Commission Staff report)
Page | 3
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Pages 3-6 of the Planning Commission staff reports includes a discussion about the key issues
identified by the Planning Staff. A short summary of those is provided below. See the Planning
Commission staff report to view the full analysis.
1. Neighborhood and City-Wide Master Plan Considerations
Planning Staff found the proposed change is generally in compliance with the Westside
Master Plan and vision for this intersection as a future Community Node. A community
Node is defined as:
o Community nodes are larger in scale than their neighborhood counterparts
because they generally offer retail and services that attract people from a
larger area. While some existing community nodes do not have residential
components, new developments at these locations should incorporate housing.
These nodes provide good opportunities to add density with multifamily
residential units. Densities should be on the order of 20 to 30 dwelling units
per acre with appropriate building forms to complement adjacent lower
density uses if necessary. Accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which are fully
separate dwelling units that are located on the same lot as the primary
residence, may be appropriate at community nodes. ADUs are an effective
way to increase density within the stable areas, especially with the
community’s deep single-family lots. Retailers such as grocery stores, clothing
stores or small professional offices are appropriate anchors for community
nodes. These nodes can also be anchored around or include institutional uses,
such as churches, schools or daycares. Community nodes should be
comfortable and safe for pedestrians and bicyclists while providing some off-
site parking that is located behind or to the side of the buildings. Developments
around these type of nodes should also be accessible to regular public
transportation service.”
Planning Staff found the proposed zoning map amendment and overall project is
aligned with the vision and guiding principles contained in Plan Salt Lake and are
supported by policies and strategies that encourage neighborhoods: that provide a safe
environment and opportunity for social interaction, provide people with choices about
where they live and support local businesses.
2. Change in Zoning and Compatibility with Adjacent Properties
Planning staff found given the location of the property and surrounding zoning, the
change in zoning from R-1/5000 to R-MU-45 on these properties would be appropriate
Page | 4
in the context of the area and would not lead to changes that are out of character or
incompatible with the existing development in the area.
The requested R-MU-45 zoning allows for commercial, multi-family and mixed uses
that are not allowed under the current zoning. Since the proposed zone abuts single
family residential zoning, the height limit in the R-MU-45 zoning district would be
strictly limited to 45-feet.
o There is not a process to exceed that height.
When abutting single or two-family zoning, a landscaping buffer of 10-feet would be
required.
The side yard setback would have to be increased one foot (1') for every one foot (1')
increase in height above thirty feet (30') on the subject property.
o The building may be stepped so taller portions of a building are farther away
from the side property line
3. Housing Mitigation Loss Requirements
If the properties are developed strictly for a commercial use without a residential
component, the removal of the existing dwelling would be subject to the provisions of
Chapter 18.97 – Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss of City Code.
o The applicant would have to pay a mitigation fee for removing the existing
housing unit.
o The application and process would be reviewed by the Housing Advisory and
Appeals Board (HAAB).
Note: The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a status update on potential
changes to the Housing Loss Mitigation program and Gentrification/Displacement
study.
4. Consideration of Alternate Zoning Districts
Planning Staff considered and analyzed different zoning districts for the property,
including; Corridor Commercial, Residential Mixed Used-35. But ultimately supported
the applicant’s request for R-MU-45.
PUBLIC PROCESS
The public process is outlined on page two of the transmittal letter. It met the standard requirements
of noticing surrounding property owners, informing the Community Council and a public hearing at
the Planning Commission.
No formal comments have been submitted, nor objections raised in regard to the proposed changes.
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 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:
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Redwood Road and Indiana Avenue Zoning Map Amendment
STAFF CONTACT: David J. Gellner, AICP, Senior Planner, david.gellner@slcgov.com
(385) 226-3860
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to approve an Ordinance to amend the zoning map for the subject properties,
changing them from R-1/5000 (Single-Family Residential) to R-MU-45 (Residential/Mixed
Use).
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Property owner Khiem Tran requesting that the City amend
the zoning map for two (2) properties located at 835 S Redwood Road and 1668 W Indiana Avenue
respectively. The property at 1668 W Indiana currently contains an individual single-family
dwelling while the other property is vacant. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning map
designation of the property from R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential) to R-MU-45
(Residential/Mixed Use). No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this time.
The change is consistent with changes identified in the Westside Master Plan which identified the
intersection of Redwood and Indiana as the location of a future Community Node. The Master
Plan is not being changed.
The subject properties are highlighted on the zoning map/aerial photo below.
October 18, 2021
Lisa Shaffer (Oct 19, 2021 16:00 MDT)
10/19/2021
10/19/2021
PUBLIC PROCESS:
• Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chair of the Poplar Grove
Community Council on March 25, 2021.
• Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property
owners located within 300 feet of the project site on March 25, 2021 providing notice
about the project and information on how to give public input on the project.
• Staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on the proposal. The
Online Open House period started on March 29, 2021 and ended on May 10, 2021.
• No formal comments were submitted by the Poplar Grove Community Council.
• No public comments were submitted in relation to this proposal.
• A Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on June 9, 2021. By a majority vote of
4-2, the Planning Commission forwarded a Positive recommendation to City Council for
the proposed zoning map change.
Planning Commission (PC) Records
a) PC Agenda of June 9, 2021 (Click to Access)
b) PC Minutes of June 9, 2021 (Click to Access)
c) Planning Commission Staff Report of June 9, 2021 (Click to Access Report)
EXHIBITS:
1. Project Chronology
2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing
3. Original Petition
4. Mailing List
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2021
(Amending the zoning of the properties located at approximately 835 South Redwood Road and
1668 West Indiana Avenue from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to R-MU-45
Residential/Mixed Use District.)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to the properties located at 835 South
Redwood Road and 1668 West Indiana Avenue from R-1/5,000 Single-Family Residential
District to R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-
00249.
WHEREAS, the property owner, Khiem Tran, submitted a petition number
PLNPCM2021-00249 (the rezone petition ) to rezone the properties located at 835 South
Redwood Road and 1668 West Indiana Avenue (Tax ID Nos. 15-10-205-016 and 15-10-205-
017, respectively -1/5,000 Single-Family Residential District to R-
MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District; and
WHEREAS, in addition to the underlying R-1/7,000 and R-1/5,000 zoning, the parcels are
further zoned with an overlay zoning designation of Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay; and
WHEREAS, at its June 9, 2021 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a
public hearing, had discussion, and voted to forward a recommendation of approval to the Salt
Lake City Council (the City Council ) on the rezone petition; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that
adopting this ordinance to amend the Salt Lake City zoning map to change the underlying zoning
as set forth herein ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to retain the overlay designation of the Airport Flight
Path Protection Overlay, and, nothing contained herein should be construed to remove that existing
designation.
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 Properties located at 835 South Redwood Road and 1668
West Indiana Avenue, more particularly described and
incorporated by reference shall be and hereby are rezoned from R-1/5000 Single-Family
Residential District to R-MU-45 Residential/Mixed Use District.
SECTION 2.Effective Date. This Ordinance take effect immediately after it has been published
in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-713
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 20___.
Published: ______________.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Hannah Vickery,Senior City Attorney
6/17/2021
Legal Description for the Properties to be Rezoned:
Address: 835 South Redwood Road
Tax ID No. 15-10-205-016
LOT 2, TRAN SUBDIVISION
Contains 5,663 sq feet or 0.13 acres more or less.
Address: 1668 West Indiana Avenue
Tax ID No. 15-10-205-017
LOT 1, TRAN SUBDIVISION
Contains 6,432 sq feet or 0.1456 acres more or less.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Project Chronology
2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing
3. Original Petition
4. Mailing List
1. Project Chronology
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
PETITION: PLNPCM2021-00249 - Redwood Road & Indiana Avenue
Zoning Map Amendment
March 22, 2021 Petition for the zoning map amendment received by the Salt Lake
City Planning Division
March 23, 2021 Petition assigned to David Gellner, Principal Planner, for staff
analysis and processing.
March 25, 2021 Information about the proposal was sent to the Chair of the Poplar
Grove Community Council in order to solicit public comments and
start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment
period.
March 25, 2021 Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all
residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project
site providing information about the proposal and how to give
public input on the project.
March 29, 2021 Staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on
the proposal. The Online Open House period started on March 29,
2021 and ended on May 10, 2021.
May 10, 2021 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations
ended. No formal comments were submitted to staff by the
recognized organizations to date related to this proposal.
May 27, 2021 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the
Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of May
26, 2021. Public hearing notice mailed.
May 27, 2021 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of
the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the
properties.
May 27, 2021 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on June 9, 2021.
By a majority vote of 4-2, the Planning Commission forwarded a
Positive recommendation to City Council for the proposed zoning
map change.
2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2021-00249 – Zoning Map
Amendment at Redwood Road & Indiana Avenue – Khiem Tran, the property owner is requesting
that the City amend the zoning map for two (2) properties located at 835 S Redwood Road and
1668 W Indiana Avenue respectively. The property at 1668 W Indiana currently contains an
individual single-family dwelling while the other property is vacant. The applicant is requesting
to change the zoning map designation of the property from R-1/5,000 (Single-Family
Residential) to R-MU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use). No specific site development proposal has
been submitted at this time. The change is consi stent with changes identified in the Westside
Master Plan which identified the intersection of Redwood and Indiana as the location of a future
Community Node. The Master Plan is not being changed. The property is located within Council
District 2, represented by Dennis Faris. (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at (385) 226 -3860 or
david.gellner@slcgov.com )
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
electronically:
DATE:
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency
Proclamation No.2 of 2020(2)(b). Please visit
https://www.slc.gov/council/news/featured-news/virtually-attend-city-
council-meetings/ to learn how you can share your comments live during
electronic City Council meetings. If you would like to provide feedback or
comment, via email or phone, please contact us at: 801-535-7654 (24-
Hour comment line) or by email at: council.comments@slcgov.com .
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call
David Gellner at 385-226-3860 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday or via e-mail at david.gellner@slcgov.com
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.(P 19-19)
3. Original Petition
Zoning Map Amendment - Khiem Tran
Date:
Mar. 18, 2021
Project Description
A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment.
The Westside community identified several existing and potential community nodes
during outreach and engagement activities. Some nodes were clearly popular choices:
Redwood Road at Indiana Avenue is an example of a potential node that was
mentioned.
The two properties that have Parcel #15102050160000 and 15102050170000 located
at 835 S Redwood Road and 1668 W Indiana Avenue Salt Lake City, UT, 84104,
respectively, are currently zoned as R-1/5000 (single-family residential), and I propose
to change the zone to RMU-45.
A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned.
My buildings would support the Westside Master Plan, which designates the
intersection of Redwood Road and Indiana Avenue as a "Community Node". Rezoning
the property to RMU-45 would allow me to build a complex that supports multi-family
apartments and commercial/retail business rather than two single-family homes.
Specifically, the ground level of the buildings would be for commercial/retail business.
The upper levels would be multi-family apartments. Each floor would have three to four
apartments, with either two or three bedrooms and approximately 1200-1400 square
feet per apartment. This would promote the desired reinvestment and redevelopment
that the Westside Master Plan describes. This location would be appealing to families
with easy access to Salt Lake City and the freeway.
These buildings would promote reinvestment and redevelopment in the Westside
community through changes in land use, improved public infrastructure, and community
investment. Businesses such as grocery stores, clothing stores, fast food and sit-down
restaurants, and offices would be convenient for both the nearby single-family homes,
multi-family residents, and the nearby industrial employees.
The Westside Master Plan emphasizes the need to "maximize use of property”.
Allowing property owners at the identified community nodes to take full advantage of
their properties to add density and commercial intensity to the area will be the best use
for the property and its community. A certain percentage of residential development
should be required for developments over a certain size, and the density benchmarks
should be between 25 to 50 dwelling units per acre. Developers should be encouraged
to aim for three to four stories in height, provided appropriate buffering and landscaping
can make the new development compatible with any surrounding single-family
development.
List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area.
1 - The other three corners at the intersection of Redwood Road and Indiana Ave. are
currently zoned for commercial use. The northwest and southwest corners are already
commercial buildings, and the large property adjacent to the property at the southeast
corner is also a commercial building, meaning that it would not be ideal to build two
single-family homes at the intersection.
2 - The intersection of Redwood Road and Indiana Ave. is one of the entrances to
downtown, so it needs to have an aesthetically-pleasing building to welcome people
downtown instead of two simple single-family homes.
3 - Multi-family dwelling units may require less land than a single-family home.
My proposal to rezone the properties will create a new look at the Redwood
Road at Indiana Avenue Community Node and also contribute a part to making the
Community Node more attractive to the community and also support the designations of
the Westside Master Plan’s expectations. Because of the reasons stated, my proposal
to rezone my properties will benefit the Community Node and its residents.
LEVEL 1 FLOOR
PLAN
LEVEL 2 ( T.O.
CMU WALL)
LEVEL 3 T.O.
FLOOR JOIST
STUCCO MORNING
MIST # 751 CLASSIC
FINISH BY BASF-
SENERGY
STUCCO MORNING MIST
# 751 CLASSIC FINISH BY
BASF-SENERGY
STUCCO REVEAL
DARK GRAY
PARAPET CAP TO
MATCH WALL PANEL
STUCCO REVEAL
T.O. DECK
1
234
7
WINDOWCASEMENT/FIX
WINDOW
DECORATIVE
VERTICAL
ALUMINUM BARS
STUCCO BAND
HARRIER # 3094
CLASSIC FINISH BY
BASF-SENERGY
STUCCO BAND
HARRIER # 3094
CLASSIC FINISH BY
BASF-SENERGY
CORRUGATED DARK
GRAY METAL PANEL
SELECT BY OWNER
5
2
6655
7
22
7 733 3
3336
7 7
3
2
3 3
T.O. FRAME
WINDOW EYEBROW,
TYP.
WINDOW
LEVEL 1 FLOOR
PLAN
100' -0"
LEVEL 2 ( T.O.
CMU WALL)
108' -8"
LEVEL 3 T.O.
FLOOR JOIST
119' -0"
CASEMENT/FIX
WINDOW
T.O. DECK
128' -11 1/2"
1 2 3 4
DECK COVERGLASS OVER
ALUMINUM
CANOPY
GLASS OVER
ALUMINUM CANOPY
CORRUGATED DARK
GRAY METAL PANEL
SELECT BY OWNER
LIGHT FIXTURE
DECORATIVE
VERTICAL ALUMINUM
BARS
LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP.
AC UNIT, TYP.
GUARDRAIL
1
111
1 1
111
4
A603
3
TYP.
T.O. FRAME
129'-11"
STUCCO MORNING MIST #
751 CLASSIC FINISH BY
BASF-SENERGY
STUCCO MORNING
MIST # 751 CLASSIC
FINISH BY BASF-
SENERGY
DARK GRAY
PARAPET CAP TO
MATCH WALL PANEL
STUCCO BAND
HARRIER # 3094
CLASSIC FINISH BY
BASF-SENERGY
STUCCO BAND HARRIER
# 3094 CLASSIC FINISH
BY BASF-SENERGY
CORRUGATED DARK
GRAY METAL PANEL
SELECT BY OWNER
4H"X8"WX16"L CMU
HONED COLOR
NATURAL, BY AMCOR
STUCCO MORNING
MIST # 751 CLASSIC
FINISH BY BASF-
SENERGY
4H"X8"WX16"L CMU
HONED COLOR
NATURAL, BY AMCOR
OR CONCRETE WALL
GLASS OVER
ALUMINUM CANOPY
3/16" = 1'-0"1
3/16" = 1'-0"2 FRONT ELEVATION (WEST)
BACK ELEVATION (EAST)
PROPOSAL 1: MIXED USE
DOOR DOORDOORSTOREFRONT STOREFRONTSTOREFRONTRETAIL 1 RETAIL 2 RETAIL 3
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONCEPT OF PROPERTY
AT 835 S REDWOOD RD. AND 1668 INDIANA AVE.
LEVEL 1 FLOOR
PLAN
LEVEL 2 ( T.O.
CMU WALL)
LEVEL 3 T.O.
FLOOR JOIST
STUCCO MORNING
MIST # 751 CLASSIC
FINISH BY BASF-
SENERGY
DOOR WITH
SIDELIGHT
STUCCO MORNING MIST
# 751 CLASSIC FINISH BY
BASF-SENERGY
STUCCO REVEAL
DARK GRAY
PARAPET CAP TO
MATCH WALL PANEL
STUCCO REVEAL
T.O. DECK
1
234
7
WINDOW
4H"X8"WX16"L
ELBONY SPLITFACE
CMU BY AMCOR
GARAGE DOOR
COLOR DARK GRAY
DOOR WITH
SIDELIGHT
LIGHT FIXTURE,
TYP.
CASEMENT/FIX
WINDOW
DECORATIVE
VERTICAL
ALUMINUM BARS
STUCCO BAND
HARRIER # 3094
CLASSIC FINISH BY
BASF-SENERGY
STUCCO BAND
HARRIER # 3094
CLASSIC FINISH BY
BASF-SENERGY
CORRUGATED DARK
GRAY METAL PANEL
SELECT BY OWNER
5
2
6655
7
22
7 733 3
3336
7 7
3
2
3 3
4H"X8"WX16"L CMU
HONED COLOR
NATURAL, BY AMCOR
4H"X8"WX16"L CMU
HONED COLOR
NATURAL, BY AMCOR
4H"X8"WX16"L CMU
HONED COLOR
NATURAL, BY AMCOR
T.O. FRAME
WINDOW EYEBROW,
TYP.
WINDOW
GARAGE DOOR
COLOR DARK GRAY
GARAGE DOOR
COLOR DARK GRAY
4H"X8"WX16"L CMU
HONED COLOR
NATURAL, BY AMCOR
OR CONCRETE WALL
LEVEL 1 FLOOR
PLAN
LEVEL 2 ( T.O.
CMU WALL)
LEVEL 3 T.O.
FLOOR JOIST
CASEMENT/FIX
WINDOW
T.O. DECK
1 2 3 4
MAIN BREAKER
AND METER PANEL
125 AMP, TYP.
LIGHT FIXTURE,
TYP.
DECK COVERGLASS OVER
ALUMINUM
CANOPY
GLASS OVER
ALUMINUM CANOPY
CORRUGATED DARK
GRAY METAL PANEL
SELECT BY OWNER
DOOR
LIGHT FIXTURE
DECORATIVE
VERTICAL ALUMINUM
BARS
CORRUGATED DARK
GRAY METAL PANEL
SELECT BY OWNER
4H"X8"WX16"L CMU
HONED COLOR
NATURAL, BY AMCOR
4H"X8"WX16"L CMU
HONED COLOR
NATURAL, BY AMCOR
LIGHT FIXTURE, TYP.
AC UNIT, TYP.
GAS METER,
TYP.
AC UNIT, TYP.
GUARDRAIL
1
111
1 1
111
4
A603
3
TYP.
T.O. FRAME
129'-11"
STUCCO MORNING MIST #
751 CLASSIC FINISH BY
BASF-SENERGY
STUCCO MORNING
MIST # 751 CLASSIC
FINISH BY BASF-
SENERGY
DARK GRAY
PARAPET CAP TO
MATCH WALL PANEL
STUCCO BAND
HARRIER # 3094
CLASSIC FINISH BY
BASF-SENERGY
STUCCO BAND HARRIER
# 3094 CLASSIC FINISH
BY BASF-SENERGY
CORRUGATED DARK
GRAY METAL PANEL
SELECT BY OWNER
4H"X8"WX16"L CMU
HONED COLOR
NATURAL, BY AMCOR
STUCCO MORNING
MIST # 751 CLASSIC
FINISH BY BASF-
SENERGY
4H"X8"WX16"L CMU
HONED COLOR
NATURAL, BY AMCOR
OR CONCRETE WALL
CORRUGATED DARK
GRAY METAL PANEL
SELECT BY OWNER
GLASS OVER
ALUMINUM CANOPY
3/16" = 1'-0"1
3/16" = 1'-0"2 FRONT ELEVATION (WEST)
BACK ELEVATION (EAST)
PROPOSAL 2: TOWNHOMES
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONCEPT OF PROPERTY
AT 835 S REDWOOD RD. AND 1668 INDIANA AVE.
4. Mailing List
OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR OWN_CITY OWN_STATE OWN_ZIPVU LINH CAO 1785 MAPLE HILLS DR. BOUNTIFULUT 84010RUSTED SPUR LLC 1717 S REDWOOD RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104SILVER ANTLER, LLC 1717 S REDWOOD RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104BKR HOLDINGS, LLC5845 CRESTRIDGE ROAD BILLINGS MT 59101GARY D TAYLOR 1676 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104THANH V TRAN TRUST 08/21/2017; HUONG T.M. LE TR 2852 W MATTERHORN DR TAYLORSVILLE UT 84129MARGARET VALERIO 1660 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104GUSTAVO CARRILLO; MELITZA MEJIA CENTENO 1652 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104BLAKE A BACKUS; JERALD J THOMPSON (JT) 1644 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104ROGELIO RODRIGUEZ 1675 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104THANH V TRAN TRUST 08/21/2017; HUONG T.M. LE TR 2852 W MATTERHORN DR TAYLORSVILLE UT 84129KENT V LIVINGSTON 1659 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104RANDY L BINGHAM; SERENA L BINGHAM 1651 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104RENE LEYVA 1643 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104RICHARD W YOUNG 1635 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104BRANDON PERRY 1656 W INDIANA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104BLUEMOUNTAIN INC 2441 S 1560 W WOODS CROSS UT 84087ANTONIO A FUENTES; MARIA R FUENTES (JT) 1644 W INDIANA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104MIKE NIELSON; KELLY E NIELSON (JT) 1638 W INDIANA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104KHIEM T TRAN; YEN TRAN (JT) 5830 S STONE BLUFF WY SALT LAKE CITY UT 84118D. AMY WILLIAMS 1657 W INDIANA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104D E WILLIAMS 1651 W INDIANA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104JAMES A LEROY; LISA M LEROY (JT) 1647 W INDIANA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104MARY ROBERTS 1639 W INDIANA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104HASIB ODOBASIC 6308 S TIMPANOGOS WY TAYLORSVILLE UT 84129APPLIED INSTALLATION AND ERECTION INC 875 S REDWOOD RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PO BOX 148420 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114Current Occupant 836 S REDWOOD RD Salt Lake City UT 84104Current Occupant 762 S REDWOOD RD Salt Lake City UT 84104Current Occupant 1720 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104Current Occupant 850 S REDWOOD RD Salt Lake City UT 84104Current Occupant 1668 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104Current Occupant 811 S REDWOOD RD Salt Lake City UT 84104Current Occupant 1667 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104Current Occupant 1648 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104Current Occupant 835 S REDWOOD RD Salt Lake City UT 84104Current Occupant 1668 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104Current Occupant 1633 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104Salt Lake City Planning ‐ David GellnerPO BOX 145480 Salt Lake City UT 84114
Item C3
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
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet
Policy Analyst
DATE:December 14, 2021
RE: Text Amendment: Amend FB-SE to allow for rooftop commercial uses above the second
story, subject to meeting a height of 30-feet.
PLNPCM2021-00431
MOTION 1
I move the Council adopt the ordinance.
MOTION 2
I move the Council reject the ordinance.
MOTION 3
I move the Council defer action to a future Council meeting.
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE: December 14, 2021
RE:Text Amendment: Amend FB-SE to allow for
rooftop commercial uses above the second
story.
PLNPCM2021-00431
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: November 16, 2021
Set Date: November 16, 2021
Public Hearing: Dec 7, 2021
Potential Action: Dec 7 or 14
2021
Public Hearing Summary
Four individuals spoke about the proposed text amendment, two expressed support for the changes
saying it would help businesses and create a unique opportunity.
One individual said parking and noise mitigation concerns should be addressed. Another
recommended making the use a conditional use to help limit the impact to adjacent properties.
The council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future council meeting.
The following information was provided for the December 7 public hearing. It is
provided again for background purposes.
Work Session Briefing
The Council did not raise any significant questions or concerns about the proposed changes.
The public hearing was scheduled for December 7, 2021.
Page | 2
After the public hearing, if the Council would like to move forward with the petition quickly, the
Council could choose to close the public hearing and adopt the proposed changes. A motion will be
included that would provide that as an option.
The following information was provided for the November 16 work session briefing. It
is provided again for background purposes.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the FB-SE (Form Based Special
Purpose Corridor Edge Subdistrict) zoning district to allow for rooftop commercial uses above the second
story, subject to meeting a height of 30-feet. All properties, citywide, in the FB-SE zoning district would be
impacted, although the FB-SE is primarily located within the Sugar House Community.
Current regulations only limit commercial uses above the second story, and the proposed text amendment
simply addresses those commercial rooftop uses above the second story, still capping the height at 30 feet
for commercial uses. If someone in the FB-SE zone wants to build a one-story restaurant with rooftop
dining, that is currently permitted.
The applicant has an existing two-story building that he intends to use as a restaurant, which is a
permitted use in the FB-SE zone. The applicant would like the ability to add outdoor dining on
the rooftop above the second story.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 25, 2021 and voted 5-1 to forward a positive
recommendation to the City Council.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Pages 3-6 of the Planning Commission staff report includes a discussion about the key issues
identified by Planning Staff. A short summary of those is provided below. See the planning
commission staff report to view the full analysis.
1. Compliance with Master Plan Policies
Planning staff found the proposal is consistent with policies outlined in Plan Salt
Lake and would help support small businesses and provide vibrant, mixed-use
development.
2. Conditional Use for Rooftop Uses
The Sugar House Land Use Committee requested rooftop uses be a conditional use.
Planning staff reviewed the request and determined it was not appropriate because
that change would be beyond the scope of the petition, any impacts from rooftop
uses would be negligible and the use is generally compatible with the zoning
district.
3. Impacts of the Proposed Text Amendment
Staff found that the proposed amendment for rooftop uses above the second story
does not have more of an impact than a rooftop commercial use above the first
story.
Page | 3
4. Height Exceptions
Some members of the public suggested including height exceptions for some
rooftop structures like pergolas, sound walls, and elevator/stair bulkheads.
Planning staff feels a two-story building with a pergola, sound wall, elevator
bulkhead, or other similar structure on the rooftop area will likely still be under the
30 FT height requirement, so an exception is not necessary.
Policy Questions
The Council may wish to review where these zones abut single family structures, and discuss
whether a conditional use would be helpful at a minimum so that notice is provided when a
development is under consideration?
PUBLIC PROCESS
The public process is outlined on page two of the transmittal letter. It met the standard requirements
of noticing surrounding property owners, informing the Community Council and a public hearing at
the Planning Commission.
Properties Zoned FB-SE
Page 5, Planning Commission Staff Report
Page | 4
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV
P.O. BOX 145487, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________ Date Received: _________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE:
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: FB-SE 2nd Story Rooftop Commercial Uses, Petition PLNPCM2021-00431
STAFF CONTACT: Amy Thompson, Planning Manager, amy.thompson@slcgov.com, 385-226-9001
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council amend the text of the zoning ordinance as
recommended by the Planning Commission.
BUDGET IMPACT: None.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
This petition was submitted by Bill Grodnik, the owner of the property at 2166 S 900 East which is
located in the FB-SE zoning district. The FB-SE zoning regulations currently limit commercial uses to
the first two stories and a height of 30 feet. The proposed text amendment would allow for rooftop
commercial uses above the two-story limitation subject to meeting the 30-foot height requirement.
The proposed zoning text amendment impacts the FB-SE zoning district citywide.
A rooftop use above the second story is not considered an additional story, but it is considered
above the two-story limitation and the proposed text amendment is seeking to address that. The
proposal does not change the land use table – existing permitted and conditional uses for the FB-SE
zone will remain the same.
Under the current FB-SE building form regulations, a commercial use is permitted or conditional
(depending on the use) above the first story. The current regulations only limit commercial uses
above the second story, and the proposed text amendment simply addresses those commercial
October 18, 2021
Lisa Shaffer (Oct 20, 2021 15:02 MDT)
10/20/2021
10/20/2021
rooftop uses above the second story, still capping the height at 30 feet for commercial uses. If
someone in the FB-SE zone wants to build a one-story restaurant with rooftop dining, that is
currently permitted.
The applicant has an existing two-story building that he intends to use as a restaurant, which is a
permitted use in the FB-SE zone. The applicant would like the ability to add outdoor dining on
the rooftop above the second story. Because the FB-SE zoning regulations limit commercial uses
to the first two stories, he submitted an application for a text amendment that would allow him to
utilize the rooftop above the second story for additional outdoor seating. Although the applicant
is applying for these changes because of plans for his specific building, the proposed changes
would impact all properties zoned FB-SE, and not just his specific property.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
•Community Council: Notice of the proposal was sent to the Sugar House and Liberty
Wells Community Council Chairs on May 26, 2021. The Sugar House Land Use
Committee requested a presentation of this item at their June 21, 2021 meeting. Both
planning staff and the applicant were in attendance. The Sugar House Community Council
submitted a letter regarding the proposal. The letter is included in the Planning Commission
Staff Report.
•Early Notification: On June 3, 2021, early notification of the project was provided to all
property owners and residents with property currently zoned FB-SE. Early notification was
also provided to all property owners and residents within 300 FT of FB-SE zoned property.
•Public Open House: The Planning Division hosted an online Open House to solicit public
comments on the proposal. The Online Open House comment period started on June 14,
2021 and ended on July 10, 2021.
•Planning Commission Meeting: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on
August 25, 2021. Notice of the hearing was sent to all registered recognized organization,
was posted on the Planning Commission agenda page, the State of Utah Public Notice page,
and was emailed to the Planning Division email list. The Planning Commission voted 5-1
to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council.
Planning Commission (PC) Records
PC Agenda for August 25, 2021 (Click to Access)
PC Minutes of August 25, 2021 (Click to Access)
PC Staff Report for August 25, 2021 (Click to Access Staff Report)
EXHIBITS
1. Chronology
2.Notice of City Council Hearing
3.Petition Application
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1
No. _____ of 2021 2
3
(An ordinance amending Section 21A.27.040 to allow for commercial uses on rooftops which 4
exceed 2 stories in the FB-SE Zoning District) 5
6
An ordinance amending sections of 21A.27.040 of the Salt Lake City Code to allow for 7
commercial uses on rooftops which exceed 2 stories in the FB-SE Zoning District pursuant to 8
Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00431. 9
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) held a 10
public hearing on August 25, 2021 to consider a petition number PLNPCM2021-00431 (the 11
“petition”) initiated by Bill Grodnik, owner of property at approximately 2166 South 900 East Street, 12
to amend the Salt Lake City Code to more allow for commercial and nonresidential uses on rooftops 13
which exceed 2 stories; and 14
WHEREAS, at its August 25, 2021 hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of 15
forwarding a positive recommendation of approval to the Salt Lake City Council (the “City 16
Council”) to adopt changes to the Salt Lake City Code as requested in the petition; and 17
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council desires to modify its land use regulations as 18
provided herein; and 19
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds, after holding a public hearing on this 20
matter, that adopting this ordinance promotes the health, safety, and public welfare of the 21
citizens of the City. 22
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 23
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
SECTION 1. Amending the Text of Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.27.040.D. That Section 24
21A.27.040.D of the Salt Lake City Code (FB-SE Building Form Standards) shall be and hereby is 25
amended as follows: 26
D. FB-SE Building Form Standards: Building form standards are listed in table 21A.27.040.D of 27
this section. 28
29
Table 21A.27.040.D FB-SE BUILDING FORM STANDARDS 30
Permitted Building Forms
Cottage, Row House, Multi-Family And Storefront
H Maximum building height Maximum building height in
the FB-SE is 45 ft.
Limitation on commercial uses Commercial or nonresidential
uses are limited to the first 2
stories and a height of 30 ft.
Commercial and nonresidential
rooftop uses are allowed above
the second story subject to
meeting the 30 ft. height
requirement.
F Front
and
corner
side
yard
setback
Greenway Minimum of 5 ft. Maximum of
15 ft.
Neighborhood Minimum of 15 ft. Maximum of
25 ft.
Avenue Minimum of 5 ft. Maximum of
10 ft.
Boulevard Minimum of 15 ft. Maximum of
25 ft.
B Required build-to Minimum of 50% of street
facing facade shall be built to
the minimum setback line.
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
S Interior side yard When adjacent to a residential
district, a minimum setback of
25% of the lot width, up to 25
ft., is required. Any portion of
the building taller than 30 ft.
must be stepped back 2 ft. from
the required building setback
line for every 1 ft. of height over
30 ft. When adjacent to other
zoning districts, no minimum
setback is required. See
illustration below.
R Rear yard When adjacent to a residential
district, a minimum setback of
25% of the lot width, up to 25
ft., is required. Any portion of
the building taller than 30 ft.
must be stepped back 2 ft. from
the required building setback
line for every 1 ft. of height over
30 ft. When adjacent to other
zoning districts, no minimum
setback is required. See
illustration below.
L Minimum lot size 4,000 sq. ft.; not to be used to
calculate density.
W Minimum lot width 50 ft.
DU Dwelling units per building
form
No minimum or maximum.
BF Number of building forms per
lot
1 building form permitted for
every 4,000 sq. ft. of lot area
provided all building forms
have frontage on a street.
31
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance take effect immediately after it has been 32
published in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code 33
§10-3-713. 34
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of 35
______________, 2021. 36
______________________________ 37
CHAIRPERSON 38
39
ATTEST: 40
41
______________________________ 42
CITY RECORDER 43
44
45
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. 46
47
48
Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 49
50
51
______________________________ 52
MAYOR 53
54
______________________________ 55
CITY RECORDER 56
57
(SEAL) 58
59
Bill No. ________ of 2021. 60
Published: ______________. 61
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date: _________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Hannah Vickery, Senior City Attorney
By: ___________________________________
Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney
10/7/21
1) CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Petition: PLNPCM2021-00431
April 29, 2021 Bill Grodnik submitted an application for a Zoning Text
Amendment.
May 18, 2021 Petition PLNPCM2021-00431was assigned to Amy Thompson,
Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing.
May 26, 2021 Notice sent to Recognized Community Organizations informing
them of the petition. Early notification of the project was also sent
to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the proposal.
June 3, 2020 Early Notification of the project was sent to property owners and
residents with FB-SE zoned parcels as wells as property owners
and residents within 300 FT of FB-SE zoned parcels.
June 14, 2021 The Planning Division held an online open house to solicit
comments on the proposal. The open house commenting period
was open from June 14, 2021 – July 10, 2021.
June 21, 2021 The proposal was presented at the Sugar House Land Use
Committee Meeting. The applicant and planning staff were both in
attendance to answer questions about the proposal.
August 11, 2021 Planning Commission public hearing notices emailed to interested
parties and residents/property owners who requested notice.
Agenda posted to the Planning Commission website and the State
of Utah Public Notice webpage.
August 19, 2021 Planning Commission Staff Report posted.
August 25, 2021 Planning Commission held a public hearing and made a positive
recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed text
amendment.
2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2021-00431 – A request by Bill
Grodnik, owner of the property at approximately 2166 S 900 East, for a zoning text amendment
that would impact all properties in the FB-SE (Form Based Special Purpose Corridor Edge
Subdistrict) citywide. The FB-SE zone currently limits commercial or nonresidential uses to
first two stories and a height of 30 feet. The proposed text amendment would allow for rooftop
commercial uses above the second story, subject to meeting a height of 30-feet. The proposed
amendment affects section 21A.27.040.D FB-SE Building Form Standards. Related provisions of
Title 21A Zoning may also be amended as part of this petition. Information on this proposal can
be found in the staff report prepared for the Planning Commission accessible from this link -
http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/Planning%20Commission/2021/08.August/Final%20Staff%20
Report%20-%20FB-SE%20Rooftop%20Text%20Amendment.pdf
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 https://www.slc.gov/council/ 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
Amy Thompson at 385-226-9001 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday or via e-mail at amy.thompson@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) PETITION APPLICATION
Item C4
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
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards
Budget Analysts
DATE:December 14, 2021
RE: Budget Amendment Number Four FY22
MOTION 1 – PARTIALLY ADOPT
I move that the Council adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 final budget of Salt Lake
City including the employment staffing document only for items as shown on the motion sheet.
Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items below; they are listed for
reference. The Council adopted other items at the November 16 formal meeting. The Budget
Amendment is still open, and the remaining items are held until next year for more information and
discussions.
Items Being Adopted
-A-1: Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance Costs ($128,888 from General Fund Balance and
$294,820 from Enterprise Funds)
-A-2: Department of Air Quality Lawnmower Exchange ($250,000 from General Fund Balance)
-A-3: COVID Safe Building Improvements ($844,000 from General Fund Balance; $131,000 goes to IMS
Fund)
-A-7: Sugar House Special Assessment Area Analysis (SAA) ($60,000 from General Fund Balance)
o Note that per the Council discussion, the analysis will include potential adjustments to
boundaries (to be smaller by removing residential areas) and potential reimbursement to the
General Fund Balance for fronting start-up costs. Both options will return to Council for
consideration.
-A-12: Public Lands Park Ranger Pilot Program ($1,577,291 from General Fund Balance; $195,720 goes
to Fleet Fund; $69,247 from ARPA)
-C-1: ARPA Funding – Public Safety and Homeless Outreach – Public Lands Park Ranger Program
($1,064,368 – Miscellaneous Grants) (See Items A-12, E-3 and E-4.)
-C-2: Community Commitment Program Rapid Intervention Team ($164,750 from ARPA)
-E-1: COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program – New Water Reclamation Facility: Influent
Pump Station and Force Mains (Water and Sewer Infrastructure) ($2 million from ARPA)
-E-2: Winter Shelter Public Safety Support ($400,000 from ARPA)
o Note that the Council took a unanimous straw poll (with Council Member Mano absent) that the
remaining $600,000 will be considered for community activities and potentially business
assistance in the area around the temporary emergency winter overflow shelter pending further
discussions. Any use of those funds would be authorized in a future budget opening.
-E-3: Public Safety and Homeless Outreach – Salary Restoration – Public Lands Park Ranger Program
(See Items A-12, C-1, and E-4) ($443,677 from ARPA)
-E-4: Public Safety and Homeless Outreach – Public Lands Park Rangers (See Item A-12, C-1 and E-3)
($69,244 from ARPA)
-E-5: Community Commitment Program Rapid Intervention Team Vehicles ($160,500 from ARPA)
-E-6: Community Commitment Program Additional Police Support ($1,505,920 from ARPA)
-E-8: Community Commitment Program Rapid Intervention Team Cleaning by Advantage Services
($57,000 from ARPA)
-E-9: ARPA Westside Community Initiative (Perpetual Housing Fund) ($4 million from ARPA going to a
New Holding Account in the Grant Fund)
Items Referred to a Future Date (Not Adopted)
The Council identified three items to be held until next calendar year for more information and
discussions. The items are:
-A-8: Sorenson Impact Center Social Investment Study – Phase 2 Funding – ($150,000 from General
Fund Balance)
-D-1: Economic Development Loan Fund Move Housing ($100,000 – Housing and $100,000 – General
Fund)
-E-10: Nonprofit and Business Assistance Community Grants ($4 million from ARPA going to a New
Account in the Grant Fund)
MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council proceed to the next agenda item.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards,
Allison Rowland, and Kira Luke
Budget and Policy Analysts
DATE:December 14, 2021
RE: Budget Amendment Number Four FY2022
________________________________________________________________________________
NEW INFORMATION
At the December 7 briefing, the Council discussed remaining items which were not appropriated at the November
16 formal meeting. Council staff drafted an adoption motion sheet (Attachment 4) based on the Council’s discussion
for the December 14 formal meeting. The Council may wish to review the draft motion sheet at the follow up
briefing so any requested changes can be made before a vote later that day.
The Council identified three items to be held until next calendar year for more information and discussions. The
items are:
- A-8: Sorenson Impact Center Social Investment Study – Phase 2 Funding – ($150,000 from General Fund
Balance)
- D-1: Economic Development Loan Fund Move Housing ($100,000 – Housing and $100,000 – General Fund)
- E-10: Nonprofit and Business Assistance Community Grants ($4 million from ARPA going to a New Account in
the Grant Fund)
Straw Poll Request
The Administration is requesting the Council take a straw poll to prevent the City returning to the Federal
Government unused CARES Act funding. The Finance Department is confirming the unused amounts with external
entities that received CARES Act funding from the City. At the time of publishing this staff report, the Department
estimates approximately $47,000 for the Downtown Alliance’s Ambassador program is at risk.
The straw poll would be: does the Council support using remaining CARES Act funds for Fire Department
personnel expenses which are presumptively eligible expenses under U.S. Treasury Department guidance? It’s
worth noting that the Council used this approach in Budget Amendment #4 of FY 2021 for the third round of
CARES Act funding because at the time the City did not know an exact amount to be received and needed to
appropriate the funds by fast approaching deadline.
The Council could request that the Administration send a written report when the final amounts are confirmed for
unused CARES Act funds and from which uses.
Project Timeline:
Set Date: Nov. 9, 2021
1st Briefing: Nov. 9, 2021
2nd Briefing: Nov. 16, 2021
Public Hearing & Partial Adoption: Nov. 16, 2021
3rd Briefing: December 7, 2021
4th Briefing: December 14, 2021
Potential Action: December 14, 2021
5th Briefing: TBD in 2022
Page | 2
Responses to Council Follow-up Questions
The Administration provided the below responses to the Council’s follow up questions and policy questions listed in
prior versions of this staff report. Some responses were pending at the time of publishing this staff report and the
Council may wish to ask the Administration for status updates at the briefing.
A-12: Public Lands Park Ranger Pilot Program
See Attachment 5 for park ranger sergeant job description. A park ranger description was pending at the time of
publishing this staff report.
Effectiveness of Civilian Rangers Addressing Criminal Issues in Parks – The Council may wish to discuss with
the Administration the limits of civilian park rangers addressing criminal issues in parks and when rangers
would need to rely on a police officer response. The Administration states the rangers may serve as law
enforcement officers but would not be POST-certified like police officers. The Council may also wish to ask the
Administration how park rangers would coordinate with the Police Department’s parks bike squad.
The Administration has provided the following additional information
Park rangers will not be sworn, certified peace officers. They will be civilians, similar to Compliance
Officers. If there is a desire to allow Park Rangers to write civil citations for items such as off-leash dog
and parking violations, there will likely be some ordinance code changes necessary. As this is a pilot
program, we do not intent to implement a citation component until after the program has been in
practice for six months to one year.
A collaborative partnership between Park Rangers and the Police Department’s bike squad will take a
great deal of cooperation to enhance the safety and security of our parks. The Park Ranger program is
intended to extend their efforts, by seeking voluntary compliance through education of park codes and
rules. Park rangers are an extra set of eyes in the parks who can share observations and monitor
trends. Police can communicate with the rangers about possible threats and give them photos of wanted
individuals to look for.
Communication and cooperation between both groups is crucial. Our hope is that the rangers can relieve
the PD of some of their service calls. The key will be to develop relationships between the rangers and the
park squad so that they help each other when needed. Once the public understands that SLCPD will
respond quickly to ranger calls, the rangers will hold more authority in the parks and can make a
significant impact on the safety and security of park visitors.
Private Security Guards in Parks – The Public Lands Department currently hires private security guards to lock
restrooms in parks and provide security patrols. The Council may wish to ask the Administration for the pros
and cons of creating a park ranger program instead of continuing the current practice of hiring private security
guards.
The Administration has provided the following additional information
Park rangers would be more welcoming than security guards. An inhouse program can allow for more
training and accountability.
People experiencing homelessness are often victims of crimes themselves and security guards are not
trained to be first responders to calls for service, provide medical care or to help connect people to
services.
Rangers will work closely with the Police Department; they’ll know the ins and outs of our parks and
have good relationships with neighbors. The intent is for them to be more approachable than security
guards.
Identifying and Tracking Calls for Service Diversions from Police to CHAT Program – The Council may wish to
ask the Administration if there are plans to track calls for service diverted from a police officer response to park
rangers or other alternative response models. The information could help measure the success and demand for
the City’s civilian response models. The Council may also wish to ask how the 911 Department identifies calls for
Page | 3
service that are good candidates for diversion. The City’s alternative response options include the CHAT
program, Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) and the Social Worker Program (potentially this new Park Ranger
program and police civilian responder program too).
Answer was pending at the time of publishing this staff report.
Growing Structural Deficit for FY23 Budget – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to provide a
mid-year briefing on the estimated structural deficit for FY23 and how ARPA funding this fiscal year creates
ongoing costs that could need ARPA funding next fiscal year.
Answer was pending at the time of publishing this staff report.
Request REP Commission Review – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to present the park ranger
proposal to the REP Commission and share feedback and recommendations.
The Racial Equity in Policing Commission was presented with the Park Ranger proposal at their November
3rd meeting. The Commission was supportive of the program. Their comments were primarily around
concern for ranger safety, and they were curious about training and equipment. They would like another
update in January.
Training and Equipment for Park Rangers – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what training and
equipment would be provided to park rangers. The rangers would not have firearms.
Training:
-Basic CPR, AED, and First Aid training. Possible EMT and Naloxone training for lead rangers
-Pepper Spray Training
-Radio Use training
-SLC Code Training
-Vistelar an online training course program is used by SLC Compliance.
-Management of Aggressive Behavior (MOAB Used by Seattle Parks Dept.)
o De-Escalation
o Conflict management
o Crisis Intervention
o Personal Safety
o Understanding bias and triggers – Implicit Bias Training
o Cultural Sensitivity & Public Relations
o Radio Training
Equipment:
-Light duty truck
-Side by side
-Mountain Bikes
-Uniform
-Cell phone, radio, laptop, flashlight, etc.
Reviewing Staffing Level – The Council may wish to ask the Administration when and how the pilot program’s
staffing level will be reviewed to determine if fewer or more positions are warranted to meet the level of
community need.
Software such as Report Exec. Is available to track incidents that can be analyzed to better understand where
incidents are happening, track daily logs and report incidents. Once created, the pilot program can be
evaluated every six months to determine if fewer or more positions are warranted to meet the level of
community need.
Page | 4
Calls for Service in Foothills – Could you please share the calls for service and on-views from the Foothills and
natural lands for October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021? This is the same time period analyzed for City parks.
Answer was pending at the time of publishing this staff report.
C-2: Community Commitment Program Rapid Intervention Team
Three New FTEs Sunsetting with ARPA – The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether the three
new FTEs would sunset with ARPA funding availability.
These positions would be solely expensed to ARPA funding and would sunset when the funding expires.
Staffing Level and Community Need – the Council may wish to discuss with the Administration if the three
additional FTEs would meet the level of need in the community and maximize the City’s partnership with the
County Health Department.
The role of this new Rapid Intervention Team would not replace or compete with the County Health
Department abatements, instead this new program will assist individuals in smaller encampments and
decrease the likelihood of smaller encampments becoming larger encampments.
CAN Supervising Sustainability Employees – The Council may wish to ask why the three new employees would
be in the Waste & Recycling Division of Sustainability but be coordinated by a supervisor in CAN?
Because of the duties and responsibilities of these new proposed FTEs, they would require direct supervision
from Sustainability. CAN will coordinate the logistics for all City staff involved with the new Rapid
Intervention Team, such as the Police Department and the Waste and Recycling Division of Sustainability.
On November 16, the Council held a second briefing, public hearing, and then closed the public hearing to adopt
some items including:
- A-5: Community Health Access Team (CHAT) Program Vehicles ($150,000 from $2 Million Holding
Account; $150,000 goes to Fleet Fund)
- A-6: Non-Represented Employees’ Job Salary Survey ($75,000 from General Fund Balance)
- A-10: Community Health Access Team (CHAT) Program Personnel Transfer (Budget Neutral)
- A-11: Rose Park Golf Course Water & Energy Efficiency Grant (Matching Funds) ($1,800,000 from the Golf
Fund
- All items in Section D Housekeeping except D-1
- All items in Section G Consent Agenda for Grant Awards
- I-1: Council Office Reclassifications and Amending FY22 Appointed Pay Plan
The Council is scheduled to continue deliberation of the remaining proposed items at the December 7 work session.
The Council could take a final vote on some items at the formal meeting that same day, at a future formal meeting
or decline to approve a proposed item.
Budget Amendment Number Four includes forty-one proposed amendments and requested changes to thirteen
funds. Total expenditures coming from Fund Balance are $2,884,735, and the Administration is requesting straw
polls for two items which are found in Section A (New Budget Items). Additionally, the Council may wish to note
that the Administration is proposing to add twenty-two ongoing FTE’s paid with one-time grant funding. If all the
items are adopted as proposed, then Fund Balance would be $502,894 below the 13% minimum target established
by the Council in FY 20. Fund Balance would however remain $3 million above 12%.
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Proposed Spending Items
There are several proposed items that would spend nearly $14.5 million of American Rescue Plan Act or ARPA
funding. This is one-time funding from the Federal Government for the City to respond to pandemic-related
impacts and address recovery needs including revenue loss replacement and employee compensation. Many of the
Page | 5
proposed ARPA-funded items would use one-time funding for one-time uses. However, a few items like the park
ranger pilot program and expanded Community Commitment Program would add new full-time employees (FTEs)
which create new ongoing costs. This is in addition to ongoing costs (FTEs/programs) paid for with ARPA dollars in
the F22 budget, totaling approximately $22.3 million. These would add to the General Fund’s growing structural
budget deficit in future fiscal years.
It’s important to note that approving the items as proposed would also set in motion the need to spend ARPA
dollars in FY23 (or use another funding source or identify budget cuts) to cover some of the new ongoing costs
particularly new FTEs and ongoing police overtime. The Administration’s transmittal includes a summary
spreadsheet showing how the City’s entire $85 million ARPA award has been used to-date, items proposed in this
budget amendment and potential uses in FY23 and FY24. The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration how the City’s FY23 and FY24 annual budgets could be impacted by ARPA-funded
items proposed in this budget amendment plus the $22.3 million of ongoing expenses in the FY22
annual budget paid for with one-time ARPA funding.
Sales Tax Update (See Attachment 1)
This attachment shows the confirmed sales tax revenues through the end of FY21. The data table shows sales tax in
FY21 was $7.4 million higher than FY20 particularly the months of February through June. June was the highest
sales tax revenue month on record for the City. The wholesale trade increased, and the biggest decline remains
accommodation and food services. Inflation could also be a contributing factor to greater sales tax receipts.
Revenue for FY 2021-22 Budget Adjustments
Because the fiscal year just started the Fiscal Year 2022 projections are at budget. The following chart shows a
current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2022. Updated revenue projections are expected to be
available for the next budget amendment and after the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is completed.
Page | 6
Fund Balance Update
The Administration is recommending to go below the 13% minimum target established by the Council in FY 20.
This means the Fund Balance would be $502,894 below the target. Fund Balance would however remain $3 million
above 12%. Previously the City has been advised that downward trends in fund balance percentage could have the
potential to impact the City’s bond rating (needed to get desirable interest rates), and the previous minimum
threshold was identified at 10%. Updated Fund Balance projections are expected to be available for the next budget
amendment and after the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is completed.
Page | 7
Impact Fees Update
The Administration provided a summary of impact fee tracking, details on refunding amounts and dates and lists of
unfinished projects with impact fee funding. The information is current as of October 29, 2021. An update since the
information was transmitted is that the four police impact fee refunds listed for July through October in FY22 are
not needed based on the adopted annual budget.
As a result, the City is on-track with impact fee budgeting to have no refunds during all FY22.
The Administration reports work is nearing completion to update the fire and parks sections of the impact fee plan.
The transportation section was updated last year. Eligible projects for police impact fees are being identified.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring
Impact Fees
Fire $1,487,183 More than a year away -
Parks $8,948,216 More than a year away -
Police $415,503 More than a year away -
Transportation $6,101,644 More than a year away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
Page | 8
$1,583,500 ARPA Holding Account Update
In the FY22 annual budget, the Council placed $1,583,500 into a holding account from 10 items proposed by the
Administration. The Administration indicates that the holding account items are no longer being recommended.
During deliberations in May and June the 10 items were determined to not be eligible for ARPA funding under the
U.S. Treasury’s ARPA guidance. The holding account was created to give the Administration time for exploring
whether any of the 10 items could be modified to be ARPA eligible. The Council could act in this budget
amendment to free these dollars.
Section A: New Items
(note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration’s descriptions from the
transmittal for some of these items)
A-1: Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance Costs ($128,888 from General Fund Balance and
$294,820 from Enterprise Funds)
The City has carried both excess liability and cyber security insurance since Fiscal Year 17 (FY17) and has not yet
had to use either. However, premiums for each rose significantly higher than budgeted in the current fiscal year.
Excess liability
The Administration shared the following definition of excess liability insurance:
Excess liability insurance covers judgments and claim settlements in excess of the City's $1,000,000 self-insured
retention. While most claims against the City are subject to judgment limitations under the Governmental
Immunity Act, federal claims, such as civil rights and employment claims, are not.
The Administration attributes the increase to claims in the past year that met thresholds the City is required to
report to the City’s insurance carrier.
Cyber security
The Administration shared the following definition of cyber security insurance:
Cyber insurance covers third-party liability resulting from security breaches. It also covers data recovery, data
breach response and crisis management, cyber-extortion, and ransomware.
In recent years, the City has funded upgraded security resources, including more advanced systems and more
cybersecurity training for City staff. The FY22 budget for the IMS Department also included $50,000 for an audit of
the City’s current network security. Requests in future budgets are likely to continue including hardware and
software upgrades that will improve security, as the City works to keep up with rapidly-advancing technology and
increasing threats. Although these investments ultimately reduce the need to use the insurance, trade publications
for the municipal information technology sector report a large increase in cyberattacks across the board, leading to
higher premiums throughout the industry.
Policy Question: The Council could confirm with the City Attorney's office whether an executive session on
deployment of security and/or pending litigation could allow the Council to learn about any current claims and
the City’s security profile.
A-2: Department of Air Quality Lawnmower Exchange ($250,000 from General Fund Balance)
The Utah Department of Air Quality (UDAQ) administers an annual gas-powered lawnmower and yard equipment
exchange in order to reduce criteria pollutants in the areas of the Wasatch Front that are in non-attainment with the
Clean Air Act air quality standards. Because the Wasatch Front is on track for attainment of wintertime PM2.5,
UDAQ is not running a snowblower exchange this year. Instead, they are focusing on programs to reduce
summertime ozone pollution, for which the Wasatch Front is out of attainment. UDAQ has $900,000 set aside to
continue the exchanges for the foreseeable future. The size of the lawnmower exchange varies each year depending
on the size of financial contributions from partners. UDAQ typically contributes between $300,000 and $400,000.
The Sustainability Department is proposing a budget amendment of $250,000 from General Fund Balance to
partner with UDAQ in FY22 on a gas-powered lawnmower exchange. This would facilitate exchanges for
approximately 1,000 Salt Lake City residents. Salt Lake City participated in 2021, spending nearly $161,000 which
Page | 9
helped 582 residents participate. In total, 509 gas powered mowers were exchanged (the remaining participants
bought new mowers without exchanging an old one). This is the equivalent of removing 4.02 tons of pollution from
the airshed each year. A majority of residents also opted to participate in the City’s Call 2 Haul program to have
their gas mower picked up curbside and recycled by Salt Lake City Waste and Recycling.
The Administration proposes continuing this program in FY 22 (spring 2022). The goal will be to increase
participation from 582 to 1,000 with a continued focus on our Westside neighborhoods. The Administration
anticipates greater awareness and uptake of the program in the coming year due to increased familiarity with the
program, and plans to work with UDAQ on earlier, targeted outreach given the lessons learned from spring 2021.
UDAQ anticipates the program logistics will change in FY 22 to facilitate easier participation and lower
administrative burden. In particular, they are hoping to develop a phone app that participants will use to sign up
and upload any required receipts.
UDAQ is also envisioning the next program will offer a promotional discount code to be used toward the purchase
of electric lawn equipment and an app would also help separate Salt Lake City residents from other participating
Wasatch Front residents. This will reduce confusion as to who is eligible for curbside pickup of their old mowers.
The Administration also indicates that they also hope the app will help keep the exchange open longer for Salt Lake
City residents instead of opening, closing it, and opening it again while UDAQ verifies addresses.
While the exact amount of the discounts have yet to be determined, the Sustainability Department proposes using
$250,000 in City General Funds to facilitate approximately 1,000 gas-powered mower exchanges. This budget
amendment would also fund temporary staffing expenses to assist with running curbside collection of old mowers
through Call 2 Haul. This benefit was very popular last year and helped make this program more equitable to those
who might not have the ability to haul their own mower to a metal recycler.
Policy Questions:
Expanding Program Beyond Lawnmowers – Council Members recently expressed interest in expanding this
exchange to include other common gas-powered yard maintenance equipment like leaf blowers, chainsaws,
trimmers, etc. The Council may wish to ask the Administration what would be necessary to expand the
exchange program along these lines?
Sustainability Funding Contributions – The Council may wish to ask if the Sustainability Department’s
refuse, energy, or environment dollars could be available to contribute to this program?
Context with the Annual budget – Given that this program is proposed to be funded with General Fund
dollars, the Council could ask that it be included in the annual budget in future years.
A-3: COVID Safe Building Improvements ($844,000 from General Fund Balance; $131,000 goes to
IMS Fund)
The Public Services Department identified several recommended building improvements to provide a safer
environment protecting against the spread of disease. Consultants, health officials and current employees
collaborated to identify these changes. The total cost is estimated at $844,000 and includes the following:
- $250,000 for improved indoor air quality by upgrading existing HVAC systems to better capture airborne
particles and contaminants using needlepoint devices
- $165,000 for enhanced janitorial cleaning five days a week for the rest of the fiscal year. The cleaning
schedule would adjust to COVID case counts and feedback from the public and employees
- $131,000 for teleconferencing and meeting equipment for virtual and hybrid public meetings. This
equipment and training would be available to the Mayor’s Office, Council Office and the City’s two dozen
boards and commissions
- $100,000 for reconfiguring cubicle office spaces
- $100,000 for various personal protective equipment (PPE) and cleaning supplies including facemasks,
hand sanitizer, disposable gloves, etc.
- $44,000 for new chairs, tables, reconfigurations and small digital signs in meeting rooms (potentially
including Room 138, Cannon Room and others)
- $17,000 for one seasonal employee working 40 hours/week for six months except holidays to assist with
visitors to the City & County Building
Page | 10
- $16,000 for new chairs in the Committee of the Whole room
- $10,000 for a public noticing digital sign within the ADA entrance at the City & County Building and at
Plaza 349
- $6,000 for desks and chairs to create two check-in areas: one on the first floor between elevators, a second
near the east entrance
o CBI guards would cover the check-in desk as part of the City’s existing contract
o Procedures are being developed for this new function
- $5,000 for appointment management software at the entrance of the building which allows IDing and
monitoring building occupancy
Policy Questions:
Equipment for Hybrid Meetings – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what virtual and hybrid
meeting equipment and training would be made available to the City’s two dozen boards and commissions.
The Council may also wish to ask if the Administration has looked into providing hybrid meeting training to
community councils.
Public Access to City & County Building – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if a policy is
being developed to govern public access during the pandemic to the City & County Building and how the
public would make appointments on the new management software. Currently some departments report
offering limited hours for walk-in visitors and other departments are scheduling appointments.
Public Notice Digital Signs – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if public noticing digital signs
are also needed at the Main Library and the Public Safety Building so the same information is available at
multiple locations across the Civic Campus. Many notices are currently posted on doors with paper.
Other Funding Sources for this Project – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if ARPA dollars
could be used for these expenses (note: this is not recommended for ARPA dollar use by the
Administration).
A-4: Pulled prior to Submission
A-5: Community Health Access Team (CHAT) Program Vehicles ($150,000 from $2 Million Holding
Account; $150,000 goes to Fleet Fund) *straw poll requested*
Note this item is related to items A-10 and C-1
In the FY22 annual budget, the Council created a holding account with just over $2 million from “Funding our
Future” public safety dollars, for diversifying public safety civilian response models. This item is requesting
$150,000 which would be the first use of that holding account. Note that the Council carried over into FY22 a
separate almost $2.3 million holding account originally created in FY21 for implementing recommendations from
the Racial Equity in Policing Commission, the Council’s audit of the Police Department, and the public.
The $150,000 would purchase three new hybrid Ford Explorer SUVs to accommodate increased program staffing.
Two of the vehicles will be used by CHAT staff and the third by the Medical Division in the Fire Department
supporting the program. The estimated cost per vehicle is $50,000 including fuel, upgrades, and maintenance.
The CHAT program currently has one vehicle for two paramedics responding as a team. The program is overseen by
a captain. Item A-10 proposes transferring three social worker FTEs from the Police Department to the Fire
Department. This staffing increase and corresponding vehicle increase would allow the CHAT program to operate
two separate teams. The social workers in the CHAT Program would operate out of the Public Safety Building rather
than the Community Connections Center. The Administration stated the CHAT Program would operate
independent of the Social Worker Program.
The paramedic would assess a subject’s medical condition and the social worker would assess their psychological
condition. The Fire Department responds to approximately 24,000 medical assessment calls annually. If the CHAT
program provides better response options to this frequent call type, then the Fire Department may seek to further
expand the program in the future. The Fire Department and 911 Department presented the expanded CHAT
program proposal to the REP Commission in September which was supportive of this proposal.
Page | 11
An expanded CHAT program with the added skillsets of social workers would respond to calls related to mental
health and homelessness. Some call types are ineligible for CHAT program response including when a weapon is
present or there are threats of violence. This has the potential to divert some calls away from a law enforcement
response so police officers could address other calls for service. The Administration stated the CHAT program
responds to calls for service that (1) do not meet the criteria for emergency service or (2) do not benefit from the
scope of training provided to paramedics and EMTs
Policy Questions:
Identifying and Tracking Calls for Service Diversions from Police to CHAT Program – The Council may
wish to ask the Administration if there are plans to track calls for service diverted from a police officer
response to the CHAT program or other alternative response models. The information could help measure
the success and demand for the City’s civilian response models. The Council may also wish to ask how the
911 Department identifies calls for service that are good candidates for diversion. The City’s alternative
response options include the CHAT program, Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) and the Social Worker
Program (potentially a new Park Ranger program and police civilian responder program too).
Equity in Access to Medical and Mental Health Services – The Council may wish to ask the Administration
how an expanded CHAT program could improve access to medical and mental health services, especially in
communities that historically have disproportionately less access.
Aligning Operating Hours to Mental Health Crisis Call Times – The Council’s operational audit of the Police
Department recommended social worker program and Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) hours change to
include evenings. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if an expanded CHAT program would
have operating hours in the evening. The auditors provided the below graphics showing most mental
health-related calls occur in the evening which is outside the CIT program’s operating hours.
Mental Health-related Calls for Service by Hour of the Day
Page | 12
Straw Poll Request: Does the Council wish to hold a straw poll for this item? The Administration has requested a
straw poll given the significant delays in receiving vehicle orders during pandemic-related supply shortages.
A-6: Non-Represented Employees’ Job Salary Survey ($75,000 from General Fund Balance)
*straw poll requested*
This request is intended for consultative services to be provided by a qualified third-party consultant or firm to
conduct a compensation survey to assess, evaluate and compare the overall pay structure, including actual base pay
and other job elements, of Salt Lake City’s non-represented employees to other public and private sector entities
with whom the City competes for talent. The recommended survey project includes data collection, analysis, and the
development and presentation of a report with recommendations for the City’s Department of Human Resources,
Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC), and elected officials to consider. The survey will be conducted
with a primary focus on cash compensation and rely on the same caliber and methodology as surveys previously
completed for the City's public safety and AFSCME-covered employee groups (as completed by Mercer in early 2019
and 2020, respectively).
Straw Poll Request: Does the Council wish to hold a straw poll for this item? The Administration has requested a
straw poll to allow additional time for selecting a consultant, allowing the CCAC to review at a special meeting in
the spring, and so that results might be available to inform the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for FY2023.
A-7: Sugar House Special Assessment Area Analysis (SAA) ($60,000 from General Fund Balance)
In June, the Sugar House Community Council wrote a letter to the Economic Development Department requesting
the City explore an SAA for economic promotion in the business district. The only existing economic promotion
SAA in the City is for the Downtown. Utah Code defines eligible economic promotion activities as “sponsoring
festivals and markets, promoting business investment or activities, helping to coordinate public and private actions,
and developing and issuing publications designed to improve the economic well-being of the commercial area.”
(Utah Code 11-42-102 Section 19)
The $60,000 of funding would allow the Department to hire consultants and bond counsel to determine specific
rates and revenue estimates, impacted parcels, cost per property owner, legal description of the boundaries and
draft the notice of intent to designate. There is a potential for the assessment to reimburse the General Fund for
those upfront costs.
Page | 13
There is some flexibility in what method is used to measure the assessment such as property frontage, property
area, taxable value or a combination of these. The Council would need to adopt a resolution designating the rates,
budgets, allowable uses and boundaries. An RFP would be issued to accept bids of interested organizations. The
Sugar House Chamber may submit a bid. A letter would also be sent to all impacted property owners notifying them
of the SAA process. An SAA requires support from at least 61% of property owners (not tenants / businesses leasing
space) and periodic approval such as every three years for the Downtown SAA.
Policy Questions:
SAA Activities – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration what activities the new SAA
would provide. For example, would an ambassador program be paid for like in the Downtown, North
Temple, and Central Ninth/Ballpark areas?
SAA Reimburse General Fund Balance – The Council may wish to request the Administration include
reimbursement of the General Fund Balance for upfront costs be included in the SAA analysis.
SAA Boundaries – The Council may wish to discuss whether to support the potential boundaries or if
adjustments should be considered. For example, should the residential neighborhood north and south of
Simpson Avenue be included when the SAA is focused on commercial areas and economic promotion?
Council staff created the below map to show the potential boundaries. Note: once notices are sent it is very
expensive to change boundaries, and may cause additional delays.
Context with Annual Budget - Given that this is a new proposal to be funded with General Fund dollars, the
Council could ask that it be evaluated in the context of the annual budget rather than a budget amendment.
Approximate Potential Boundaries for Sugar House SAA
700 East; Interstate 80; 1300 East;
Hollywood Avenue with extension north on 1100 East to Ramona Ave to 1200 East
Page | 14
A-8: Sorenson Impact Center Social Investment Study – Phase 2 Funding – ($150,000 from General
Fund Balance)
The Administration is requesting $150,000 from General Fund balance to continue the contract with the Sorenson
Impact Center to work on Phase 2 of a Social Impact Investment study. A separate agenda item and staff report is
planned for the larger scope of this topic. The Council may discuss adding the following principles/conditions in
considering allocating the funding for the phase 2 work (note: this may change given the discussion during that
agenda item):
- The Council allocates $150,000 in Budget Amendment #4, for the Sorenson Impact Center to continue
work on this potential program, with the understanding that:
o The goal of the program is generational change, and in order to do that it must be ongoing beyond
the initial investment term.
o The City’s investment will not supplant existing programs and funding, and that assurances are
obtained from partner agencies that this understanding will continue for the duration of any
program created with this seed money.
o The Sorenson Impact Center engage the totality of groups that provide these services and conduct
transparent evaluation processes to determine which partners are best positioned to deliver this
long-term generational change.
o There be strict and transparent metrics to show goals are reached, particularly that the opportunity
index score is improving in areas where it currently lags.
A-9: Pulled prior to Submission
A-10: Community Health Access Team (CHAT) Program Personnel Transfer (Budget Neutral)
Note this item is related to items A-5 and C-1
This item would transfer three FTEs from the Police Department to the Fire Department including two social
workers and one case manager that is a licensed clinical social worker. See A-5 for the full write-up.
A-11: Rose Park Golf Course Water & Energy Efficiency Grant (Matching Funds) ($1,800,000 from
the Golf Fund) *straw poll requested*
The Departments of Public Lands and Public Utilities are working together on a grant application to help fund
installation of an updated landscape irrigation system and other water conservation measures at Rose Park Golf
Course. The grant is sponsored by the federal Bureau of Reclamation and would total $1,889,371. Salt Lake City’s
match for the grant would consist of the following:
Cash
Staff
Labor
Contracted
Services
Department of Public Lands | Golf Division $1,800,000 $61,023 $0
Department of Public Utilities $0 $21,348 $7,000
Subtotal $1,800,000 $82,371 $7,000
Total City Cost-Share $1,889,371
The resulting $3,778,742 would be used to replace the existing irrigation system with new equipment, including
high-efficiency nozzles that allow the watering levels to match turf type. In addition, some areas of fairway grass,
which requires a lot of water, will be removed and re-seeded with drought-tolerant grasses, and the square footage
of out-of-bounds rough areas will increase. The Golf Division estimates that Rose Park’s total irrigated areas can be
reduced by 25% this way without impacting play, leading to significant water savings and furthering the goal of this
grant funding. Note that these changes are distinct from those begun in 2015, under a contract with Siemens, in
which a process was developed and implemented to draw secondary water from the Jordan River. That work
included a new storage vault, pump system and some existing head upgrades, while this grant and the City’s match
would fund the irrigation system itself, as well as the turf changes.
In response to a Council staff question about the potential to access Bureau of Reclamation funds for similar
projects at the City’s other courses, the Golf Division identified two limits:
Page | 15
1.the challenges the Division faces with setting aside large amounts for matching funds; and
2.the level of competition for these grants. They believe that Rose Park is a particularly attractive candidate
for these funds because of the potential to shift such a large share of fairway turf to be drought tolerant. The
three other courses the Division reports as needing irrigation system replacements are Mountain Dell,
Nibley and Forest Dale. Bonneville and Glendale were upgraded as part of the 2015 Siemens contract.
Straw Poll Request: Does the Council wish to hold a straw poll for this item? The Administration has requested a
straw poll given the timing of the expected grant award and when the City would need to confirm acceptance if
the application is successful.
A-12: Public Lands Park Ranger Pilot Program ($1,577,291 from General Fund Balance; $195,720
goes to Fleet Fund; $69,247 from ARPA)
Note: this item is related to items C-1, E-3 and E-4
The Administration is proposing creation of a pilot program with 19 new FTEs in the Public Lands Department
including two sergeants, 16 rangers and one support position. The total annual cost for a sergeant is estimated at
$138,787 and for a ranger is estimated at $111,400. Job descriptions for the two positions were pending at the time
of publishing this staff report. The Administration stated 12 rangers would be needed at a minimum to launch this
new pilot program. The 19 FTEs are being recommended for a larger program.
The program would operate from 8am to midnight seven days a week. The Administration states the rangers may
serve as law enforcement officers. However, rangers would be unarmed and unlike police officers would not be
Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certified. Rangers would operate out of existing City facilities in parks
including the soon to be redeveloped Fisher Mansion Carriage House and possibly temporary trailers. Rangers
would focus on the Jordan River Trail, Pioneer Park, Liberty Park, and Fairmont Park. Rangers are not expected to
operate in the Foothills or outlying natural areas.
The total annual cost is estimated at $2,350,983. The request before the Council is for a half year funding of
$1,175,491 and $401,800 of one-time costs including three trucks and two light response vehicles. The total cost for
the remainder of FY22 is estimated at $1,577,291.
The nearly $1.6 million cost in FY22 is proposed to be paid for from General Fund Balance. This item also proposes
a reimbursement to Fund Balance for salary restorations resulting from the FY21 hiring freeze. ARPA dollars would
provide $1,508,044 to Fund Balance as flexible General Fund dollars available for any use. This is the maximum
salary restoration amount allowed under U.S. Treasury guidance. The remaining gap of $69,247 would come
directly from ARPA for eligible supplies and services such as homeless outreach.
The salary restoration using ARPA dollars in FY23 is estimated at $1,545,746 which creates a funding gap of
$805,237 compared to the program’s annual cost. Creation of this new ongoing pilot program and the limited
available use of one-time ARPA dollars means the structural deficit in the annual budget could be larger in FY23.
The Public Lands Department (formerly Parks Division within Public Services Department) previously paid for
police officer overtime in parks. The table below summarizes these costs from recent fiscal years.
Fiscal Year Police Officer Overtime Cost Notes
FY2018 $63,226 Overtime was paid over a four month period
FY2019 $226,569 Overtime was paid over a seven month period
FY2020 $23,835 Prolonged reduced staffing of police officers resulted in
significantly reduced overtime in parks
FY2021 $9,738 Prolonged reduced staffing of police officers resulted in
significantly reduced overtime in parks
FY2022 $0 Private security firm used to lock park restrooms at
night and provide park security patrols
The pilot program’s purpose and goals include:
- Serving as law enforcement officers in parks (not POST-certified like police officers)
Page | 16
- Providing services and information to park users
- Assisting with homeless outreach efforts
- Making people feel welcome and safe in parks
- Deterring inappropriate activity
- Gaining voluntary compliance of park codes and rules
- Reducing the number of annual vandalism incidents and associated costs for repair/replacement
Policy Questions:
Effectiveness of Civilian Rangers Addressing Criminal Issues in Parks – The Council may wish to discuss
with the Administration the limits of civilian park rangers addressing criminal issues in parks and when
rangers would need to rely on a police officer response. The Administration states the rangers may serve as
law enforcement officers but would not be POST-certified like police officers. The Council may also wish to
ask the Administration how park rangers would coordinate with the Police Department’s parks bike squad.
Private Security Guards in Parks – The Public Lands Department currently hires private security guards to
lock restrooms in parks and provide security patrols. The Council may wish to ask the Administration for
the pros and cons of creating a park ranger program instead of continuing the current practice of hiring
private security guards.
Identifying and Tracking Calls for Service Diversions from Police to CHAT Program – The Council may
wish to ask the Administration if there are plans to track calls for service diverted from a police officer
response to park rangers or other alternative response models. The information could help measure the
success and demand for the City’s civilian response models. The Council may also wish to ask how the 911
Department identifies calls for service that are good candidates for diversion. The City’s alternative
response options include the CHAT program, Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) and the Social Worker
Program (potentially this new Park Ranger program and police civilian responder program too).
Growing Structural Deficit for FY23 Budget – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to provide a
mid-year briefing on the estimated structural deficit for FY23 and how ARPA funding this fiscal year creates
ongoing costs that could need ARPA funding next fiscal year.
Request REP Commission Review – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to present the park
ranger proposal to the REP Commission and share feedback and recommendations.
Training and Equipment for Park Rangers – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what training
and equipment would be provided to park rangers. The rangers would not have firearms.
Reviewing Staffing Level – The Council may wish to ask the Administration when and how the pilot
program’s staffing level will be reviewed to determine if fewer or more positions are warranted to meet the
level of community need.
A-13: WITHDRAWN BY THE ADMINISTRATION
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section
(None)
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section
C-1: ARPA Funding – Public Safety and Homeless Outreach – Public Lands Park Ranger Program
($1,064,368 – Miscellaneous Grants) (See Items A-12, E-3 and E-4.)
Note: this item is related to items A-12, E-3 and E-4. See item A-12 for the full write-up. This item is an accounting
step for transferring funding to the General Fund.
C-2: Community Commitment Program Rapid Intervention Team ($164,750 from ARPA)
Note: this item is related to items E-5, E-6 and E-8
The Administration is requesting the Council approve three new FTEs to work in the Waste & Recycling Division of
the Sustainability Department. The employees would provide a new City cleaning team working with Advantage
Page | 17
Services and the Homeless Engagement and Response Team coordinator in CAN. Sometimes employees in the
Public Services and Sustainability departments are diverted from regular duties to assist the Community
Commitment Program and Health Department.
The titles and job descriptions for the three new FTEs were pending at the time of publishing this staff report. The
total annual estimated cost per FTE is $87,600 which would be $262,800 for a full fiscal year. This item is
requesting $164,750 to provide seven and a half months of funding in FY22.
The three FTEs would be listed on the grant-funded section of the staffing document. As with the park ranger
program in earlier items, these new FTEs could add to the structural budget deficit by using one-time funding for a
new ongoing cost.
Policy Questions:
Three New FTEs Sunsetting with ARPA – The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether the
three new FTEs would sunset with ARPA funding availability.
Staffing Level and Community Need – the Council may wish to discuss with the Administration if the three
additional FTEs would meet the level of need in the community and maximize the City’s partnership with
the County Health Department.
CAN Supervising Sustainability Employees – The Council may wish to ask why the three new employees
would be in the Waste & Recycling Division of Sustainability but be coordinated by a supervisor in CAN?
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Economic Development Loan Fund Move Housing ($100,000 – Housing and $100,000 –
General Fund)
Last March, in Budget Amendment #7 of FY21, the Administration requested, and the Council approved, a
$100,000 appropriation to the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) to assist restaurants and bars by
offering funding to expand outdoor dining as an aid to pandemic recovery. The Department of Economic
Development (DED) stated at that time that its intent in using the EDLF was to ensure that funding would not lapse
due to delays caused by the processes of program development and identification of recipients. As it turned out,
DED did not distribute any of these funds because “forgivable loans are not permitted under the EDLF Loan
guidelines.” Now the Department is requesting the funds be moved from EDLF to a separate account so that these
funds may be distributed as grants, rather than loans.
If the Council chooses to do so, DED would transmit a resolution for consideration to set the guidelines for the
proposed Outdoor Business Activity Grant Program. The program would provide up to $5,000 for outdoor
dining/retail costs or $10,000 for costs incurred in hosting an “Open Streets” event.
The Department noted in the BA #7 discussions that they would prioritize areas of the City using “social justice
datasets,” and reach out directly to businesses located within these areas, as well as work with the diverse Chambers
of Commerce, Community Councils, and other community partners. Since that time, the City’s Chief Equity Officer
has been named and is working on frameworks and measurements to be implemented Citywide. In the meantime,
the Chief Equity Officer provided DED the GARE (Government Alliance on Race and Equity) Racial Equity Toolkit,
and DED is using that framework in all new project creation, including this project.
Policy Question: Would the Council like to consider its support for this program now or after more specific
guidelines are proposed by the Department? If these funds stay in the EDLF they will not drop to fund balance.
D-2: Increase Grant Fund ($0.00 – Miscellaneous Grants)
The annual budget proposed funding from the American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA) for revenue replacement.
During budget adoption, the expense was adjusted based on updated grant guidelines. This increased the expense
side of the grant fund, but recognition of the revenue was not included. This request adjusts the revenue side to
recognize the revenue side of the transaction in the Grant Fund. This proposal will bring the Fund into balance in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
Page | 18
D-3: Premium Holiday – Other Funds (Refuse, Golf, Fleet and IMs) ($0.00 – Miscellaneous Grants)
The Premium Holiday was submitted with the budget with the transfer from the Insurance Fund, but the transfer
into other funds was not included. This amendment is to balance the inter-fund transfers.
D-4: GPS Housekeeping ($74,600 – General Fund and Fleet Fund)
For FY22 there is an accounting change to put the GPS fees for vehicles in the Fleet budget. We missed the piece to
move the current budgets over to Fleet. Public Services has a budget of $39,203; Public Lands has a budget of
$26,797; and CAN has a budget $8,600 that we need to move to Fleet.
D-5: Signage FTE Correction ($51,847 – General Fund)
In the Mayor's Recommended Budget, an FTE for Signage for the Planning & Ecological Services Division was
initially approved, but later reduced. However, the funding was again inadvertently reduced at the Council level,
thus doubling the reduction. This housekeeping request is to replace the funding that was inadvertently cut from
the Signage budget.
D-6: General Obligation Series 2021A Bonds ($23,400,000 – CIP Fund, and $200,000 – Debt
Service)
In November 2018, voters authorized the issuance of up to $87 million in general obligation bonds to fund street
construction. The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A will be issued in November 2021 as the third issuance of
the authorization. This amendment creates the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure
budget to pay for construction of the street projects associated with the bonds. It also creates expenditure budget
to pay the costs of issuance for the bonds.
Bond proceeds will be allocated to five project cost centers in Fund 83 and one cost center in Fund 81 for the costs
of issuance associated with the bond. Two cost centers will receive $6,000,000 each for the 200 South Phase 1 & 2
(400 W to 900 E) projects. A third cost center will receive $6,800,000 for the 1100 East (900 S to Warnock Ave)
project. The fourth cost center will receive $1,600,000 for the 300 North (300 W to 1000 W) project. The fifth cost
center will receive $3,000,000 for local streets. The proceeds to pay the costs of issuance associated with the bonds
will be deposited to the debt service cost center in Fund 81.
D-7: Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds Series 2021A ($10,665,000, $10,400,000 and $4,900,000
– Debt Service)
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A, were issued in June 2012 for the purpose of replacing the North
Temple Viaduct and improving North Temple Boulevard. Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B, were
issued in November 2013 for the purpose of financing a portion of the costs of the Sugarhouse Streetcar and paying
for the portion of various improvements to create a "greenway" within the corridor.
The Series 2012A and 2013B bonds are being refunded with the Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A.
This budget amendment will create the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure budget
to pay off the old bonds and to pay the costs of issuance for the bonds. Two Local Building Authority bonds will also
be refunded by the Series 2021A bonds. This budget amendment creates the budget for the transfer to the LBA to
pay those off. A separate LBA budget amendment is being submitted to create budget for paying off those bonds.
D-8: Budget Carry Forward ($1,175,000 – General Fund)
In the General Fund there were several budgets that did not have encumbrances at the close of fiscal year 2021 the
Administration would request Council approval to roll budget for the projects into fiscal year 2022. The budgets
requested are listed below:
CC CC Name OC OC Description Amount
0900503 Demographer Contract 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $50,000.00
0900925 Financial Risk Assessment 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $100,000.00
0900930 Gentrification Mitigation Study 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $100,000.00
0900705 Washington DC Contract 2324 Special Consultant $75,000.00
0900513 NW Northpoint Plan Airport 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $50,000.00
0900508 Home to Transit Program 2590 Other Expenses $800,000.00
TOTAL $1,175,000.00
Page | 19
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program – New Water Reclamation Facility:
Influent Pump Station and Force Mains (Water and Sewer Infrastructure) ($2 million from ARPA)
See Attachment 2 for the grant memo and Council staff report
The Mayor‘s Administration has submitted a grant application requesting funding of $10 million from the State of
Utah to help fund the construction of the new Influent Pump Station force mains, (a sub-project of the Water
Reclamation Facility), and replace the existing pump station and force mains which are at the end of their service
life. This budget amendment item proposes to set aside $2 million in ARPA funds for the required match. The
Council may wish to note that as part of the grant application, the City has committed a $40 million dollar match
for the grant to increase the competitiveness of the application. According to the Administration, the source of the
match includes the Department of Public Utilities planned utility revenue bond issuances, and the secured loan
through the Federal Water Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act.
E-2: Winter Shelter Support ($1 million from ARPA)
This item would provide $1 million of flexible funding for emergency winter shelter support potentially including
shelter operations. The funding is for winter shelter anywhere in Salt Lake County. U.S. Treasury guidance allows
municipalities to spend outside of city limits and/or pool ARPA funding for regional projects and programs for
eligible activities subject to compliance with reporting requirements and showing a benefit is being received for City
residents proportionate to the ARPA funding amount.
Policy Questions
Funding Winter Shelter Outside or Inside City Limits – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if
the funding would go to a winter shelter outside or inside of city limits.
Hotel/Motel Voucher Flexibility – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if the funding could be
used for hotel/motel vouchers instead of costs related to a winter shelter.
E-3: Public Safety and Homeless Outreach – Salary Restoration – Public Lands Park Ranger
Program (See Items A-12, C-1, and E-4) ($443,677 from ARPA)
Note: this item is related to items A-12, C-1, and E-4. See item A-12 for the full write-up. This item is an accounting
step for transferring funding to the General Fund.
E-4: Public Safety and Homeless Outreach – Public Lands Park Rangers (See Item A-12, C-1 and E-3)
($69,244 from ARPA)
Note: this item is related to items A-12, C-1 and E-3. See item A-12 for the full write-up. This item is an accounting
step for using ARPA to directly fund eligible homeless outreach services and supplies in the new program.
E-5: Community Commitment Program Rapid Intervention Team Vehicles ($160,500 from ARPA)
Note: this item is related to items C-2, E-6 and E-8. See the other items for additional info.
This item would purchase two F-350 pickup trucks and a trailer to be used by the three new employees in Waste
and Recycling as part of the expanded Community Commitment Program.
E-6: Community Commitment Program Additional Police Support ($1,505,920 from ARPA)
Note: this item is related to items C-2, E-6 and E-8
The Administration is requesting $1,505,920 of funding for the Police Department to provide staffing to support the
homeless encampment cleanup and camp re-establishment stabilization as requested by the Salt Lake County
Health Department. Police officers working extra overtime shifts will provide security to ensure the cleanups can
proceed in an environment that will be safe for all involved. Staffing numbers will vary depending on the size,
number of cleanups and the location.
Activity # days Officers # hours Rate Amount Requested
Major Cleanups 14 40 10 $65 $364,000
Minor Cleanups*and area stabilization 122 24 6 $65 $1,141,920
Total Requested $1,505,920
*previously utilized on-duty resources that are no longer available
Page | 20
It’s important to note that these overtime shifts are voluntary and there is no guarantee all shifts will be filled. Prior
overtime shifts for the Community Commitment Program were approximately 75% filled.
As of the October 2, the Police Department had spent $859,460 of the $1,741,890 overtime budget which is 49% of
the available budget. If this trend continues, then the Police Department would be projected to go over the available
overtime budget around mid-fiscal year. The Council increased the ongoing overtime budget by $650,000 as part of
the FY22 annual budget.
Policy Questions:
Total Cost of the Community Commitment Program – The Council may wish to ask the Administration
what is the total cost of the Community Commitment Program if Budget Amendment #4 is approved as
requested? This information was requested and was pending at the time of publishing this staff report.
Area Stabilization Examples – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for examples of area
stabilization outside of immediate cleanup sites.
E-7: Pulled prior to Submission to allow for the completion of Phase 2 of the Social Impact
Investment.
E-8: Community Commitment Program Rapid Intervention Team Cleaning by Advantage Services
($57,000 from ARPA)
Note: this item is related to items C-2, E-5, and E-6
This item would provide $57,000 of additional funding for Advantage Services to conduct cleaning services related
to the Community Commitment Program.
Policy Questions:
Public and/or Private Property Cleaning – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if Advantage
Services cleaning is limited to publicly owned property or if private property is ever eligible.
Quintuple Funding Next Fiscal Year – The Administration indicates the use of ARPA for cleaning by
Advantage Services is expected to increase five-fold from $57,000 to $290,000 in FY23. The Council may
wish to ask why the increase is planned and what changes to the cleaning services could the public expect.
E-9: ARPA Westside Community Initiative (Perpetual Housing Fund) ($4 million from ARPA going
to a New Holding Account in the Grant Fund)
See Attachment 3 for the September 14 transmittal with the proposed framework.
The Administration is requesting $4 million from ARPA to seed a perpetual housing fund dedicated to the Westside
of the City defined as west of Interstate 15. The dedicated housing funds from the Inland Port Authority
Jurisdictional Boundary would provide an ongoing revenue stream. The RDA Board received an initial briefing on
this concept at the September 14 meeting. RDA staff are refining the draft policy and will return to the Board for a
follow up discussion in the coming months. The Council could wait to appropriate the $4 million or place it into a
holding account until the policy is adopted by the RDA Board. The draft program goals include:
- Develop land with a long-term approach to continuously serve a community-defined purpose (could use a
ground-lease approach)
- Create opportunities for revenue generation while balancing the implementation of public benefits (revenue
would be reinvested back into the fund)
- Assist the Westside in mitigating gentrification and displacement (the City’s ongoing study to mitigate
gentrification could inform the program policy)
- Give lower income households the opportunity to build wealth through ownership (similar to a community
land trust model aka a shared-equity model)
- Engage community members in development decisions
- Leverage resources for other neighborhood development purposes (such as subsidizing deeply affordable
housing, commercial space, public infrastructure and art)
- Collaborate with other partners to broaden the pool of funding and expertise
Page | 21
- Carry out efforts with a collective impact approach (including measurable results to report back to the RDA
Board and the public)
E-10: Nonprofit and Business Assistance Community Grants ($4 million from ARPA going to a New
Account in the Grant Fund)
The Administration is proposing $4 million for new one-time community grants split into two separate offerings:
$2 million for business assistance managed by the Economic Development Department (EDD) and $2 million for
nonprofit assistance managed by the Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) Department. The grants must be used
for eligible activities under the U.S. Treasury’s ARPA guidance and meet Federal reporting, compliance and
spending deadlines. Meeting these requirements could create a significant workload for the City’s Finance
Department and Attorney’s Office. For example, some potential categories are narrowly eligible only for evidence
based programs and practices which must have published research supporting interventions producing desired
outcomes. The Treasury is also expected to issue updated final guidance in the coming months.
An ad-hoc committee, or two (unclear at time of publishing this report), would be created to review applications,
question applicants, and have delegated final funding authority from the Council to make funding awards. The
committee(s) would include staff from the two departments managing the grants (EDD and CAN), Mayor’s Office,
Council Office, and a to be determined number of volunteers from several City boards and commissions.
The two departments report a request for proposals would be issued with a one-month window for applicants to
submit proposals. Then the committee(s) would score and rank applications over two weeks and make final
decisions. Funding would be distributed the following month.
Policy Questions:
Delegation of Authority for Deciding Funding Awards – The Council may wish to discuss whether to
delegate authority to the ad-hoc committee(s) or use another approach. For example, the Council could
elect to use the established process the City has for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), annual grants
like CDBG from the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Department, and one-time CARES Act
relief grants. Under the existing process, the CDCIP Board reviews applications submitted during the open
and competitive process, asks questions of applicants at public meetings, then provides funding
recommendations to the Mayor who provides a second set of funding recommendations, next the Council
deliberates the proposed recommendations, holds a public hearing and makes final funding awards.
Equity Considerations – The Council may wish to discuss whether funding should have equity
considerations built-in to the framework. For example, during the pandemic Council Members discussed
the following categories in other grant programs: businesses in and nonprofits serving the Westside,
women-owned and/or minority-owned businesses, nonprofits serving low-income residents, programs
bridging the digital divide, food insecurity, increasing access to medical services and vaccines, etc.
Applicant Assistance – The Council may wish to ask the departments what community assistance resources
will be available for interested organizations to fill out applications? For example, where will in-person
computer labs be publicly accessible, in what languages will the applications and instructions be available,
who is the single-point of contact for each of the two grant programs, how will potential applicants learn
about the opportunity, etc.
Framework for the Grants – The Council may wish to ask the departments to return with proposed details
of a grants framework such as the CIP and CDBG processes. This could include information like
recommended grant program categories, funding minimums and/or maximums, required application
information, and public engagement steps.
Section F: Donations
(None)
Section G: Council Consent Agenda
Page | 22
G-1: Police Department Asset Forfeiture Grant ($1,500 – Miscellaneous Grants)
The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for and received a $1,500 grant award from the State of Utah,
Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), under the State Asset Forfeiture Grant (SAFG) program. The
SAFG program funds crime prevention and law enforcement activities within specific guidelines. CCJJ developed
the SAFG program as a means of evaluating and distributing state forfeiture funds.
The funds will be used for confidential informant funds to enhance investigations in narcotics-related cases. A
public hearing was held 9/7/21 for this grant application.
G-2: Utah Department of Health – Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Grant, FY22 Per
Capita Allocation ($10,250 – Miscellaneous Grants)
The Fire Department applied for and was awarded $10,250 of grant funding from the Utah Department of Health,
Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. This funding will be used towards the purchase of a 12-Lead Cardiac
Monitor and medical supplies relating to the provision of Emergency Medical Services as funding permits. A Public
Hearing was held on 2/16/21 for the grant applications on this award.
G-3: State of Utah, CCJJ (Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice), Jurisdictions with
Halfway Houses and Parole Violator Center Grant, Law Enforcement Services Account (LESA)
The Police Department has applied for and been awarded a $295,570 grant from the State of Utah, Commission on
Criminal and Juvenile Justice, in support of the Jurisdictions with Halfway Houses and Parole Violator Centers
grant. This grant provides funding for law enforcement agencies that provide services directly to areas with halfway
houses or parole violator centers, or both. The Police Department will use these funds for law enforcement overtime
related to reducing criminal activity including targeted enforcement operations, increased patrol response, and
responding to mental health calls for service. The Department will also utilize funds for case transcription services,
six overt camera units and maintenance/repairs/supplies for units in the Department's camera program. A public
hearing was held 9/7/21 for this grant application.
G-4: Utah State Office for Victims of Crime, 2021-23 VOCA Victims of Crime Act Grant ($364,162 –
Miscellaneous Grants)
The Police Department applied for and received a $364,162.48 grant from the State of Utah, Office for Victims of
Crime under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) program, to be used for the continuation of the Victim Advocate
Program. These funds will be used to pay for salary and fringe for 4 existing full-time Victim Advocate positions and
all of the part-time Victim Advocate positions. This grant also covers the costs for Rita, the program's facility dog.
Additionally, there are supplies for the program, emergency funds for assisting victims, and training for Advocate
staff. No match is required by the funding agency.
VOCA funds cover local and national conferences and trainings needed to meet statutory training requirements for
the Victim Advocates. It also provides and emergency fund that can be used when no other victim funding options
are available - these funds can be used for food, clothing, shelter, transportation and 911 phones for victims of
violent crime. Additionally, it provides for supplies such as Victim Advocate brochures, Traumatic Death
Handbooks, cell phone costs, etc. A $109,938.89 match is required which will be satisfied by the salary and
benefits of City funded Victim Advocates and the Program Coordinator. In-kind matching funds are provided by
the student interns/volunteers that participate in the Victim Advocate Program. A Public Hearing was held 9/7/21
on this grant application.
G-5: Department of Workforce Services, Housing & Community Development Division, FY22
Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant Program ($370,735 – Miscellaneous Grants)
The Community and Neighborhoods Dept. applied for and received State Department of Workforce Services funding
of $370,735 to continue efforts to encourage businesses, residents, Homeless Resource Center (HRC) operators and
guests to participate in constructive community engagement opportunities and encourage service-based
interventions in order to successfully integrate the HRCs into the fabric of their host neighborhoods and ensure the
safety of those neighborhoods.
The SLC Mitigation team currently consists of a SLC Community Engagement Coordinator, VOA Business and
Community Liaison, and VOA Outreach Case Manager. This application requests to continue the current team and
expand the team to include an additional VOA Business and Community Liaison, additional VOA Outreach Case
Manager, and a VOA Outreach Peer Support Specialist, and three new positions as part of the City's existing
Page | 23
Downtown Ambassador program - tailored to the areas surrounding the HRCs (King, Miller, and Youth). A Public
Hearing was held on October 5, 2021.
G-6: Utah State Department of Public Safety – 2021 Emergency Management Performance Grant
(EMPG) ($42,500 – Miscellaneous Grants)
The Emergency Management Services Division received a $42,500 FY2021 EMPG grant from the State of Utah,
Department of Public Safety. This grant is awarded on an annual basis to jurisdictions to help offset costs of
planning and updating emergency preparedness plans, conduct emergency preparedness exercises and produce
materials and other media for public educational outreach and training pertaining to emergency preparedness.
SLC's population increases from 180,000 to an estimated 310,000 each workday. Should a disaster occur during the
workday, employees become a part of the SLC emergency response, but are not trained to assist themselves or
others. These funds will offset costs in providing National Incident Management System (NIMS) training to SLC
staff with emergency response responsibilities during a disaster or other significant event. The funds will be used to
fund community preparedness activities, purchase training materials, supplies and equipment including books,
brochures, handouts, etc. The grant requires a 50% match which will be satisfied with the Community Preparedness
Coordinator's time and budgeted for within Emergency Management’s general fund. A public hearing will be held
for this grant application.
G-7: Cities of Service, Johns Hopkins, Justice for the Jordan Grant – Love your Block – ($100,000 –
Miscellaneous Grants)
The office of the Mayor applied for and received $100,000 in grant funding for the Justice for the Jordan, Love your
Block grant. The grant provides:
1. $60,000 to hire a Love your Block Fellow for 2 years.
2. $40,000 to distribute to the community as mini grants
3. The City is also required to engage 2 AmeriCorps VISTA volunteers, one each year of the grant.
4. The City also receives technical assistance from Cities of Service
The Cities of Service Love Your Block program connects mayor’s offices with community residents to revitalize their
neighborhoods one block at a time. Typically, cities implementing Love Your Block invite community groups to
identify priority projects and award mini-grants to support volunteer-fueled solutions that the community can
implement. The City identifies a problem and then engages with volunteers within the neighborhoods of focus and
engages them early in the project design phase as well as implementation and evaluation. The City identified the
neighborhoods adjacent to the Jordan River in Glendale (census tract 1026, 1027.01, and 1028.01) as the target
area. A public hearing was held October 5, 2021.
G-8: Utah State Office for Victims of Crime, Violence Against Women Act, Domestic Violence Victim
Advocate
The City Prosecutors office applied for and received a $101,039 grant from the State of Utah, Office for Victims of
Crime under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) program, to be used for the Violence Against Women’s Act to fund
Salt Lake City Prosecutor Domestic Violence Victim Advocate. The Prosecutor’s Office is requesting a Victim
Advocate to assist and support victims of domestic violence as their cases move to the prosecution and adjudication
phases. The services include information, education and advocacy through the case and prosecution, assistance
with victim impact statements, support and accompaniment to court and meetings with investigators and
prosecutors. The Victim Advocate assists in post release safety planning, preparation for court appearances, and jail
release agreements.
Until this year, Salt Lake County District Attorney Victim Services has provided this support for victims whose cases
are adjudicate in Salt Lake City Justice Court. Funding cutbacks required the county to reassign the advocates to
County prosecutions. Salt Lake City is applying for this new city position to fill the gap in services. The match is
$12,630 each fiscal year, for a total of $25,260 for the two-year performance period of the grant. The match is met
with cash available in the Office of the Attorney’s budget. A Public Hearing was held 6/15/21 on this grant
application.
Page | 24
Section I: Council Added Items
I-1: Council Office Reclassifications and Amending FY22 Appointed Pay Plan
The table below summarizes the reclassifications of six FTE appointed positions in the Council Office. Vacancy
savings will cover the cost difference for the current fiscal year.
Old Title / Grade New Title / Grade
Communications Director / 31x Public Engagement & Communications Specialist III / 31x
Public Engagement & Communications Specialist I / 26x Public Engagement & Communications Specialist II / 28x
Public Policy Analyst II / 31x Senior Public Policy Analyst / 33x
Public Policy Analyst II / 31x Senior Public Policy Analyst / 33x
Associate Deputy Director / 37x Deputy Director / 39x
Senior Public Policy Analyst / 33x Legislative & Policy Manager / 37x
ATTACHMENTS
1. Sales Tax Update and Chart
2. COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program – New Water Reclamation Facility: Influent Pump Station
and Force Mains (Memo from Administration and Council staff report)
3. Westside Communities Initiative RDA Transmittal from September 14
4. Draft Motion Sheet for Adopting Some Items
5. Park Ranger Sergeant Job Description
ACRONYMS
ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act
AFSCME – American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
ARPA – American Rescue Plan Act
CAN – Community and Neighborhoods Department
CCAC – Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee
CCJJ – Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice
CCP – Community Commitment Program
CDBG – Community Development Block Grant
CHAT – Community Health Access Team
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
CIT – Crisis Intervention Team
EDLF – Economic Development Loan Fund
EMPG – Emergency Management Performance Grant
EMT – Emergency Medical Technician
FTE – Full Time Equivalent Position
FY – Fiscal Year
GARE – Government Alliance on Race and Equity
HRC – Homeless Resource Center
HUD – United States Housing and Urban Development Department
HVAC – Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
PPE – Personal Protective Equipment
RDA – Redevelopment Agency
REP – Racial Equity in Policing Commission
SAA – Special Assessment Area
TBD – To Be Determined
UDAQ – Utah Department of Air Quality
VISTA – Volunteers in Service to America
VOCA – Victims of Crime Act
1Subject:FW: Sales Tax Update Through FY 2021These are the Actuals of the 1% Sales Tax Through FY 2021. The last half of the year was big especially in the last quarter averaging 33.8% higher than the previous year. There are inflationary factors that play into this as well. The last 3 quarters have shown record highs, when you adjust the revenue by cpi the last month of June was the still the highest month on record. 1% sales tax revenue received, not adjusted for inflation Month of Sale 2019 2020 diff 20‐19 % Change 2021 diff 21‐20 %Change Note July 5,166,159 5,509,305 343,146 6.6% 5,506,282 (3,023) ‐0.1% August 5,494,943 5,453,557 (41,386) ‐0.8% 5,363,921 (89,636) ‐1.6% September 5,990,942 5,979,661 (11,281) ‐0.2% 6,506,479 526,818 8.8% October 4,966,702 5,463,847 497,146 10.0% 5,190,694 (273,154) ‐5.0% November 5,186,889 5,461,007 274,119 5.3% 5,880,648 419,640 7.7% December 6,321,763 6,883,312 561,549 8.9% 7,020,529 137,217 2.0% January 4,901,735 5,697,416 795,681 16.2% 5,255,105 (442,311) ‐7.8% February 4,925,841 4,468,260 (457,581) ‐9.3% 5,280,150 811,890 18.2% March 5,739,003 5,980,157 241,154 4.2% 7,133,537 1,153,380 19.3% April 4,743,045 4,607,410 (135,635) ‐2.9% 6,304,088 1,696,678 36.8% May 5,480,257 4,834,144 (646,112) ‐11.8% 6,319,024 1,484,880 30.7% June 5,980,148 5,986,060 5,912 0.1% 8,017,577 2,031,517 33.9% Total 64,897,427 66,324,138 1,426,711 73,778,034 7,453,896 Accommodation and Food Services is still slow because of the pandemic. 2020 to 2021 ‐ Sale Tax Actuals 2020 2021 Sector Name sales_credit Diff FY Y/Y % Ch % of Total sales_credit Diff FY Y/Y % Ch % of Total Retail Trade 37,076,952 1,471,251 4% 41.4% 36,696,900 (380,052) ‐1% 42.4% Wholesale Trade 11,887,403 523,932 5% 13.3% 12,281,114 393,711 3% 14.2% Accommodation and Food Services 10,358,167 (2,386,736) ‐19% 11.6% 7,629,468 (2,728,698) ‐26% 8.8% Manufacturing 5,846,937 496,178 9% 6.5% 5,755,063 (91,874) ‐2% 6.7% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 4,261,171 (610,243) ‐13% 4.8% 3,810,664 (450,508) ‐11% 4.4% Attachment 1 - Sales Tax Revenues Update through End of Fiscal Year 2021
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
www.slccouncil.com/city-budget
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Sylvia Richards, Budget Analyst
DATE: November 16, 2021
RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT
APPLICATION SUBMISSION
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: Not required.
Set Date: Not required.
Public Hearing: Nov. 16, 2021
Potential Action: TBD
_________________________________________________________________
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Administration has submitted seven grant applications. In an effort to ensure that the City
Council, Council staff and the public has adequate opportunity to see and comment on them, the
grant application notifications will be included in the Council meeting agendas under Public
Hearings. There won’t be a set date since this is not a required hearing.
2. New Water Reclamation Facility: Influent Pump Station and Force Mains –
COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program
Purpose/Goal of the Grant: If awarded, the grant monies will be used to help fund the
construction of the new Influent Pump Station Force Mains, (a sub-project of the Water
Reclamation Facility), and replace the existing pump station and force mains that are at the end
of their service life.
Grant Amount: $10 million dollars
Requested by: Department of Public Utilities
Funding Agency: Utah’s Governor’s Office for Policy and Budget in conjunction with
Utah Division of Water Quality
Match Requirement: $40 million dollars – Sources: The Department of Public Utilities
planned utility revenue bond issuances, and the secured loan through the Federal Water
Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act. The City committed a $40 million dollar
match for this project to increase the competitiveness of the application. Note: There is a
request in Budget Amendment #4 to set aside $2 million in miscellaneous grant funds
towards the $40 million required match.
Staff Recommendation: Please refer to motion sheet.
Grant Application Submission Notification Memo
TO: Jennifer Bruno, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson
CC: Sarah Behrens, Laura Briefer, Jaysen Oldroyd, Melyn Osmond, Sylvia Richards, Linda Sanchez, Recorders
(All), Jordan Smith, Jesse Stewart, Lehua Weaver
FROM: Elizabeth Gerhart eg
DATE: September 17, 2021
SUBJECT: COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program – New Water Reclamation Facility: Influent Pump
Station and Force Mains
FUNDING AGENCY: Utah Governor’s Office for Policy & Budget
GRANT PROGRAM: COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program
REQUESTED GRANT AMOUNT: $10,000,000
DEPARTMENT: Department of Public Utilities
COLLABORATING AGENCIES: Utah Division of Water Quality
DATE SUBMITTED: September 15, 2021
SPECIFICS:
□ Equipment/Supplies Only
□ Technical Assistance
□ Provides FTE
□ Existing □ New □ Overtime □ Requires Funding After Grant
Explanation:
□ Match Required □ In-Kind and □ Cash
GRANT DETAILS:
Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities requested $10,000,000 for the New Water Reclamation Facility:
Influent Pump Station and Force Mains project.
The Influent Pump Station and Force Mains is a sub-project of the new Water Reclamation Facility and replaces
the existing pump station and force mains that are at the end of their service life.
Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities committed a $40 million match for the influent pump station and
force mains construction from its planned utility revenue bond issuances and from the secured loan through
federal Water Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act for the new Water Reclamation Facility to increase
the competitiveness of the application.
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 118 WWW.SLC.GOV · WWW.SLCRDA.COM
P.O. BOX 145518, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5518 TEL 801-535-7240 · FAX 801-535-7245
MAYOR ERIN MENDENHALL
Executive Director
DANNY WALZ
Director
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY of SALT LAKE CITY
STAFF MEMO
DATE: August 26, 2021
PREPARED BY: Tammy Hunsaker
RE: Westside Community Initiative – Initial Briefing
REQUESTED ACTION: Briefing on the framework for a new program intended to utilize Inland
Port Housing Funds to advance development activities on the City’s
Westside.
POLICY ITEM: Affordable housing; 9 Line and North Temple project area
development.
BUDGET IMPACTS: Inland Port Housing Funds.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Earlier this year, the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency
of Salt Lake City (“RDA”) directed staff to develop a proposed program for the utilization of funds
received by the RDA from the Inland Port Authority. These funds are received pursuant to Utah
Code Title 11-58 Utah Inland Port Authority Act, which provides that a portion of tax differential
generated within Inland Port Authority Jurisdictional Land shall be paid to the RDA to be utilized for
housing. As such, RDA staff is working to develop a new program, tentatively called the Westside
Community Initiative (“WCI”). While the proposed WCI is based on community land trust and
cooperative-style housing development, it is broader in nature to carry out other project types for a
collective impact.
As proposed, the WCI shall facilitate the implementation of transformative housing and mixed-use
projects with a focus on affordable homeownership as a way of building community cohesion and
personal wealth. The geographic scope of the initiative is proposed to be the City’s Westside defined
as west of I-15. The RDA’s 9 Line and North Temple project areas are included in this larger
geographic area. Affordable and mixed-income housing projects will be leveraged with additional
public benefits including neighborhood services, economic opportunity, and transit-oriented
development. By taking a long-term approach to development projects, the WCI will balance the
implementation of public benefits with the ability to generate revenue to be reinvested back into the
community.
Inland Port Housing Funds are required to be utilized for the purposes outlined in Utah 17C -
Community Reinvestment Agency Act, section 17-C-1-412 – Use of Housing Allocation, which
generally limits eligible activities to the development and preservation of housing targeted to
households at or below 80% of the area median income (“AMI”). Under the statute, funds can be
utilized to implement mixed-income projects, mixed-use projects, and related improvements. As
such, funds can be leveraged as part of housing projects for a broad array of other public benefits,
including infrastructure improvements, economic development, sustainable building practices, and
the redevelopment of undesirable land uses. While the primary source of revenue for the initiative is
anticipated to be Inland Port Housing Funds, the Board would be able to allocate other revenue
sources to the WCI. In addition, the RDA would actively work to acquire outside funding sources
and resources to collaborate on projects and activities. This could broaden the eligible uses of
funding dedicated to the WCI.
This memorandum includes initial information on the proposed framework for the WCI , including
the budget and policy structure, goals, and activities. RDA staff will incorporate the Board’s
feedback as specific details of the initiative are developed for the Board’s consideration at a future
date.
ANALYSIS & ISSUES: Additional details on the proposed framework of the WCI are as follows:
I. Budget & Policy Structure: To implement the WCI, the following efforts would need to be
carried out by the Board:
1. Update the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy, resolution R-4-2021, to earmark
the Inland Port Housing Funds for the WCI and to allow for allocations from other
revenue sources. This would be a minor change to the existing policy.
2. Create a new policy for the WCI that establishes the purpose, goals, activities,
metrics, and reporting requirements for the initiative. If the Board is supportive, this
policy would be based on the information contained herein.
While the WCI policy would identify the purposes, goals, and activities of the initiative,
projects would be administered pursuant to existing RDA programs and tools. Additionally, a
new policy would be developed for a Shared Equity Development program. Programs and
tools the WCI would be administered pursuant to are as follows:
• RDA Loan Program Policy: Resolution R-37-2016
• Tax Increment Reimbursement Program Policy: Resolution R-9-2017
• RDA Real Property Disposition Policy: Resolution R-6-2021
• Housing Development Loan Program: Resolution R-7-2021
• Shared Equity Housing Program: Resolution Forthcoming
Refer to Attachment A for a chart depicting the proposed structure of the WCI.
II. Goals: The goals for the WCI are proposed as follows:
• Develop Land with a Long-Term Approach to Continuously Serve a Community-
Defined Purpose
WCI will take a long-term approach to land development and community building so that the
RDA may retain the fee ownership to and a reversionary interest in the property. By ground
leasing to development partners, the RDA will provide an opportunity to receive revenue
generation to serve other public benefits.
• Create Opportunities for Revenue Generation while Balancing the Implementation of
Public Benefits
WCI will strive to balance the development of property with the incorporation of public
benefits. Benefits such as affordable housing and below-market commercial space which
generate limited or no cash flow would potentially be subsidized with land uses that generate
positive cash flow. Revenue generated by projects and received by the RDA will then be
reinvested back into the WCI with the goal of furthering shared prosperity.
• Assist the Westside in Mitigating Gentrification and Displacement
WCI will acquire land with the goal of holding it for the community in perpetuity, thereby
removing land from the speculative market so that it serves low and moderate -income
residents in perpetuity. Housing will remain affordable even as neighborhood change occurs
and gentrification pressures mount, which protects families from displacement.
• Give Lower Income Households the Opportunity to Build Wealth Through Ownership
WCI will create opportunities for families to buy homes at affordable prices by focusing on a
shared-equity model. A shared equity model offers an alternative form of ownership that
provides benefits traditional markets cannot, such as long-term housing affordability and the
ability for low and moderate-income families to build equity. When families decide to sell,
they will receive their portion of the appreciation but the RDA remains as the land owner and
is in the position to continue to sell the home at a below-market price, making it affordable to
another family of limited means. Keeping the home affordable, from family to family, will
benefit future generations by acting as a steppingstone for low-income families to go from
renting to building wealth.
• Engage Community Members in Development Decisions
The RDA will involve the community in the planning and goals regarding long term land use
and housing development. This can translate into residents actively involved in creating
positive change within their communities and projects that reflect the value of its residents.
The result will be projects that incorporate a shared mission and vision with the community.
• Leverage Resources for Other Neighborhood Development Purposes
Revenues acquired through ground leases or partnerships could contribute to other purposes,
including subsidizing deeply affordable housing, below-market commercial space,
infrastructure, public art, etc.
• Collaborate with Other Partners to Broaden the Pool of Funding and Expertise
The RDA would actively work to acquire outside funding sources and professional resources
by bringing together financial institutions, the private sector, nonprofits, public officials,
other government agencies, researchers, and practitioners to collaborate on community and
economic development activities.
• Carry Out Efforts with a “Collective Impact” Approach
The RDA will continuously evaluate how projects work together to address common goals
through a “collective impact” approach that produces measurable results. These measurable
results will be tracked and reported on to promote data-driven and outcome-based decisions.
III. Activities: The activities of the WCI are proposed as follows:
• Strategic Acquisitions
Strategic property acquisitions that may include distressed properties characterized by high
crime rates, properties that are located at target locations, and other opportunities that align
with the City’s objectives and meet predefined policy priorities. Properties will be
redeveloped as elevated real estate development projects that have profound impacts on
people, particularly low-income and vulnerable populations, in order to uplift others, create
economic opportunities, improve health outcomes, and influence the physical and
socioeconomic landscape of Salt Lake City.
• Shared Equity Models of Development
o Land Trust Development
The RDA will retain ownership of land and provide for the sale or rental of housing
to lower-income households. To make certain would-be homeowners and renters
benefit from the arrangement for years to come, the resale prices and rents of the
housing will be capped, maintaining affordability for the next family.
o Multifamily Cooperative Housing Development
The RDA will facilitate the development of cooperative housing projects to provide a
framework for homeownership by bringing people together to own the building in
which they live. A housing cooperative or "co-op" is a type of residential housing
option that is a corporation whereby the owners do not own their units outright.
Instead, each resident is a shareholder in the corporation based in part on the relative
size of the unit that they live in. The co-op housing model provides low-income
households with a way to accumulate personal wealth, through equity accumulation
and mortgage interest deductions.
• Residential and Mixed-Use Rental Housing Development
The RDA will facilitate the development of rental mixed-income and mixed-use projects that
are part of a larger coordinated effort to co-locate housing with the services and resources to
increase a person’s likelihood for upward mobility.
• Other Public Benefits
While it is anticipated that the WCI will focus on affordable housing due to certain funding
source restrictions, there is opportunity to leverage housing projects with broader public
benefits. Furthermore, there is opportunity to broaden the WCI’s funding sources, with both
internal and external sources, to expand the eligible activities funded through the WCI. Other
public benefits could include infrastructure improvements (both street and green
infrastructure), housing for a broad array of AMIs, job creation, small-business development,
street activation, publicly visible art, historic preservation, adaptive reuse, neighborhood
services, among others.
IV. Next Steps
RDA staff will incorporate the Board’s feedback on the information contained herein and
will return to the Board with the following:
1. Revisions to the RDA Housing Allocation Funds Policy, resolution R-4-2021, to
earmark Inland Port Funds for the WCI. The policy will also be revised to allow for
allocations of other sources of revenue to the initiative.
2. A new policy resolution for the WCI that establishes the purpose, goals, activities,
metrics, and reporting requirements for the initiative.
3. A new policy for a Shared Equity Housing Development program that provides for
homeownership by bringing people together to own the building in which they live
while the land is owned by the RDA, or another entity, to preserve affordability in
perpetuity.
PREVIOUS BOARD ACTION:
• May 2021 – The RDA Board directed RDA staff to develop a proposed program for a
community land trust type program for the City’s Westside that utilizes Inland Port funds.
ATTACHMENTS:
• A – Westside Community Initiative: Proposed Framework Chart
WESTSIDE COMMUNITY INITIATIVE (WCI)
PROPOSED FRAMEWORK
Note: The Initiative’s activities shall be administered pursuant to the following policies:
RDA Loan Program Policy: Resolution R-37-2016
Tax Increment Reimbursement Program Policy: Resolution R-9-2017
RDA Real Property Disposition Policy: Resolution R-6-2021
Housing Development Loan Program: Resolution R-7-2021
Shared Equity Housing Program: Resolution Forthcoming
• Develop Land with a Long-Term Approach to Continuously Serve a Community-Defined Purpose
• Create Opportunities for Revenue Generation while Balancing the Implementation of Public Benefits
• Assist the Westside in Mitigating Gentrification and Displacement
• Give Lower Income Households the Opportunity to Build Wealth Through Ownership
• Engage Community Members in Development Decisions
• Leverage Resources for Other Neighborhood Development Purposes
• Collaborate with Other Partners to Broaden the Pool of Funding and Expertise
• Carry Out Efforts with a “Collective Impact” Approach
GOALS
PURPOSE
The implementation of transformative housing and mixed-use projects with a focus
on homeownership and affordability as a way of building community cohesion and personal wealth.
Housing projects will be leveraged with additional public benets including
neighborhood services, economic opportunities, and transit-oriented development.
A Westside Community Initiative policy will be created that identies the purpose, goals, and activities of the initiative.
Projects will align with the intent of the WCI and will be administered through RDA programs and polices.
INLAND PORT
HOUSING
DIFFERENTIAL
OTHER
SOURCES
ALLOCATED BY
BOARD
WCI
REVENUE
WCI
HOUSING
FUND
FUNDING SOURCES
(revenues)
ACTIVITIES
(expenses)
STRATEGIC
ACQUISITION
SHARED
EQUITY
DEVELOPMENT
OTHER
PUBLIC
BENEFITS
RESIDENTIAL
&
MIXED-USE
DEVELOPMENT
Note: The RDA Housing Allocation Funds
policy, resolution R-4-2021, will be updated
to provide for the earmarking of Inland Port
Housing Funds, WCI revenue, and other funds
as determined by the BOD for the WCI. As the
Policy currently stands, there is a NWQ Housing
Fund that receives Inland Port Housing revenue.
This fund would be renamed to the WCI Housing
Fund.
(Insert Agenda Item # Here)
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
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards
Budget Analysts
DATE:December 14, 2021
RE: Budget Amendment Number Four FY22
MOTION 1 – PARTIALLY ADOPT
I move that the Council adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2021-22 final budget of Salt Lake
City including the employment staffing document only for items as shown on the motion sheet.
Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items below; they are listed for
reference. The Council adopted other items at the November 16 formal meeting. The Budget
Amendment is still open, and the remaining items are held until next year for more information and
discussions.
-A-1: Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance Costs ($128,888 from General Fund Balance and
$294,820 from Enterprise Funds)
-A-2: Department of Air Quality Lawnmower Exchange ($250,000 from General Fund Balance)
-A-3: COVID Safe Building Improvements ($844,000 from General Fund Balance; $131,000 goes to IMS
Fund)
-A-7: Sugar House Special Assessment Area Analysis (SAA) ($60,000 from General Fund Balance)
o Note that per the Council discussion, the analysis will include potential adjustments to
boundaries (to be smaller by removing residential areas) and potential reimbursement to the
General Fund Balance for fronting start-up costs. Both options will return to Council for
consideration.
-A-12: Public Lands Park Ranger Pilot Program ($1,577,291 from General Fund Balance; $195,720 goes
to Fleet Fund; $69,247 from ARPA)
-C-1: ARPA Funding – Public Safety and Homeless Outreach – Public Lands Park Ranger Program
($1,064,368 – Miscellaneous Grants) (See Items A-12, E-3 and E-4.)
-C-2: Community Commitment Program Rapid Intervention Team ($164,750 from ARPA)
-E-1: COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program – New Water Reclamation Facility: Influent
Pump Station and Force Mains (Water and Sewer Infrastructure) ($2 million from ARPA)
-E-2: Winter Shelter Public Safety Support ($400,000 from ARPA)
o Note that the Council took a unanimous straw poll (with Council Member Mano absent) that the
remaining $600,000 will be considered for community activities and potentially business
assistance in the area around the temporary emergency winter overflow shelter pending further
discussions. Any use of those funds would be authorized in a future budget opening.
-E-3: Public Safety and Homeless Outreach – Salary Restoration – Public Lands Park Ranger Program
(See Items A-12, C-1, and E-4) ($443,677 from ARPA)
-E-4: Public Safety and Homeless Outreach – Public Lands Park Rangers (See Item A-12, C-1 and E-3)
($69,244 from ARPA)
-E-5: Community Commitment Program Rapid Intervention Team Vehicles ($160,500 from ARPA)
-E-6: Community Commitment Program Additional Police Support ($1,505,920 from ARPA)
-E-8: Community Commitment Program Rapid Intervention Team Cleaning by Advantage Services
($57,000 from ARPA)
-E-9: ARPA Westside Community Initiative (Perpetual Housing Fund) ($4 million from ARPA going to a
New Holding Account in the Grant Fund)
MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT
I move that the Council proceed to the next agenda item.
Salt Lake City Corporation, Human Resources Department
Job Title: Park Ranger Supervisor
Job Code Number: FLSA:
Pay Level: EEO Code:
Bargaining Unit: Benchmark:
JOB SUMMARY:
Directs and oversees the work of Park Rangers patrolling and enforcing park rules and regulations. Under
the direction of Public Lands Department Director, incumbent performs supervisory duties over Park
Rangers involved in performing a variety of advisory, scheduling, public relations, policies and procedures
enforcement work at various Park facilities in the Salt Lake City area parks and natural lands.
ESSENTIAL DUTIES:
1. Supervises employees involved in enforcing rules and regulations in park facilities, natural lands and
trails.
2. Conducts performance evaluations and training on a regular basis. Counsels and directs employees.
Coordinates outside training and development for assigned staff and conducts formal training.
Recommends corrective and/or disciplinary action. Disseminates all information and directions from
administration.
3. Investigates complaints of ranger behavior and makes formal recommendations. Manages assigned
budget and purchases needed services and goods per city rules. May develop standard operating
procedures and make formal recommendations.
4. Assists in preparation of the budget, and ensures program operates within appropriated budget.
Prepares technical and activity reports. Issues and monitors equipment for assigned staff (radios,
bikes, uniforms, etc.).
5. Develops and coordinates strategies for rule compliance and education in areas of responsibility.
5. Acts as a liaison with other government entities and community groups. Coordinate’s information
exchange with local, state, and federal agencies.
6. Plans, assigns, and evaluates the work of staff members, provides technical expertise to staff, and
establishes unit and staff work goals and objectives.
7. Works with various internal and external customers to resolve complaints and/or problems and
answers a variety of questions/concerns. Coordinates with other departments (i.e. DPD, Safety, Fleet)
as assigned regarding operational efficiencies.
8. Reviews, develops, and/or modifies work plans, methods, and procedures, determines work priorities,
and develops work schedules to provide adequate staff coverage.
9. Provides work instruction, assists employees with difficult and/or unusual assignments, and
encourages innovation.
10. Resolves difficult situations involving citizen complaints, mediates conflicts encountered during daily
operations, determines appropriate solutions, and promotes teamwork. Encourages regular
communication and informs staff of relevant business issues and their impact on the organization.
11. Ensures quality, effectiveness, and efficiency of unit activities and safety measures.
12. Conducts hiring interviews and selects candidate(s) for job opening(s).
13. Documents causes for disciplinary action, initiates letters of reprimand, and makes formal
recommendations for disciplinary action. Responds to formal and informal employee grievances and
prepares written responses
14. Performs other duties as assigned.
MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS:
1. Graduation with a Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college or university in park/recreation
management, criminal justice, emergency management, or closely related field, OR 5 years of full time
experience in park/recreation management, law enforcement, security management, emergency
management, OR an equivalent combination of education and experience.
2. Must be either a U.S. Citizen or a lawful resident of the United States for at least five years and
have legal authorization to work in the United States as of the date of the first examination.
3. Considerable human relations and communications skills.
4. Ability to work independently, make critical decisions, and use initiative and common sense.
5. Must have valid state driver’s license or Utah driving privilege card (or the ability to obtain one
within 30 days of employment).
DESIRED QUALIFICATIONS:
1. Experience supervising responders during emergency situations or special events is preferred.
WORKING CONDITIONS:
1. Moderately heavy physical activity. Required to push, pull or lift medium heavy weights. Difficult
working positions. Must stand, walk or sit uncomfortably for extended periods. Moderate exposure to
elements such as heat, cold, dampness, fumes, noise, dust or grease. Exposure to hostile, life-
threatening situations. May be required to use physical force in course of assigned duties.
2. Considerable exposure to stressful situations as a result of human behavior. In field operations,
exposure to stress as well as occupational hazards is of considerable magnitude.
3. Required to work irregular hours in addition to regularly scheduled shift on an as needed basis.
The above statements are intended to describe the general nature and level of work being performed by
persons assigned to this job. They are not intended to be an exhaustive list of all duties, responsibilities
and skills required of personnel so classified.
All requirements are subject to possible modification to reasonably accommodate individuals with
disabilities.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238
PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
___________________________________ Date Received: ________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: October 25, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment #4 - Revised
SPONSOR: NA
STAFF CONTACT: John Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or
Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403
DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that, subsequent to a public hearing,
the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2021-22 adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND $ 1,772,794.00 $ 4,657,529.00
WATER FUND 0.00 18,118.00
SEWER FUND 0.00 7,941.00
STORM WATER FUND 0.00 2,278.00
AIRPORT FUND 0.00 39,790.00
REFUSE FUND 24,907.00 4,109.00
GOLF FUND 14,310.00 1,802,257.00
FLEET FUND 438,905.00 423,258.00
IMS FUND 161,380.00 135,492.00
MISCELLANEOUS GRANT FUND 17,497,861.48 15,751,215.48
DEBT SERVICE FUND 26,165,000.00 26,165,000.00
CIP FUND 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00
RISK FUND 212,897.00 212,897.00
TOTAL $ 69,688,054.48 $ 72,619,884.48
Lisa Shaffer (Oct 25, 2021 17:23 MDT)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY 2021-22 Budget Adjustments
Because the fiscal year just started the Fiscal Year 2022 projections are at budget. The following
chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2022.
Projections for fiscal year 2021 are coming in better than expected, more detail will be shared as
the audit progresses.
Given the available information fund balance would be projected as follows:
With the current use of fund balance from this budget amendment fund balance drops to 12.86%.
FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL
Beginning Fund Balance 6,625,050 82,617,126 89,242,176 7,018,483 50,124,619 57,143,102
Budgeted Change in Fund Balance 2,924,682 (7,810,302) (4,885,620) (4,759,137) (19,471,917) (24,231,054)
Prior Year Encumbrances (3,733,743) (6,165,453) (9,899,196) - - -
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 5,815,989 68,641,371 74,457,360 2,259,346 30,652,702 32,912,048
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 16.62%23.32%22.61%5.60%9.64%9.18%
Year End CAFR Adjustments
Revenue Changes - - - - - -
Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) - (5,676,583) (5,676,583) 5,759,137 7,652,037 13,411,174
Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 5,815,989 62,964,788 68,780,777 8,018,483 38,304,739 46,323,222
Final Fund Balance Percent 16.62%21.39%20.88%19.87%12.05%12.93%
Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance
BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - - - 5,138,235 5,138,235
BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - - - 490,847 490,847
BA#2 Expense Adjustment - (288,488) (288,488) - (986,298) (986,298)
BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (6,239,940) (6,239,940) (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (2,000,000)
BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - - - - 1,772,794 1,772,794
BA#4 Expense Adjustment - - - - (4,657,529) (4,657,529)
BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - (242,788) (242,788) - - -
BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (2,783,685) (2,783,685) - - -
BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (63,673) (63,673) - - -
BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - 540,744 540,744 - - -
BA#7 Expense Adjustment - (6,582,824) (6,582,824) - - -
BA#8 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#8 Expense Adjustment (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (2,000,000) - - -
BA#9 Revenue Adjustment - 439,809 439,809 - - -
BA#9 Expense Adjustment - 362,532 1,555,532 - - -
Change in Revenue 2,202,494 3,018,144 5,220,638 - - -
Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - - - - - -
- - Adjusted Fund Balance 7,018,483 50,124,619 58,336,102 7,018,483 39,062,788 46,081,271
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 20.05%17.03%17.71%17.39%12.28%12.86%
Projected Revenue 35,000,000 294,345,168 329,345,168 40,359,137 317,980,599 358,339,736
2021 Projection 2022 Projection
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $69,688,054.48 of revenue and
expense of $72,619,884.48. The amendment proposes changes in thirteen funds, with
$2,884,735.00 from the General Fund fund balance. The proposal includes forty-one initiatives
for Council review. Including the addition of 22 FTEs in the General Fund supported by grant
funding.
A summary spreadsheet document, outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The
Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The revision corrects numbering issues in section E of the Detail Document.
The budget opening is separated in eight different categories:
A. New Budget Items
B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C. Grants for New Staff Resources
D. Housekeeping Items
E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F. Donations
G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I. Council Added Items
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ______ of 2021
Fourth amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including
the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2021-2022
In June of 2021, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,
Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
2021 and ending June 30, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the
Utah Code.
The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with
the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments
to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically
stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and
inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document as provided above, have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized
by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2021.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes
specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the
same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the
amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning
2
July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128
of the Utah Code.
SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is
authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in
the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2021.
________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________
Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed
_________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _________ of 2021.
Published: ___________________.
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
Senior City Attorney
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Risk 212,897.00 212,897.00 - - One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
GF 128,888.00 - - One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Water 18,118.00 - - One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Sewer 7,941.00 - - One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Storm Water 2,278.00 - - One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Airport 39,790.00 - - One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Refuse 4,109.00 - - One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Golf 2,257.00 - - One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Fleet 2,938.00 - - One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
IMS 4,492.00 - - One-time -
2 Department of Air Quality Lawnmower
Exchange
GF - 250,000.00 - - One-time -
3 COVID Safe Building Improvements GF - 844,000.00 - - One-time -
3 COVID Safe Building Improvements IMS 131,000.00 131,000.00 - - One-time -
4 Pulled Prior to Submission - - - -
5 Community Health Access Team Vehicles GF - 150,000.00 - - One-time -
5 Community Health Access Team Vehicles Fleet 150,000.00 150,000.00 - - One-time -
6 Non Represented Employee Job Salary
Survey
GF - 75,000.00 - - One-time -
7 Sugar House SAA GF - 60,000.00 - - One-time -
8 Sorenson Impact Center Social Investment GF - 150,000.00 - - One-time -
9 Pulled Prior to Submission - - - - -
10 Community Health Access Team (CHAT)
FTE Transfer
GF - - - - Ongoing -
11 Rose Park Golf Course Water & Energy
Efficiency Grant (Matching Funds)
Golf - 1,800,000.00 - - One-time -
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
Section A: New Items
1
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
(Continued)
12 ARPA Funding -Housing & Homelessness -
Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park
Ranger program (see Item C-1 & E-3 & E-4)
GF 1,064,368.00 1,064,368.00 - - Ongoing 19.00
12 ARPA Funding -Housing & Homelessness -
Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park
Ranger program (see Item C-1 & E-3 & E-4)
GF 443,676.00 443,676.00 - - One-time -
12 ARPA Funding -Housing & Homelessness -
Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park
Ranger program (see Item C-1 & E-3 & E-4)
Fleet 195,720.00 195,720.00 - - One-time -
13 ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness -
CCP Rapid Intervention Teams (See Item C-
2 & E-5)
GF 164,750.00 164,750.00 - - Ongoing 3.00
1 ARPA Funding -Housing & Homelessness -
Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park
Ranger program (See Item A-12 & E-3 &
E4)
Misc Grants 1,064,368.00 1,064,368.00 - - Ongoing -
2 ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness -
CCP Rapid Intervention Team (See Item A-
13 & E-5)
Misc Grants 164,750.00 164,750.00 - - Ongoing -
Council Approved
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Administration Proposed
Section A: New Items
2
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 Economic Development Loan Fund Move Housing - (100,000.00) - - One-time -
1 Economic Development Loan Fund Move Housing 100,000.00 - - One-time -
1 Economic Development Loan Fund Move GF 100,000.00 100,000.00 - - One-time -
2 Increase Grant Fund Misc Grants 1,746,646.00 - - - Ongoing -
3 Premium Holiday - Other Funds Refuse 24,907.00 - - - One-time
3 Premium Holiday - Other Funds Golf 14,310.00 - - - One-time
3 Premium Holiday - Other Funds Fleet 18,585.00 - - - One-time
3 Premium Holiday - Other Funds IMS 30,380.00 - - - One-time
4 GPS Housekeeping GF - (74,600.00) - - One-time -
4 GPS Housekeeping GF - 74,600.00 - - One-time -
4 GPS Housekeeping Fleet 74,600.00 74,600.00 - - One-time -
5 Signage FTE Correction GF - 51,847.00 - - Ongoing -
6 General Obligation Series 2021A Bonds CIP 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00 - - One-time -
6 General Obligation Series 2021A Bonds Debt Service 200,000.00 200,000.00 - - One-time -
7 Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series
2021A
Debt Service 10,665,000.00 10,665,000.00 - - One-time -
7 Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series
2021A
Debt Service 10,400,000.00 10,400,000.00 - - One-time -
7 Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series
2021A
Debt Service 4,900,000.00 4,900,000.00 - - One-time -
8 Budget Carry Forward GF - 1,175,000.00 One-time -
Council Approved
Section D: Housekeeping
Administration Proposed
3
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 ARPA Funding - Water and Sewer
Infrastructure Projects
Misc Grants 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 - - One-time -
2 ARPA Funding - Housing & Homelessness -
Winter Shelter Support
Misc Grants 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 - - One-time -
3 ARPA Funding - Housing & Homelessness -
Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park
Ranger program (See Item A-12, C-1 & E4)
Misc Grants 443,676.00 443,676.00 - - Ongoing -
4 ARPA Funding - Housing & Homelessness -
Public Lands Park Ranger program (See
Item A-12, C-1 & E-3)
Misc Grants 69,244.00 69,244.00 - - Ongoing -
5 ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness
– CCP Rapid Intervention Team (See Item
A-13 & C-2)
Misc Grants 160,500.00 160,500.00 - - One-time -
6 ARPA Funding - Housing & Homelessness -
CCP Rapid Intervention Team (Police
Support)
Misc Grants 1,505,920.00 1,505,920.00 - - One-time -
7 Pulled Prior to Submission to allow for the
completion of phase 2 of the Social Impact
Investment
Misc Grants - - - - -
8 ARPA Funding - Housing and
Homelessness - HEART Rapid Intervention
Team (Advantage Services)
Misc Grants 57,000.00 57,000.00 - - One-time -
9 ARPA Funding – Building the lifeboat with
Urban Land Fund
Misc Grants 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 - - One-time -
10 ARPA Funding – Community Grants Misc Grants 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 - - One-time -
-
Section F: Donations
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
Administration Proposed Council Approved
4
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Consent Agenda #2
1 Police Department State Asset Forfeiture
Grant
Misc Grants 1,500.00 1,500.00 - - One-time -
2 Utah Department of Health - Bureau of
Emergency Medical Services (EMS)grant,
FY22 Per Capita Allocation
Misc Grants 10,250.00 10,250.00 - - One-time -
3 State of Utah, CCJJ (Commission on
Criminal and Juvenile Justice),
Jurisdictions with Halfway Houses and
Parole Violator Centers Grant, Law
Enforcement Services Account (LESA)
Misc Grants 295,571.00 295,571.00 - - One-time -
4 Utah State Office for Victims of Crime, 2021-
2023 VOCA Victims of Crime Act Grant
Misc Grants 364,162.48 364,162.48 - - One-time -
5 Department of Workforce Services,
Housing & Community Development
Division, FY22 Homeless Shelter Cities
Mitigation Grant Program
Misc Grants 370,735.00 370,735.00 - - One-time -
6 Utah State Department of Public Safety -
2021 Emergency Management Performance
Grant (EMPG)
Misc Grants 42,500.00 42,500.00 - - One-time -
7 Cities of Service, Johns Hopkins, Justice for
the Jordan Grant, Love Your Block
Misc Grants 100,000.00 100,000.00 - - One-time -
8 Utah State Office for Victims of Crime,
Violence Against Women Act, Domestic
Violence Victim Advocate
Misc Grants 101,039.00 101,039.00 - - One-time -
Total of Budget Amendment Items 69,688,054.48 72,619,884.48 - - 22.00
Administration Proposed Council Approved
Section I: Council Added Items
Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards
5
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Total by Fund Class, Budget Amendment #4:
General Fund GF 1,772,794.00 4,657,529.00 - - 22.00
Water Fund Water - 18,118.00 - - -
Sewer Fund Sewer - 7,941.00 - - -
Storm Water Fund Storm Water - 2,278.00 - - -
Airport Fund Airport - 39,790.00 - - -
Refuse Fund Refuse 24,907.00 4,109.00 - - -
Golf Fund Golf 14,310.00 1,802,257.00 - - -
Fleet Fund Fleet 438,905.00 423,258.00 - - -
IMS Fund IMS 161,380.00 135,492.00 - - -
Miscellaneous Grants Fund Misc Grants 17,497,861.48 15,751,215.48 - - -
Housing Fund Housing - - - - -
Debt Service Fund Debt Service 26,165,000.00 26,165,000.00 - - -
CIP Fund CIP 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00
Risk Fund Risk 212,897.00 212,897.00 - - -
- - -
Total of Budget Amendment Items 69,688,054.48 72,619,884.48 - - 22.00
Administration Proposed Council Approved
6
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2021-22 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
FY 2021-22
Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total
^^ Total Through
BA#5 ^^
General Fund (FC 10)367,582,070 (5,138,235.00) 986,298.00 2,000,000.00 4,657,529.00 370,087,662.00
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)2,033,573 2,033,573.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,550,000 1,550,000.00
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,699,663 7,098.00 5,706,761.00
Water Fund (FC 51)127,365,555 460,716.00 18,118.00 127,844,389.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52)268,213,796 221,826.00 7,941.00 268,443,563.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,201,013 19,705.00 2,278.00 19,222,996.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)706,792,500 1,350,949.00 39,790.00 708,183,239.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57)24,713,505 36,538.00 4,109.00 24,754,152.00
Golf Fund (FC 59)9,697,417 19,649.00 88,749.00 1,802,257.00 11,608,072.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60)4,056,856 4,056,856.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61)28,090,576 18,999.00 112,646.00 423,258.00 28,645,479.00
IMS Fund (FC 65)24,302,487 219,193.00 135,492.00 24,657,172.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)
5,307,142 5,307,142.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,341,332 5,341,332.00
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)18,684,617 10,427,551.76 1,522,743.00 15,751,215.48 46,386,127.24
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)273,797 273,797.00
Donation Fund (FC 77)2,752,565 2,752,565.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)16,121,000 - 16,121,000.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)31,850,423 26,165,000.00 58,015,423.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,503,216 (150,753.00) 23,400,000.00 52,752,463.00
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)2,933,913 24,843.00 2,958,756.00
Risk Fund (FC 87)52,939,489 19,705.00 212,897.00 53,172,091.00
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,755,009,505 7,688,537.76 2,559,683.00 2,000,000.00 72,619,884.48 - 1,839,877,610.24
Budget Manager
Analyst, City Council
Contingent Appropriation
7
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
1
Section A: New Items
A-1: Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance Costs Risk $212,897.00
GF $128,888.00
Water $18,118.00
Sewer $7,941.00
Storm Water $2,278.00
Airport $39,790.00
Refuse $4,109.00
Golf $2,257.00
Fleet $2,938.00
IMS $4,492.00
Department: Attorney - Risk Prepared By: Tamra Turpin
For Questions Please Include: Tamra Turpin, Sandee Moore, Katherine Lewis, Aaron Bentley
(1) The cost of excess liability insurance increased significantly for FY22 – more than a 65% increase in premium cost over
the previous policy period. The bulk of this is driven by recent claim development.
Last year’s premium was $267,278. The renewal premium cost is $443,112.54. We had projected a 15% increase and the
actual cost is more than we could cover with our allocated budget.
The City’s insurance brokers were able to arrange for us to pay the premium in two installments with the second half
($221,556.27) being due by 1/1/2022 to give us time to request a budget amendment.
(2) The cost of cyber liability insurance also increased significantly for FY22 -- 320%. Last year’s premium was $45,490.
The renewal premium cost is $190,887.60. Although we had projected an increase, the actual cost is far more than we could
have anticipated. There are a number of reasons for this; particularly the fact that public agencies are becoming frequent
targets, and the number and cost of claim payouts have increased exponentially. After conferring with the City's Chief
Information Officer and City Attorney, it was agreed that allowing the City's cyber coverage to lapse would be too risky.
The City’s insurance brokers were able to arrange a 45-day extension and then a 90-day premium payment deferral in
order to get a budget amendment in place. The cost will be allocated to all funds as shown in the amendment.
A-2: Department of Air Quality Lawnmower Exchange GF $250,000.00
Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Gregg Evans
For Questions Please Include: Debbie Lyons, Sophia Nicholas, Gregg Evans
The Utah Department of Air Quality (UDAQ) administers an annual gas-powered lawnmower and yard equipment
exchange in order to reduce criteria pollutants in the areas of the Wasatch Front that are in non-attainment with the Clean
Air Act air quality standards. Because the Wasatch Front is on track for attainment of wintertime PM2.5, UDAQ is not
running a snowblower exchange this year. Instead, they are focusing on programs to reduce summertime ozone pollution,
for which the Wasatch Front is out of attainment .
UDAQ has $900,000 set aside to continue the exchanges for the foreseeable future. The size of the lawnmower exchange
varies each year depending on the size of financial contributions from partners. Typically, UDAQ contributes between
$300,000 and $400,000 per exchange.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
2
The Sustainability Department is proposing a budget amendment of $250,000 General Funds to partner with UDAQ in
FY22 on a gas-powered lawnmower exchange. This would facilitate exchanges for approximately 1,000 Salt Lake City
residents
Salt Lake City participated in 2021, spending nearly $161,000 which helped 582 residents participate. In total, 509 gas -
powered mowers were exchanged (the remaining participants bought new mowers without exchanging an old one). This is
the equivalent of removing 4.02 tons of pollution from the airshed each year. A majority of residents also opted to
participate in our Call 2 Haul program to have their gas mower picked up curbside and recycled by Salt Lake City Waste
and Recycling.
The Administration proposes continuing this program in FY 22 (spring 2022). The goal will be to increase participation
from 582 to 1,000 with a continued focus on our Westside neighborhoods. The Administration anticipates greater
awareness and uptake of the program in the comin g year due to increased familiarity with the program, and plans to work
with UDAQ on earlier, targeted outreach given the lessons learned from spring 2021. UDAQ anticipates the program
logistics will change in FY 22 to facilitate easier participation and lower administrative burden. In particular, they are
hoping to develop a phone app that participants will use to sign up and upload any required receipts.
UDAQ is also envisioning the next program will offer a promotional discount code to be used towar d the purchase of
electric lawn equipment and an app would also help separate Salt Lake City residents from other participating Wasatch
Front residents. This will reduce confusion as to who is eligible for curbside pickup of their old mowers. We also hope the
app will help us keep the exchange open for longer for Salt Lake City residents instead of opening, closing it, and opening i t
again while UDAQ verifies addresses.
While the exact amount of the discounts have yet to be determined, the Sustainability D epartment proposes using
$250,000 in City General Funds to facilitate approximately 1,000 gas-powered mower exchanges. This budget amendment
would also fund temporary staffing expenses to assist with running curbside collection of old mowers through Call 2 Haul.
This benefit was very popular last year and helped make this program more equitable to those who might not have the
ability to haul their own mower to a metal recycler.
A-3: COVID Safe Building Improvements GF $844,000.00
IMS $131,000.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente
For Questions Please Include: Lorna Vogt, Dawn Valente
At the beginning of the year, and in anticipation of the reopening of the City and County Building, the Public Services
Department identified a series of critical improvements to minimize the spread of diseases such as COVID -19. Following
recommendations from hired consultants (see attached COVID annex) as well as health officials, changes include a multi -
level approach to keeping building occupants safe, from controlled access through a check-in desk and appointment
management software, to improved indoor air quality. The Department has been informed previously that the following list
of items are likely eligible to be covered under ARPA:
* Needlepoint Devices. When installed in the air handling system of a building, indoor air quality improves reducing
airborne contaminants $250,000 (CCB)
* Open and Public Meeting Rooms: Redesign public meeting rooms for spacing and cleaning considerations. This i ncludes
replacing chairs for disinfecting purposes. $60,000
* Lobby Appointment management software to be installed at the entrance to the building, allowing for IDing and
occupancy control. $5,000
* Entrance furniture. Desk and chairs to be installed at the entrance to the building, creating a check-in area $6,000
* Noticing Board outside of the City & County and Plaza 349 Buildings: Due to State noticing adjustments and the building
access being limited, public notices are not addressing the community in the various accessible options (walking public,
visitors to the building, etc.). Hybrid meetings and other noticing requirements are required to be completed and are
currently being posted on the doors that are frequently accessed. $10,000
* Staffing Entrance. Customer service-oriented staff, under seasonal status, to welcome and direct visitors to the building.
$17,000
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
3
* Enhanced Janitorial. Adjusting the cleaning schedule of all areas of the building from 3 to 5 days a week. (9 months)
$165,000
* Cubicle Pieces. To accommodate office reconfigurations. $100,000
* COVID Supplies/PPE. These supplies are being made available throughout buildings, including facemasks, hand sanitizer
and disposable gloves. $100,000
* Teleconference and Recording Meeting Equipment. Required to accommodate virtual and hybrid public meetings, and
training/orientation including those for Mayor's Board & Commissions, and City Council. $131,000
$844,000 TOTAL
A-4: Pulled Prior to Submission
A-5: Community Health Access Team Vehicles GF $150,000.00
Fleet $150,000.00
Department: Fire/Public Services Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Karl Lieb, Chris Milne, Clint Rasmussen, Lorna Vogt, Nancy Bean, Dawn
Valente
Community Health Access Team, CHAT (formerly known as the Community Healthcare Paramedic Team) was initially
established in 2013, comprised of one SLCFD paramedic. It quickly grew to include a SLCFD Captain and then another
paramedic. The two Paramedics responded as a team to patients that were identified by fire EMS crews as: (1) not meeting
the criteria for emergency service, or (2) not benefitting from the scope of training provided to fire department Paramedics
and EMTs. The CHAT initiative proposes adding two (2) social workers to increase the team’s scope and the ability of the
team to address the overall needs of their patients particularly pertaining to the challenges of mental health and
homelessness.
Currently, the Community Heath team operates with one vehicle. The addition of two social workers will create the need
for two vehicles as two teams will be operating simultaneously. This budget amendment will allow the fire department to
replace the current vehicle, a larger inefficient Chevy Tahoe with a fuel-efficient hybrid Ford Explorer. Additionally, a
second vehicle of the same kind will be purchased for the additional team. The third purchased fuel -efficient hybrid Ford
Explorer will replace an additional Chevy Tahoe in the Medical Division which will be used to support the CHAT initiative
immediately and provide for the anticipated rapid expansion of the CHAT program.
The three hybrid Ford Explorers will need to be outfitted with graphics, radios, tablets, etc. The $50,000 cost pe r vehicle is
the fully loaded cost.
Cost of Vehicle 42,500 127,500
Make ready 2,500 7,500
GPS 316 948
Fuel 2,950 8,850
Maintenance 1,734 5,202
TOTAL 50,000 150,000
A-6: Non-Represented Employees' Job Salary Survey GF $75,000.00
Department: Human Resources Prepared By: David Salazar
For Questions Please Include: Debra Alexander, David Salazar, John Vuyk
This request is intended for consultative services to be provided by a qualified third -party consultant or firm to conduct a
compensation survey to assess, evaluate and compare the overall pay structure, including actual base pay and other job
elements, of SLC’s non-represented employees to other public and private sector entities with whom the city competes for
talent. The recommended survey project includes data collection, analysis, and the development and presentation of a
report with recommendations for the City’s Department of Human Resources, Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee
(CCAC), and elected officials to consider. The survey will be conducted with a primary focus on cash compensation and rely
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
4
on the same caliber and methodology as surveys previously completed for the City's public safety and AFSCME-covered
employee groups (as completed by Mercer in early 2019 and 2020, respectively).
A-7: Sugar House SAA GF $60,000.00
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Ben Kolendar
For Questions Please Include: Ben Kolendar
The City received a request from the Sugar House Community Council regarding the creation of an economic promotion
special assessment area (SAA) for the Sugar House for roughly west/east boundaries of 700 East to 1300 East and
north/south of Hollywood Avenue (possibly extending north on 1100 East to Ramona Avenue to include supporters in that
area) to I-80. The Department of Economic Development would run the Initial phases of the assessment and present
considerations to Council prior to formal action.
The funding request will provide consulting services for shape files, tax revenue estimates. The funding will also provide
bond counsel for the language in the draft notice of Intent to designate.
A-8: Sorenson Impact Center Social Investment GF $150,000.00
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Ben Kolendar
For Questions Please Include: Ben Kolendar
The Administration would like to request $150,000 for the completion of Phase II of the Sorenson Social Impact
investment project.
A-9: Pulled Prior to Submission
A-10: Community Health Access Team (CHAT)
Personnel Transfer
GF $0.00
Department: Fire Development Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen
For Questions Please Include: Karl Lieb, Clint Rasmussen
CHAT (formerly known as the Community Healthcare Paramedic Team) was initially established in 2013, comprised of one
SLCFD paramedic. It quickly grew to include a SLCFD Captain and then another paramedic. The two Paramedics
responded as a team to patients that were identified by fire EMS crews as: (1) not meeting the criteria for emergency
service, or (2) not benefitting from the scope of training provided to fire department Paramedics and EMTs. The CHAT
initiative proposes transferring two (2) social workers and one (1) case manager (LCSW) from the Police Department to
increase the team’s scope and the ability of the team to address the overall needs of their patients particularly pertaining to
the challenges of mental health and homelessness.
This amendment would transfer three (3) PCNs from the Police Department to the Fire Department and adjust the staffing
document. The funding for these positions remains in Non-Departmental.
A-11: Rose Park Golf Course Water & Energy Efficiency
Grant (Matching Funds)
Golf $1,800,000.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Bryce Lindeman
Dawn Valente
For Questions Please Include: Kristen Riker, Bryce Lindeman, Dawn Valente, Laura Briefer
The Administration is recommending recognizing $1.8 million in Golf revenue as matching funds for a potential grant. The
grant funds and cash match will be used for the installation of water conservation landscape irrigation measures for the
Rose Park Golf Course. The existing simple grid irrigation system will be replaced with a head-to-head system with high
efficiency nozzles that enable watering to match turf type. Turf removal will reduce square footage of high -water fairway
grass types and increase square footage of out of bounds rough areas re -seeded with low water grass types.
The project is a shared priority for the City's Department of Public Utilities and Department of Public Lands. Department
of Public Utilities is the project lead for the grant application. Any additional match committed at the time of application
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
5
that is over and above $1.8 million requested in this budget amendment will be in the form of the cash value of the
dedication of effort by existing full-time position(s) in the Department of Public Utilities and/or Department of Public
Lands to the project.
A-12: ARPA Funding -Public Safety and Homelessness
Outreach - Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park
Ranger program (see Item C-1, E-3 & E-4)
GF $1,064,368.00
GF $443,676.00
Fleet $195,720.00
Department: Mayor’s Office & Public Lands Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, Kristen Riker, John
Vuyk
Over the past few years, Public Lands has experienced a dramatic increase of individuals experiencing homelessness using
the parks for overnight camping. This vulnerable population also attracts an increase in people who prey upon them and
impact other park users with drug use, drug sales, and other crime. Public Lands employees have found themselves in the
middle of this extremely complex community crisis, without training or resources to work in this new environment. Public
Lands relies on the SLCPD to enforce camping and anti-loitering ordinances, to assist in clearing areas so staff can
complete their duties, and to respond to calls for public safety in parks. However, SLCPD has city-wide responsibilities and
is not always available for non-urgent park safety needs.
SLC Public Lands is proposing a Park Ranger program to maximize public safety, protect park resources, and to provide
services and information to park visitors. Park rangers may serve as law enforcement officers, environmental experts,
interpreter of cultural and historical points of interest or a combination of the three. This proposal is intended to meet the
following program success indicators:
Making people feel welcome and safe in our parks
Deterring inappropriate activity
Gaining voluntary compliance of park codes and rules
Reducing the number of annual vandalism incidents
Reducing annual costs to repair/replace damaged landscape & infrastructure
The Mayor is proposing to allocate $5.1 million toward a Public Lands Park Ranger program. Funding for the program will
be partially supported through the use of eligible salary restoration dollars. The program will help ensure park safety,
including homeless outreach in the parks.
The Program will include the addition of nineteen employees in the Public Lands Department. The positions are two Park
Ranger Sergeants, sixteen Park Ranger Officers and one support person. The projected annual cost for personnel including
uniforms, training and operational costs is $2,350,983. The amendment proposes to add these positions on January 1 at a
cost of $1,175,491 for the current fiscal year.
The proposed funding will also support one-time costs to implement the program of $401,800, including the purchase of
three trucks and two light response vehicles. Funding for personnel and ongoing costs will be transferred to the General
Fund while funding for the vehicles will be transferred to Fleet.
This funding will be established through a capture of funding for salary restoration from the current fiscal year.
A-13: ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness - Salary
Restoration – CCP Rapid Intervention Team – (See Item
C-2 & E-5)
GF $164,750.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson and John Vuyk
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
6
In September 2020, Mayor Mendenhall launched the Community Commitment Program through the Homeless
Engagement and Response Team. The CCP prioritizes outreach to indi viduals experiencing homelessness while also
emphasizing the need to keep public spaces safe, clean, and accessible to all. The first phase of the CCP was a 12 -week
enhanced neighborhood cleaning program based on neighborhood hot spots reported in CitySour ced via the SLC Mobile
app. The second phase, which has transitioned into an ongoing partnership with Salt Lake County and over a dozen service
providers, focused on intensive encampment outreach of varying lengths of time depending on the size and other
characteristics of camps. After approximately 9 months of this second phase, the City and our partners have been in a
maintenance stage, during which the City has fewer large encampments but is still attempting to handle the nearly 6,000
CitySourced reports over this past year. This figure is triple the number of complaints reported in the app in years past.
To more effectively and rapidly address these complaints from residents and businesses, the Mayor is proposing the
creation of a Rapid Intervention Team coordinated through HEART. The HEART coordinator (via a position that was
funded by the Council in the FY23 budget) will ensure that complaints are responded to with the appropriate level of
outreach through the SLCPD’s CCC or VOA, SLCPD officers to standby if necessary, as well as a City cleaning team working
with Advantage Services. By having a dedicated team to respond, Public Services and Waste & Recycling employees will not
be pulled away from their regular duties, as they are currently when the Cou nty Health Department requires camp
abatement support. The Public Services and Waste and Recycling employees will also be available to respond to illegal
dumping complaints throughout the City.
The program will add three FTE’s for the Rapid Intervention Team. These employees will be covered in part the first year.
This funding will be established through a capture of funding for salary restoration from the current fiscal year.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
C-1: ARPA Funding – Public Safety and Homeless
Outreach – Public Lands Park Ranger program (See Item
A-12, E-3 & E-4)
Misc Grants $1,064,368.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
Over the past few years, Public Lands has experienced a dramatic increase of individuals experiencing homelessness using
the parks for overnight camping. This vulnerable population also attracts an increas e in people who prey upon them and
impact other park users with drug use, drug sales, and other crime. Public Lands employees have found themselves in the
middle of this extremely complex community crisis, without training or resources to work in this new environment. Public
Lands relies on the SLCPD to enforce camping and anti-loitering ordinances, to assist in clearing areas so staff can
complete their duties, and to respond to calls for public safety in parks. However, SLCPD has city -wide responsibilities
and is not always available for non-urgent park safety needs.
SLC Public Lands is proposing a Park Ranger program to maximize public safety, protect park resources, and to provide
services and information to park visitors. Park rangers may serve as law enforcement officers, environmental experts,
interpreter of cultural and historical points of interest or a combination of the three. This proposal is intended to meet th e
following program success indicators:
Making people feel welcome and safe in our parks
Deterring inappropriate activity
Gaining voluntary compliance of park codes and rules
Reducing the number of annual vandalism incidents
Reducing annual costs to repair/replace damaged landscape & infrastructure
•
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
7
The Mayor is proposing to allocate $5.1 million toward a Public Lands Park Ranger program. Funding for the program will
be partially supported through the use of eligible salary restoration dollars. The program will help ensure park safety,
including homeless outreach in the parks.
The Program will include the addition of nineteen employees in the Public Lands Department. The positions are two Park
Ranger Sergeants, sixteen Park Ranger Officers and one support person. The projected annual cost for personnel including
uniforms, training and operational costs is $2,350,983. The amen dment proposes to add these positions on January 1 at a
cost of $1,175,491 for the current fiscal year.
The proposed funding will also support one-time costs to implement the program of $401,800, including the purchase of
three trucks and one light response vehicle. Funding for personnel and ongoing costs will be transferred to the General
Fund while funding for the vehicles will be transferred to Fleet.
This funding will be established through a capture of funding for salary restoration from the current and future fiscal years.
C-2: ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness– CCP
Rapid Intervention Team (See Item A-13 & E-5)
Misc Grants $164,750.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
In September 2020, Mayor Mendenhall launched the Community Commitment Program through the Homeless
Engagement and Response Team. The CCP prioritizes outreach to individuals experiencing homelessness while also
emphasizing the need to keep public spaces saf e, clean, and accessible to all. The first phase of the CCP was a 12-week
enhanced neighborhood cleaning program based on neighborhood hot spots reported in CitySourced via the SLC Mobile
app. The second phase, which has transitioned into an ongoing partne rship with Salt Lake County and over a dozen service
providers, focused on intensive encampment outreach of varying lengths of time depending on the size and other
characteristics of camps. After approximately 9 months of this second phase, the City and ou r partners have been in a
maintenance stage, during which the City has fewer large encampments but is still attempting to handle the nearly 6,000
CitySourced reports over this past year. This figure is triple the number of complaints reported in the app in years past.
To more effectively and rapidly address these complaints from residents and businesses, the Mayor is proposing the
creation of a Rapid Intervention Team coordinated through HEART. The HEART coordinator (via a position that was
funded by the Council in the FY23 budget) will ensure that complaints are responded to with the appropriate level of
outreach through the SLCPD’s CCC or VOA, SLCPD officers to standby if necessary, as well as a City cleaning team working
with Advantage Services. By having a dedicated team to respond, Public Services and Waste & Recycling employees will not
be pulled away from their regular duties, as they are currently when the County Health Department requires camp
abatement support. The Public Services and Waste and Recycling employees will also be available to respond to illegal
dumping complaints throughout the City.
The program will add three FTE’s for the Rapid Intervention Team. These employees will be covered in part the first year.
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Economic Development Loan Fund Move Housing -$100,000.00
Housing $100,000.00
GF $100,000.00
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Jolynn Walz / Randy Hillier
For Questions Please Include: Ben Kolendar, Loreno Riffo Jensen, Jolynn Walz, Randy Hillier
Under Budget Amendment #7 of FY 2021, $100,000 was appropriated to the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF)
within the Housing Fund (FC78) to provide funding for outdoor dining activities and events in the form of forgivable lo ans.
The purpose of these loans is to assist restaurants and bars recover from the financial effects of the pandemic by offering
funding to expand outdoor dining.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
8
After further examination of the EDLF guidelines, DED was unable to provide forgivable loans . DED has determined that a
traditional grant program is the best way to distribute these funds to businesses and is proposing the $100,000 be moved
to a separate account, allowing DED to administer the grant program.
D-2: Increase Grant Fund Misc Grants $0.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
The annual budget proposed funding from the American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA) for revenue replacement. During
budget adoption, the expense was adjusted based on updated grant guidelines. This increased the expense side of the grant
fund, but recognition of the revenue was not included. This request adjusts the revenue side to recognize the revenue side
of the transaction in the Grant Fund.
This proposal will bring the Fund into balance in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
D-3: Premium Holiday – Other Funds Refuse $0.00
Golf $0.00
Fleet $0.00
IMS $0.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
The Premium Holiday was submitted with the budget with the transfer from the Insurance Fund, but the transfer into
other funds was not included. This amendment is to balance the inter-fund transfers.
D-4: GPS Housekeeping GF -$74,600.00
GF $74,600.00
Fleet $74,600.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente
For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk, Dawn Valente
For FY22 there is an accounting change to put the GPS fees for vehicles in the Fleet budget. We missed the piece to move
the current budgets over to Fleet. Public Services has a budget of $39,203; Public Lands has a budget of $26,797; and CAN
has a budget $8,600 that we need to move to Fleet.
D-5: Signage FTE Correction GF $51,847.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente
For Questions Please Include: Lorna Vogt, Dawn Valente, John Vuyk
In the Mayor's Recommended Budget, an FTE for Signage for the Planning & Ecological Services Division was initially
approved, but later reduced . However, the funding was again inadvertently reduced at the Council level, thus doubling the
reduction. This housekeeping request is to replace the funding that was inadvertently cut from the Signage budget.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
9
D-6: General Obligation Series 2021A Bonds CIP $23,400,000.00
Debt Service $200,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Brandon Bagley / Marina Scott
For Questions Please Include: Brandon Bagley, Marina Scott, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
In November 2018, voters authorized the issuance of up to $87 million in general obligation bonds to fund street
construction. The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A will be issued in November 2021 as the third issuance of the
authorization. This amendment creates the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure budget to
pay for construction of the street projects associated with the bonds. It also creates expenditure budget to pay the costs of
issuance for the bonds.
Bond proceeds will be allocated to five project cost centers in Fund 83 and one cost center in Fund 81 for the costs of
issuance associated with the bond. Two cost centers will receive $6,000,000 each for the 200 South Phase 1 & 2 (400 W to
900 E) projects. A third cost center will receive $6,800,000 for the 1100 East (900 S to Warnock Ave) project. The fourth
cost center will receive $1,600,000 for the 300 North (300 W to 1000 W) project. The fifth cost ce nter will receive
$3,000,000 for local streets. The proceeds to pay the costs of issuance associated with the bonds will be deposited to the
debt service cost center in Fund 81.
D-7: Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A Debt Service $10,665,000.00
Debt Service $10,400,000.00
Debt Service $4,900,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Brandon Bagley / Marina Scott
For Questions Please Include: Brandon Bagley, Marina Scott, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A, were issued in June 2012 for the purpose of replacing the North
Temple Viaduct and improving North Temple Boulevard.
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B, were issued in November 2013 for the purpose of financing a portion of
the costs of the Sugarhouse Streetcar and paying for the portion of various improvements to create a "greenway" within the
corridor.
The Series 2012A and 2013B bonds are being refunded with the Sales Tax Refunding Revenu e Bonds, Series 2021A. This
budget amendment will create the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure budget to pay off
the old bonds and to pay the costs of issuance for the bonds. Two Local Building Authority bonds will also b e refunded by
the Series 2021A bonds. This budget amendment creates the budget for the transfer to the LBA to pay those off. A separate
budget amendment for the LBA is being submitted to create budget for the payoff of those bonds.
D-8: Budget Carry Forward GF $1,175,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk, Teresa Beckstrand
In the General Fund there were a number of budgets that did not have encumbrances at the close of fiscal year 2021 the
Administration would request Council approval to roll budget for the projects into fiscal year 2022. The budgets requested
are listed below:
CC CC Name OC OC Description Amount
0900503 Demographer Contract 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $50,000.00
0900925 Financial Risk Assessment 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $100,000.00
0900930 Gentrification Mitigation Study 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $100,000.00
0900705 Washington DC Contract 2324 Special Consultant $75,000.00
0900513 NW Northpoint Plan Airport 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $50,000.00
0900508 Home to Transit Program 2590 Other Expenses $800,000.00
TOTAL $1,175,000.00
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
10
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: ARPA Funding – Water and Sewer Infrastructure
Projects Misc Grants $2,000,000.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Laura Briefer, Mary Beth Thompson, John
Vuyk
The Mayor proposes to set aside $2 million for required matching funding as we prepare to apply for State funds for water
and sewer infrastructure projects.
E-2: ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness –Winter
Shelter Support Misc Grants $1,000,000.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
Mayor Mendenhall is proposing that the Council set aside approximately $1 million of the City’s Rescue Plan allocation for
emergency shelter needs. Such funds could be used to assist the shelter operator with operations costs or go toward other
expenses such as public safety or neighborhood mitigation.
E-3: ARPA Funding – Public Safety and Homeless
Outreach – Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park
Ranger program (See Item A-12, C-1 & E-4)
Misc Grants $443,677.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
Over the past few years, Public Lands has experienced a dramatic increase of individuals experiencing homelessness using
the parks for overnight camping. This vulnerable population also attracts an increase in people who prey upon them and
impact other park users with drug use, drug sales, and other crime. Public Lands employees have found themselves in the
middle of this extremely complex community crisis, without training or resources to work in this new environment. Public
Lands relies on the SLCPD to enforce camping and anti-loitering ordinances, to assist in clearing areas so staff can
complete their duties, and to respond to calls for public safety in parks. However, SLCPD has city -wide responsibilities
and is not always available for non-urgent park safety needs.
SLC Public Lands is proposing a Park Ranger program to maximize public safety, protect park resources, and to provide
services and information to park visitors. Park rangers may serve as law enforcement officers, environmental experts,
interpreter of cultural and historical points of interest or a combination of the three. This proposal is intended to meet t he
following program success indicators:
Making people feel welcome and safe in our parks
Deterring inappropriate activity
Gaining voluntary compliance of park codes and rules
Reducing the number of annual vandalism incidents
Reducing annual costs to repair/replace damaged landscape & infrastructure
The Mayor is proposing to allocate $5.1 million toward a Public Lands Park Ranger program. Funding for the program will
be partially supported through the use of eligible salary restoration dollars. The program will help ensure park safety,
including homeless outreach in the parks.
The Program will include the addition of nineteen employees in the Public Lands Department. The positions are two Park
Ranger Sergeants, sixteen Park Ranger Officers and one support person. The projected annual cost for personnel including
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
11
uniforms, training and operational costs is $2,350,983. The amendment proposes to add these positions on January 1 at a
cost of $1,175,491 for the current fiscal year.
The proposed funding will also support one-time costs to implement the program of $401,800, including the purchase of
three trucks and one light response vehicle. Funding for personnel and ongoing costs will be transferred to the General
Fund while funding for the vehicles will be transferred to Fleet.
This funding will be established through a capture of funding for salary restoration from the curren t fiscal year.
E-4: ARPA Funding – Public Safety and Homeless
Outreach – Public Lands Park Rangers (See Item A12, C-1
& E3)
Misc Grants $69,244.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
Over the past few years, Public Lands has experienced a dramatic increase of individuals experiencing homelessness using
the parks for overnight camping. This vulnerable population also attracts an increase in people who prey upon them and
impact other park users with drug use, drug sales, and other crime. Public Lands employees have found themselves in the
middle of this extremely complex community crisis, without training or resources to work in this new environment. Public
Lands relies on the SLCPD to enforce camping and anti-loitering ordinances, to assist in clearing areas so staff can
complete their duties, and to respond to calls for public safety in parks. However, SLCPD has city -wide responsibilities
and is not always available for non-urgent park safety needs.
SLC Public Lands is proposing a Park Ranger program to maximize public safety, protect park resources, and to provide
services and information to park visitors. Park rangers may serve as law enforcement officers, environmental experts,
interpreter of cultural and historical points of interest or a combination of the three. This proposal is intended to meet t he
following program success indicators:
Making people feel welcome and safe in our parks
Deterring inappropriate activity
Gaining voluntary compliance of park codes and rules
Reducing the number of annual vandalism incidents
Reducing annual costs to repair/replace damaged landscape & infrastructure
The Mayor is proposing to allocate $5.1 million toward a Public Lands Park Ranger program. Funding for the program will
be partially supported through the use of eligible salary restoration dollars. The program will help ensure park safety,
including homeless outreach in the parks.
The Program will include the addition of nineteen empl oyees in the Public Lands Department. The positions are two Park
Ranger Sergeants, sixteen Park Ranger Officers and one support person. The projected annual cost for personnel including
uniforms, training and operational costs is $2,350,983. The amendment proposes to add these positions on January 1 at a
cost of $1,175,491 for the current fiscal year.
The proposed funding will also support one-time costs to implement the program of $401,800, including the purchase of
three trucks and one light response vehicle. Funding for personnel and ongoing costs will be transferred to the General
Fund while funding for the vehicles will be transferred to Fleet.
This funding will be a direct charge to the ARPA grant..
E-5: ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness – CCP
Rapid Intervention Team (See Item A-13 & C-2) Misc Grants $160,500.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
12
In September 2020, Mayor Mendenhall launched the Community Commitment Program through the Homeless
Engagement and Response Team. The CCP prioritizes outreach to individuals experiencing homelessness while also
emphasizing the need to keep public spaces saf e, clean, and accessible to all. The first phase of the CCP was a 12-week
enhanced neighborhood cleaning program based on neighborhood hot spots reported in CitySourced via the SLC Mobile
app. The second phase, which has transitioned into an ongoing partne rship with Salt Lake County and over a dozen service
providers, focused on intensive encampment outreach of varying lengths of time depending on the size and other
characteristics of camps. After approximately 9 months of this second phase, the City and ou r partners have been in a
maintenance stage, during which the City has fewer large encampments but is still attempting to handle the nearly 6,000
CitySourced reports over this past year. This figure is triple the number of complaints reported in the app in years past.
To more effectively and rapidly address these complaints from residents and businesses, the Mayor is proposing the
creation of a Rapid Intervention Team coordinated through HEART. The HEART coordinator (via a position that was
funded by the Council in the FY23 budget) will ensure that complaints are responded to with the appropriate level of
outreach through the SLCPD’s CCC or VOA, SLCPD officers to standby if necessary, as well as a City cleaning team working
with Advantage Services. By having a dedicated team to respond, Public Services and Waste & Recycling employees will not
be pulled away from their regular duties, as they are currently when the County Health Department requires camp
abatement support. The Public Services and Waste and Recycling employees will also be available to respond to illegal
dumping complaints throughout the City.
The program will add three FTE’s for the Rapid Intervention Team. These employees will be covered in part the first year.
This funding will be established through a capture of funding for salary restoration from the current fiscal year.
E-6: ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness – CCP
Rapid Intervention Team (Police Support) Misc Grants $1,505,920.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
The Administration is requesting $1,505,920 of funding, to provide funding for Clean Neighborhoods Teams for the Police
Department to provide staffing to support the homeless encampment cleanup and camp re -establishment stabilization as
requested by the Salt Lake County Health Department. Police of ficers working extra overtime shifts will provide security to
ensure the cleanups can proceed in an environment that will be safe for all involved. Staffing numbers will vary depending
on the size, number of cleanups and the location.
Activity # days Officers # hours Rate Amount Requested
Major Cleanups 14 40 10 $65 $364,000
Minor Cleanups* 122 24 6 $65 $1,141,920
And area stabilization
Total Requested $1,505,920
*previously utilized on-duty resources that are no longer available
E-7: Pulled Prior to Submission to allow for the completion of
phase 2 of the Social Impact Investment
In Budget Amendment 4, Mayor Mendenhall proposes to allocate $150,000 in General Fund money to complete Phase 2 of
this study (Item A-9). Mayor Mendenhall further proposes that the City Council hold approximately $10 million of the
City’s Rescue Plan appropriation until the completion of Phase 2, when the City and Sorenson Impact Center have fully
completed a recommendation on the financial structure of the investment, including but not limited to the contributions of
private investors and the long-term financial viability of these programs. Because Rescue Plan funds need not be spent
until the end of 2024, Mayor respectfully requests that the Council leave a portion of the City’s funds un -allocated until the
completion of Phase 2, which is anticipated to t ake 6-9 months, at which point the Administration and Council can make
an informed decision on seed funding for this initiative. During this time, the Administration will also be working with
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
13
potential investment partners with the ultimate goal of funding a $100 million social impact project on the two
interventions Sorenson has identified as the most impactful to the long -term economic health of City residents.
E-8: ARPA Funding – CCP HEART Rapid Intervention Team Misc Grants $57,000.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk, Michelle
Hoon
To more effectively and rapidly address these complaints from residents and businesses, the Mayor is proposing the
creation of a Rapid Intervention Team coordinated through HEART. The HEART coordinator (via a position that was
funded by the Council in the FY23 budget) will ensure that complaints are responded to with the appropriate level of
outreach through the SLCPD’s CCC or VOA, SLCPD officers to standby if necessary, as well as a City cleaning team working
with Advantage Services. By having a dedicated team to respond, Public Services and Waste & Recycling employees will not
be pulled away from their regular duties, as they are currently when the County Health Department requires camp
abatement support. The Public Services and Waste and Recycling employees will also be available to respond to illegal
dumping complaints throughout the City.
Work will be coordinated with Advantage Services. The program will be monitored for the first six months to evaluate the
effectiveness of the service.
E-9: ARPA Funding – Westside Community Initiative Misc Grants $4,000,000.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Ben Kolendar, Danny Walz, Mary Beth
Thompson, John Vuyk
As a function of utilizing the tax differential collected by the Inland Port Authority and allocated to the RDA for affordabl e
housing, the RDA Board has endorsed the creation of an Urban Land Fund in order to develop and secure perpetual
housing affordability on the City’s west side. Under the direction of the RDA, the fund would look to maximize
opportunities for affordability in both rental housing and home ownership as well as limited commercial uses
within mixed use developments. RDA staff is currently working on potential options for the structure of the land fund. This
process includes the evaluation of opportunities for community wealth building and cooperative housing models within a
perpetual housing fund. The allocation of this funding source is intended to offset the impacts on the west side from the
Inland Port development. The opportunity of this program is to strengthen the commun ity by providing a mechanism to
help reverse the historical impacts of disinvestment and inequality on the residents in this area of the City. Mayor
Mendenhall proposes the allocation of $4 million in seed funds for implementing the policy proposals that emerge from
the current study, including the following goals:
Develop Land with a Long-Term Approach to Continuously Serve a Community-Defined Purpose
WCI will take a long-term approach to land development and community building so that the RDA may retain the
fee ownership to and a reversionary interest in the property. By ground leasing to development partners, the RDA
will provide an opportunity to receive revenue generation to serve other public benefits.
Create Opportunities for Revenue Generation while Balancing the Implementation of Public
Benefits
WCI will strive to balance the development of property with the incorporation of public benefits. Benefits such as
affordable housing and below-market commercial space which generate limited or no cash flow would potentially
be subsidized with land uses that generate positive cash flow. Revenue generated by projects and received by the
RDA will then be reinvested back into the WCI with the goal of furthering shared prosperity.
Assist the Westside in Mitigating Gentrification and Displacement
WCI will acquire land with the goal of holding it for the community in perpetuity, thereby removing land from the
speculative market so that it serves low and moderate-income residents in perpetuity. Housing will remain
affordable even as neighborhood change occurs and gentrification pressures mount, which protects families from
displacement.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
14
Give Lower Income Households the Opportunity to Build Wealth Through Ownership
WCI will create opportunities for families to buy homes at affordable prices by focusing on a shared-equity model.
A shared equity model offers an alternative form of ownership that provides benefits traditional markets cannot,
such as long-term housing affordability and the ability for low and moderate -income families to build
equity. When families decide to sell, they will receive their portion of the appreciation but the RDA remains as the
land owner and is in the position to continue to sell the home at a below-market price, making it affordable to
another family of limited means. Keeping the home affordable, from family to family, will benefit future
generations by acting as a steppingstone for low-income families to go from renting to building wealth.
Engage Community Members in Development Decisions
The RDA will involve the community in the planning and goals regarding long term land use and housing
development. This can translate into residents actively involved in creating positive change within their
communities and projects that reflect the value of its residents. The result will be projects that incorporate a
shared mission and vision with the community.
Leverage Resources for Other Neighborhood Development Purposes
Revenues acquired through ground leases or partnerships could contribute to othe r purposes, including
subsidizing deeply affordable housing, below-market commercial space, infrastructure, public art, etc.
Collaborate with Other Partners to Broaden the Pool of Funding and Expertise
The RDA would actively work to acquire outside funding sources and professional resources by bringing together
financial institutions, the private sector, nonprofits, public officials, other government agencies, researchers, and
practitioners to collaborate on community and economic development activities.
Carry Out Efforts with a “Collective Impact” Approach
The RDA will continuously evaluate how projects work together to address common goals through a “collective
impact” approach that produces measurable results. These measurable results will be tracked and reported on to
promote data-driven and outcome-based decisions.
E-10: ARPA Funding – Community Grants Misc Grants $4,000,000.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Ben Kolendar, Blake Thomas, Mary Beth
Thompson, John Vuyk
Community grants
Mayor Mendenhall proposes an allocation of $ 4 million toward community grants. These grants will give community
organizations and local businesses the opportunity to propose to the City what COVID -related problems they are trying to
solve City staff and volunteers from relevant City boards and commissions would select grantees at the conclusion of an
open solicitation process. The Administration proposes to split these grant funds into two categories, with half of the
allocation going to Economic Development and half to Community and Neighborhoods. These departments will scope the
challenge facing residents and businesses, and launch two solicitations seeking proposals on the COVID -related problem
that the applicant desires to address under the following broad categories:
o CAN grants -- Nonprofit support (to be further refined by CAN): This could include programs like
retraining of displaced workers, nonprofit legal services for eviction assistance, expanded educational
opportunities, resources to mitigate the digital divide, access to healthcare for underserved populations,
mental health assistance, etc.
o DED grants -- Business assistance (to be further refined by DED): This could include grants for
businesses not included in other government programs during the pandemic, especially small and local
businesses, and support for artist/artisan businesses.
Section F: Donations
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
15
Section G: Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda #2
G-1: Police Department Asset Forfeiture Grant Misc. Grants $1,500.00
Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Jordan Smith, Shellie Dietrich
The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for and received a $1,500 grant award from the State of Utah, Commission
on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), under the State Asset For feiture Grant (SAFG) program. The SAFG program
funds crime prevention and law enforcement activities within specific guidelines. CCJJ developed the SAFG program as a
means of evaluating and distributing state forfeiture funds.
The funds will be used for confidential informant funds to enhance investigations in narcotics-related cases.
A public hearing was held 9/7/21 for this grant application.
G-2: Utah Department of Health - Bureau of Emergency Medical
Services (EMS)grant, FY22 Per Capita Allocation Misc. Grants $10,250.00
Department: Emergency Management Prepared By: Brittany Blair/ Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Clint Rasmussen, Brittany Blair
The Fire Department applied for and was awarded $10,250 of grant funding from the Utah Department of Health, Bureau
of Emergency Medical Services. This funding will be used towards the purchase of a 12 -Lead Cardiac Monitor and medical
supplies relating to the provision of Emergency Medical Services as funding permits.
A Public Hearing was held on 2/16/21 for the grant applications on this award.
G-3: State of Utah, CCJJ (Commission on Criminal and Juvenile
Justice), Jurisdictions with Halfway Houses and Parole Violator
Centers Grant, Law Enforcement Services Account (LESA)
Misc. Grants $295,571.00
Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Clint Rasmussen, Brittany Blair
The Police Department has applied for and been awarded a $295,570 grant from the State of Utah, Commission on
Criminal and Juvenile Justice, in support of the Jurisdictions with Halfway Houses and Parole Violator Centers grant.
This grant provides funding for law enforcement agencies that provide services directly to areas with halfwa y houses or
parole violator centers, or both. The Police Department will use these funds for law enforcement overtime related to
reducing criminal activity including targeted enforcement operations, increased patrol response, and responding to mental
health calls for service. The Department will also utilize funds for case transcription services, six overt camera units and
maintenance/repairs/supplies for units in the Department's camera program.
A public hearing was held 9/7/21 for this grant application.
G-4: Utah State Office for Victims of Crime, 2021-2023 VOCA Victims
of Crime Act Grant Misc. Grants $364,162.48
Department: Police Department Prepared By: Wendy Isom/ Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Wendy Isom, Jordan Smith, Shellie Dietrich
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
16
The Police Department applied for and received a $364,162.48 grant from the State of Utah, Office for Victims of Crime
under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) program, to be used for the continuation of the Victim Advocate Program. These
funds will be used to pay for salary and fringe for 4 existing full-time Victim Advocate positions and all of the part-time
Victim Advocate positions. This grant also covers the costs for Rita, the program's facility dog. Additionally, there are
supplies for the program, emergency funds for assisting victims, and training for Advocate staff.
No match is required by the funding agency.
VOCA funds cover local and national conferences and trainings needed to meet statutory training requirements for the
Victim Advocates. It also provides and emergency fund that can be used when no other victim funding options are available
- these funds can be used for food, clothing, shelter, transportation and 911 phones for victims of violent crime.
Additionally, it provides for supplies such as Victim Advocate brochures, Traumatic Death Handbooks, cell phone costs,
etc.
A $109,938.89 match is required which will be satisfied by the salary and benefits of City funded Victim Advocates and the
Program Coordinator. In-kind matching funds are provided by the student interns/volunteers that participate in the
Victim Advocate Program.
A Public Hearing was held 9/7/21 on this grant application.
G-5: Department of Workforce Services, Housing & Community
Development Division, FY22 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation
Grant Program
Misc. Grants $370,735.00
Department: Community and Neighborhoods Prepared By: Michelle Hoon / Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Michelle Hoon, Brent Beck
The Community and Neighborhoods Dept. applied for and received State Department of Workforce Services funding of
$370,735 to continue efforts to encourage businesses, residents, Homeless Resource Center (HRC) operators and guests to
participate in constructive community engagement opportunities and encourage service-based interventions in order to
successfully integrate the HRCs into the fabric of their host neighborhoods and ensure the safety of those
neighborhoods.
The SLC Mitigation team currently consists of a SLC Community Engagement Coordinator, VOA Business and Community
Liaison, and VOA Outreach Case Manager. This application requests to continue the current team and expand the team to
include an additional VOA Business and Community Liaison, additional VOA Outreach Case Manager, and a VOA
Outreach Peer Support Specialist, and three new positions as part of the City's existing Downtown Ambassador program -
tailored to the areas surrounding the HRCs (King, Miller, and Youth).
A Public Hearing will be scheduled for the application on this grant.
G-6: Utah State Department of Public Safety - 2021 Emergency
Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Misc. Grants $42,500.00
Department: Emergency Management Services Prepared By: Audrey Pierce / Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Audrey Pierce, Clint Rasmussen
The Emergency Management Services Division received a $42,500 FY2021 EMPG grant from the State of Utah,
Department of Public Safety. This grant is awarded on an annual basis to ju risdictions to help offset costs of planning and
updating emergency preparedness plans, conduct emergency preparedness exercises and produce materials and other
media for public educational outreach and training pertaining to emergency preparedness.
SLC's population increases from 180,000 to an estimated 310,000 each workday. Should a disaster occur during the
workday, employees become a part of the SLC emergency response, but are not trained to assist themselves or others.
These funds will offset costs in providing National Incident Management System (NIMS) training to SLC staff with
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
17
emergency response responsibilities during a disaster or other significant event. The funds will be used to fund community
preparedness activities, purchase training materials, supplies and equipment including books, brochures, handouts, etc.
The grant requires a 50% match which will be satisfied with the Community Preparedness Coordinator's time and
budgeted for within Emergency Managements general fund.
A public hearing will be held for this grant application.
G-7: Cities of Service, Johns Hopkins, Justice for the Jordan Grant,
Love Your Block Misc. Grants $100,000.00
Department: Office of the Mayor Prepared By: Hailey Leek / Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Hailey Leek
The office of the Mayor applied for and received $100,000 in grant funding for the Justice for the Jordan, Love your Block
grant.
The grant provides:
1. $60,000 to hire a Love your Block Fellow for 2 years.
2. $40,000 to distribute to the community as mini grants
3. The City is also required to engage 2 AmeriCorps VISTA volunteers, one each year of the grant.
4. The City also receives technical assistance from Cities of Service
The Cities of Service Love Your Block program connects mayor’s offices with community residents to revitalize their
neighborhoods one block at a time. Typically, cities implementing Love Your Block invite community groups to identify
priority projects and award mini-grants to support volunteer-fueled solutions that the community can implement. The City
identifies a problem and then engages with volunteers within the neighborhoods of focus and engages them early in the
project design phase as well as implementation and evaluation. The City identified the neighborhoods adjacent to the
Jordan River in Glendale (census tract 1026, 1027.01, & 1028.01) as the target area.
A public hearing will be held for this grant application.
G-8: Utah State Office for Victims of Crime, Violence Against Women
Act, Domestic Violence Victim Advocate Misc. Grants $101,039.00
Department: Attorney’s Office Prepared By: Scott Fisher / Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Katherine Lewis, Scott Fisher
The City Prosecutors office applied for and received a $101,039 grant from the State of Utah, Office for Victims of Crime
under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) program, to be used for the Violence Against Women’s Act to fund Salt Lake City
Prosecutor Domestic Violence Victim Advocate.
The Prosecutor’s Office is requesting a Victim Advocate to assist and support victims of domestic violence as their cases
move to the prosecution and adjudication phases. The services include information, education and advocacy through the
case and prosecution, assistance with victim impact statements, support and accompaniment to court and meetings with
investigators and prosecutors. The Victim Advocate assist in post release safety planning, preparation for court
appearances, and jail release agreements.
Until this year, Salt Lake County District Attorney Victim Services has provided this support for victims whose cases are
adjudicate in Salt Lake City Justice Court. Funding cutbacks required the county to reassign the advocates to County
prosecutions. Salt Lake City is applying for this new city position to fill the gap in services.
The match is $12,630 each fiscal year, for a total of $25,260 for the two-year performance period of the
grant. The match is met with cash available in the Office of the Attorney’s budget.
A Public Hearing was held 6/15/21 on this grant application
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
18
Section I: Council Added Items
FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 TOTAL
Taking Care of the City:
Revenue Loss (Based on Calendar Year Calculations)11,432,646$ 34,372,399$ -$ 45,805,045$ 1
Salary: Bonus 1,193,000$ 1,193,000$
Salary: Police Retention and Recruitment 7,798,233$ 7,798,233$
Council Adopted ARP Allocation
- Special Projects Assistant for Community Commitment Program (CAN)93,829$ 93,829$
- Youth & Family Community and Program Manager (from BA#2) (CAN)90,633$ 90,633$
- Youth & Family COVID Programming Continuation (CAN)711,350$ 711,350$
- Economic Development Strategic Plan (Economic Development)50,000$ 50,000$
- Economic Development Staff (Economic Development)290,000$ 290,000$
- Grant Administrator (Finance)101,020$ 101,020$
- Grant Manager (Finance)95,000$ 95,000$
- Apprenticeship Program (All Departments)1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
- MRT Expansion [6 Months] (Fire)136,762$ 136,762$
- MRT Expansion [One-Time $46,700] (Fire)46,700$ 46,700$
Water and Sewer Infrastructure 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$
Council Added BA2 - Annex Building Renovation for Odyssey House 500,000$ 500,000$
Homelessness and Public Safety: the City's Greatest Current Need
Clean Neighborhoods teams 1,505,920$ 1,505,920$
Public Lands Park Rangers (from Salary Restoration)1,508,044$ 1,545,746$ 792,195$ 3,845,985$ 2
Public Lands Park Rangers (One-time directly from ARPA funding)69,247$
CCP clean-up 325,250$ 329,500$ 164,750$ 819,500$
HEART 57,000$ 290,000$ 290,000$ 637,000$
Advantage Services Contract -$
Emergency Shelter Set Aside 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
Building Community Resilience
Social Impact Investment 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 3
Urban Land Fund 4,000,000$ 4,000,000$
Community Grants
Community Grants 4,000,000$ 4,000,000$
TOTAL 1,193,000$ 36,811,634$ 46,537,645$ 1,246,945$ 85,719,977$
Amount of Distibution 85,411,572$
Salt Lake City
ARPA Budgeted Funding
FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 TOTAL
Salt Lake City
ARPA Budgeted Funding
Items listed in Blue are new proposals.
1 Projected Amount. This funding is not allocated to projects, creates flexible spending dollars.
Revenue Loss Dollars can potentially cover all or a portion of these expenses in FY2023 and FY2024
Police Retention and Recruitment (Salary Enhancements)7,993,189$ 4,096,509$ 12,089,698$
Special Projects Assistant for Community Commitment Program (CAN)96,175$ 49,290$ 145,464$
Youth & Family Community and Program Manager (from BA#2) (CAN)92,899$ 47,611$ 140,509$
Youth & Family COVID Programming Continuation (CAN)729,134$ 373,681$ 1,102,815$
Economic Development Strategic Plan (Economic Development)51,250$ 26,266$ 77,516$
Economic Development Staff (Economic Development)297,250$ 152,341$ 449,591$
Grant Administrator (Finance)103,546$ 53,067$ 156,613$
Grant Manager (Finance)97,375$ 49,905$ 147,280$
Apprenticeship Program (All Departments)1,025,000$ 525,313$ 1,550,313$
MRT Expansion [6 Months] (Fire)140,181$ 71,843$ 212,024$
Park Ranger Program 805,237$ 383,297$ 1,188,534$
Fiscal Year 2022 One-Time Revenues
ARPA Revenue Loss 11,432,646$ 11,432,646$
One Time Use of General Fund Balance 15,335,334$ 15,335,334$
One Time Use of General Fund Balance (FOF)2,129,483$ 2,129,483$
46,157,818$
2 Park Ranger Program
Annual Costs 1,175,491$ 2,350,983$ 1,175,492$
One-Time Costs 401,800$
TOTAL 1,577,291$ 2,350,983$ 1,175,492$
Available Salary Restoration Funding 1,508,044$ 1,545,746$ 792,195$
Difference (Another Funding Source is needed, possibly revenue loss)(805,237)$ (383,297)$
3 Social Impact Investment
Focus will be on two specific interventions -- early childhood education and workforce training -- that will increase residents’ access to opportunity and
economic mobility.
Request to hold allocation of approximately $10 mil until the completion of Phase 2. Can be adjusted based on actual spending.
Impact Fees ‐ Summary Confidential
Data pulled 7/27/2021
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Area Cost Center UnAllocated
Cash Notes:
Impact fee - Police 8484001 525,991$ A
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 1,084,253$ B
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 9,384,420$ C
Impact fee - Streets 8484005 5,571,233$ D
16,565,896$
Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month
202007 (Jul2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202008 (Aug2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202009 (Sep2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202010 (Oct2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202011 (Nov2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202012 (Dec2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202101 (Jan2021)2021Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202102 (Feb2021)2021Q3 16,273$ -$ -$ -$ 16,273$
202103 (Mar2021)2021Q3 16,105$ -$ -$ -$ 16,105$
202104 (Apr2021)2021Q4 1,836$ -$ -$ -$ 1,836$
202105 (May2021)2021Q4 14,542$ -$ -$ -$ 14,542$
202106 (Jun2021)2021Q4 30,017$ -$ -$ -$ 30,017$ Current Month
202107 (Jul2021)2022Q1 10,107$ -$ -$ -$ 10,107$
202108 (Aug2021)2022Q1 6,804$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 6,804$
202109 (Sep2021)2022Q1 5,554$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 5,554$
202110 (Oct2021)2022Q2 3,106$ ^ 1 -$ -$ -$ 3,106$
202111 (Nov2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202112 (Dec2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202201 (Jan2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202202 (Feb2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202203 (Mar2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202204 (Apr2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202205 (May2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202206 (Jun2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 118$ -$ -$ -$ 118$
202305 (May2023)2023Q4 469$ -$ -$ -$ 469$
202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 276$ -$ -$ -$ 276$
Total, Currently Expiring through June 2021 78,774$ -$ -$ -$ 78,774$
Notes
^1 FY 2023Calendar
Month
7/27/21: We are currently in a refund situation. We will refund $15k in the next 3 months without offsetting expendituresFiscal Year 2021FY 2022Fiscal
Quarter
E = A + B + C + D
Police Fire Parks Streets
Total
Impact Fees Confidential
Data pulled 7/27/2021 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Police
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Police Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Police Allocation
Encumbrances Sum of Police Allocation YTD Expenditures
Sum of Police Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$
Police'sConsultant'sContract 8419205 5,520$ 3,507$ 1,955$ 58$
Police Impact Fee Refunds 8421102 438,897$ -$ -$ 438,897$
Police Refunds 8418013 539,687$ -$ 69,291$ 470,396$ A
PolicePrecinctLandAquisition 8419011 1,410,243$ 239,836$ -$ 1,170,407$
Grand Total 2,440,385$ 289,381$ 71,246$ 2,079,759$
Fire
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Fire refunds 8416007 82,831$ -$ -$ 82,831$
Fire Station #14 8415001 6,650$ 6,083$ 567$ -$
Fire Station #14 8416006 52,040$ -$ 7,428$ 44,612$
Fire Station #3 8415002 1,568$ -$ -$ 1,568$
Fire Station #3 8416009 1,050$ 96$ 485$ 469$
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$
Study for Fire House #3 8413001 15,700$ -$ -$ 15,700$ B
FireTrainingCenter 8419012 46,550$ -$ 46,550$ -$
Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 10,965$ 4,883$ 6,024$ 58$
FY20 FireTrainingFac. 8420431 66,546$ -$ 10,516$ 56,031$
Fire Station #3 Debt Service 8421200 541,106$ -$ 541,106$ -$
Fire Station #14 Debt Service 8421201 339,172$ -$ 339,172$ -$
Grand Total 1,164,177$ 11,063$ 951,846$ 201,268$
Parks
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$
JR Boat Ram 8420144 125,605$ 15,561$ 110,044$ -$
Three Creeks Confluence 8419101 173,017$ -$ 173,017$ -$
Cnty #2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 515,245$ 88$ 515,157$ -$
Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 7,643$ 4,815$ 2,786$ 42$
Folsom Trail/City Creek Daylig 8417010 766$ -$ 620$ 146$
Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 24,056$ 23,000$ 526$ 530$ C
Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 16,087$ -$ 14,977$ 1,110$
Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 11,856$ -$ 10,287$ 1,570$
9line park 8416005 86,322$ 19,702$ 64,364$ 2,256$
Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$
Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 27,000$ 15,811$ 6,589$ 4,600$
Fairmont Park Lighting Impr 8418004 50,356$ 43,597$ 605$ 6,155$
FY Parks and Public Lands Compreh 8417008 7,500$ -$ -$ 7,500$
Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 27,478$ 4,328$ 14,683$ 8,467$
Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 15,939$ -$ 6,589$ 9,350$
ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 10,830$ -$ -$ 10,830$
Park refunds 8416008 11,796$ -$ -$ 11,796$
IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 350,000$ 1,905$ 291,986$ 56,109$
Parks Impact Fees 8418015 102,256$ -$ 875$ 101,381$
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 200,000$ 22,524$ 64,916$ 112,560$
FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 727,000$ 574,709$ 4,080$ 148,211$
9Line Orchard 8420136 195,045$ -$ -$ 195,045$
Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 225,000$ -$ 753$ 224,247$
Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ -$ 275,000$
Bridge to Backman 8418005 350,250$ 10,285$ 59,974$ 279,990$
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$
Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 400,000$ 7,790$ 11,523$ 380,688$
Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 431,000$ -$ -$ 431,000$
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 490,830$ -$ 1,142$ 489,688$
Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 540,732$ 1,883$ 16,843$ 522,007$
Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,145,394$ 34,222$ 50,965$ 1,060,208$
Fisher Carriage House 8420130 1,098,764$ -$ -$ 1,098,764$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,442,199$ 229,022$ 98,295$ 3,114,882$
Grand Total 11,415,591$ 1,009,242$ 1,521,594$ 8,884,756$
Streets
Allocation
Budget Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 152,500$ 152,500$ -$ -$
IF Roundabout 2000 E Parleys 8420122 455,000$ -$ 455,000$ -$
Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$
500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 41,027$ 32,718$ 8,309$ -$
Transportation Safety Imp 8418007 147,912$ -$ 147,912$ -$
500 to 700 S 8418016 575,000$ 96,637$ 478,363$ -$
Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ 13,000$ -$ -$
700 South Reconstruction 8414001 310,032$ -$ 310,032$ -$ D
700 South Reconstruction 8415004 1,157,506$ 2,449$ 1,155,057$ -$
LifeOnState Imp Fee 8419009 124,605$ -$ 124,605$ -$
Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 22,360$ -$ 20,916$ 1,444$
Gladiola Street 8406001 16,544$ 13,865$ 435$ 2,244$
Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 210,752$ 87,472$ 115,100$ 8,180$
Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 39,176$ 17,442$ 9,360$ 12,374$
Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 125,000$ -$ 89,608$ 35,392$
Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 250,000$ 20,697$ 191,220$ 38,083$
1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$
Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$
Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 200,000$ -$ -$ 200,000$
TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 375,000$ -$ 72,947$ 302,053$
IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$
Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 2,858,090$ 1,469,774$ 607,870$ 780,446$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 251,316$ -$ 29,628$ 221,688$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8420105 300,000$ 300,000$ -$ -$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 875,000$ -$ -$ 875,000$
Grand Total 9,292,247$ 2,206,554$ 3,816,363$ 3,269,330$
Total 24,312,401$ 3,516,240$ 6,361,049$ 14,435,112$
E = A + B + C + D
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
9,384,420$
5,571,233$
16,565,896$
8484002
8484003
8484005
525,991$
$1,084,253
8484001
UnAllocated
Budget
Amount
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238
PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
___________________________________ Date Received: ________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: December 3, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment #4 - Revised
SPONSOR: NA
STAFF CONTACT: John Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or
Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403
DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that, subsequent to a public hearing,
the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2021-22 adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND $ 1,772,794.00 $ 4,657,529.00
WATER FUND 0.00 18,118.00
SEWER FUND 0.00 7,941.00
STORM WATER FUND 0.00 2,278.00
AIRPORT FUND 0.00 39,790.00
REFUSE FUND 24,907.00 4,109.00
GOLF FUND 14,310.00 1,802,257.00
FLEET FUND 438,905.00 423,258.00
IMS FUND 161,380.00 135,492.00
MISCELLANEOUS GRANT FUND 17,497,861.48 15,751,215.48
DEBT SERVICE FUND 26,165,000.00 26,165,000.00
CIP FUND 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00
RISK FUND 212,897.00 212,897.00
TOTAL $ 69,688,054.48 $ 72,619,884.48
Lisa Shaffer (Dec 3, 2021 17:11 MST)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY 2021-22 Budget Adjustments
Because the fiscal year just started the Fiscal Year 2022 projections are at budget. The following
chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2022.
Projections for fiscal year 2021 are coming in better than expected, more detail will be shared as
the audit progresses.
Given the available information fund balance would be projected as follows:
With the current use of fund balance from this budget amendment fund balance drops to 12.86%.
FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL
Beginning Fund Balance 6,625,050 82,617,126 89,242,176 7,018,483 50,124,619 57,143,102
Budgeted Change in Fund Balance 2,924,682 (7,810,302) (4,885,620) (4,759,137) (19,471,917) (24,231,054)
Prior Year Encumbrances (3,733,743) (6,165,453) (9,899,196) - - -
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 5,815,989 68,641,371 74,457,360 2,259,346 30,652,702 32,912,048
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 16.62%23.32%22.61%5.60%9.64%9.18%
Year End CAFR Adjustments
Revenue Changes - - - - - -
Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) - (5,676,583) (5,676,583) 5,759,137 7,652,037 13,411,174
Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 5,815,989 62,964,788 68,780,777 8,018,483 38,304,739 46,323,222
Final Fund Balance Percent 16.62%21.39%20.88%19.87%12.05%12.93%
Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance
BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - - - 5,138,235 5,138,235
BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - - - 490,847 490,847
BA#2 Expense Adjustment - (288,488) (288,488) - (986,298) (986,298)
BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (6,239,940) (6,239,940) (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (2,000,000)
BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - - - - 1,772,794 1,772,794
BA#4 Expense Adjustment - - - - (4,657,529) (4,657,529)
BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - (242,788) (242,788) - - -
BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (2,783,685) (2,783,685) - - -
BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (63,673) (63,673) - - -
BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - 540,744 540,744 - - -
BA#7 Expense Adjustment - (6,582,824) (6,582,824) - - -
BA#8 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#8 Expense Adjustment (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (2,000,000) - - -
BA#9 Revenue Adjustment - 439,809 439,809 - - -
BA#9 Expense Adjustment - 362,532 1,555,532 - - -
Change in Revenue 2,202,494 3,018,144 5,220,638 - - -
Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - - - - - -
- - Adjusted Fund Balance 7,018,483 50,124,619 58,336,102 7,018,483 39,062,788 46,081,271
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 20.05%17.03%17.71%17.39%12.28%12.86%
Projected Revenue 35,000,000 294,345,168 329,345,168 40,359,137 317,980,599 358,339,736
2021 Projection 2022 Projection
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $69,688,054.48 of revenue and
expense of $72,619,884.48. The amendment proposes changes in thirteen funds, with
$2,884,735.00 from the General Fund fund balance. The proposal includes forty-one initiatives
for Council review. Including the addition of 22 FTEs in the General Fund supported by grant
funding.
The revision from December 3rd includes detail for police spending around the homeless
resource centers in two attached documents.
A summary spreadsheet document, outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The
Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The revision corrects numbering issues in section E of the Detail Document.
The budget opening is separated in eight different categories:
A. New Budget Items
B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C. Grants for New Staff Resources
D. Housekeeping Items
E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F. Donations
G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I. Council Added Items
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ______ of 2021
Fourth amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including
the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2021-2022
In June of 2021, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,
Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
2021 and ending June 30, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the
Utah Code.
The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with
the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments
to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically
stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and
inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document as provided above, have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized
by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2021.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes
specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the
same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the
amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning
2
July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128
of the Utah Code.
SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is
authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in
the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2021.
________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________
Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed
_________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _________ of 2021.
Published: ___________________.
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
Senior City Attorney
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Risk 212,897.00 212,897.00 - - One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
GF 128,888.00 - - One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Water 18,118.00 - - One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Sewer 7,941.00 - - One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Storm Water 2,278.00 - - One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Airport 39,790.00 - - One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Refuse 4,109.00 - - One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Golf 2,257.00 - - One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
Fleet 2,938.00 - - One-time -
1 Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance
Costs
IMS 4,492.00 - - One-time -
2 Department of Air Quality Lawnmower
Exchange
GF - 250,000.00 - - One-time -
3 COVID Safe Building Improvements GF - 844,000.00 - - One-time -
3 COVID Safe Building Improvements IMS 131,000.00 131,000.00 - - One-time -
4 Pulled Prior to Submission - - - -
5 Community Health Access Team Vehicles GF - 150,000.00 - 150,000.00 One-time -
5 Community Health Access Team Vehicles Fleet 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 One-time -
6 Non Represented Employee Job Salary
Survey
GF - 75,000.00 - 75,000.00 One-time -
7 Sugar House SAA GF - 60,000.00 - - One-time -
8 Sorenson Impact Center Social Investment GF - 150,000.00 - - One-time -
9 Pulled Prior to Submission - - - - -
10 Community Health Access Team (CHAT)
FTE Transfer
GF - - - - Ongoing -
11 Rose Park Golf Course Water & Energy
Efficiency Grant (Matching Funds)
Golf - 1,800,000.00 - 1,800,000.00 One-time -
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
Section A: New Items
1
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
(Continued)
12 ARPA Funding -Housing & Homelessness -
Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park
Ranger program (see Item C-1 & E-3 & E-4)
GF 1,064,368.00 1,064,368.00 - - Ongoing 19.00
12 ARPA Funding -Housing & Homelessness -
Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park
Ranger program (see Item C-1 & E-3 & E-4)
GF 443,676.00 443,676.00 - - One-time -
12 ARPA Funding -Housing & Homelessness -
Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park
Ranger program (see Item C-1 & E-3 & E-4)
Fleet 195,720.00 195,720.00 - - One-time -
13 Withdrawn GF - - - - -
1 ARPA Funding -Housing & Homelessness -
Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park
Ranger program (See Item A-12 & E-3 &
E4)
Misc Grants 1,064,368.00 1,064,368.00 - - Ongoing -
2 ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness -
CCP Rapid Intervention Team (See Item A-
13 & E-5)
Misc Grants 164,750.00 164,750.00 - - Ongoing 3.00
Council Approved
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Administration Proposed
Section A: New Items
2
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 Economic Development Loan Fund Move Housing - (100,000.00) - - One-time -
1 Economic Development Loan Fund Move Housing 100,000.00 - - One-time -
1 Economic Development Loan Fund Move GF 100,000.00 100,000.00 - - One-time -
2 Increase Grant Fund Misc Grants 1,746,646.00 - 1,746,646.00 - Ongoing -
3 Premium Holiday - Other Funds Refuse 24,907.00 - 24,907.00 - One-time
3 Premium Holiday - Other Funds Golf 14,310.00 - 14,310.00 - One-time
3 Premium Holiday - Other Funds Fleet 18,585.00 - 18,585.00 - One-time
3 Premium Holiday - Other Funds IMS 30,380.00 - 30,380.00 - One-time
4 GPS Housekeeping GF - (74,600.00) - (74,600.00)One-time -
4 GPS Housekeeping GF - 74,600.00 - 74,600.00 One-time -
4 GPS Housekeeping Fleet 74,600.00 74,600.00 74,600.00 74,600.00 One-time -
5 Signage FTE Correction GF - 51,847.00 - 51,847.00 Ongoing -
6 General Obligation Series 2021A Bonds CIP 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00 One-time -
6 General Obligation Series 2021A Bonds Debt Service 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 One-time -
7 Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series
2021A
Debt Service 10,665,000.00 10,665,000.00 10,665,000.00 10,665,000.00 One-time -
7 Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series
2021A
Debt Service 10,400,000.00 10,400,000.00 10,400,000.00 10,400,000.00 One-time -
7 Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series
2021A
Debt Service 4,900,000.00 4,900,000.00 4,900,000.00 4,900,000.00 One-time -
8 Budget Carry Forward GF - 1,175,000.00 - 1,175,000.00 One-time -
Council Approved
Section D: Housekeeping
Administration Proposed
3
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 ARPA Funding - Water and Sewer
Infrastructure Projects
Misc Grants 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 - - One-time -
2 ARPA Funding - Housing & Homelessness -
Winter Shelter Support
Misc Grants 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 - - One-time -
3 ARPA Funding - Housing & Homelessness -
Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park
Ranger program (See Item A-12, C-1 & E4)
Misc Grants 443,676.00 443,676.00 - - Ongoing -
4 ARPA Funding - Housing & Homelessness -
Public Lands Park Ranger program (See
Item A-12, C-1 & E-3)
Misc Grants 69,244.00 69,244.00 - - Ongoing -
5 ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness
– CCP Rapid Intervention Team (See Item
A-13 & C-2)
Misc Grants 160,500.00 160,500.00 - - One-time -
6 ARPA Funding - Housing & Homelessness -
CCP Rapid Intervention Team (Police
Support)
Misc Grants 1,505,920.00 1,505,920.00 - - One-time -
7 Pulled Prior to Submission to allow for the
completion of phase 2 of the Social Impact
Investment
Misc Grants - - - - -
8 ARPA Funding - Housing and
Homelessness - HEART Rapid Intervention
Team (Advantage Services)
Misc Grants 57,000.00 57,000.00 - - One-time -
9 ARPA Funding – Building the lifeboat with
Urban Land Fund
Misc Grants 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 - - One-time -
10 ARPA Funding – Community Grants Misc Grants 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 - - One-time -
-
Section F: Donations
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
Administration Proposed Council Approved
4
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Consent Agenda #2
1 Police Department State Asset Forfeiture
Grant
Misc Grants 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 One-time -
2 Utah Department of Health - Bureau of
Emergency Medical Services (EMS)grant,
FY22 Per Capita Allocation
Misc Grants 10,250.00 10,250.00 10,250.00 10,250.00 One-time -
3 State of Utah, CCJJ (Commission on
Criminal and Juvenile Justice),
Jurisdictions with Halfway Houses and
Parole Violator Centers Grant, Law
Enforcement Services Account (LESA)
Misc Grants 295,571.00 295,571.00 295,571.00 295,571.00 One-time -
4 Utah State Office for Victims of Crime, 2021-
2023 VOCA Victims of Crime Act Grant
Misc Grants 364,162.48 364,162.48 364,162.48 364,162.48 One-time -
5 Department of Workforce Services,
Housing & Community Development
Division, FY22 Homeless Shelter Cities
Mitigation Grant Program
Misc Grants 370,735.00 370,735.00 370,735.00 370,735.00 One-time -
6 Utah State Department of Public Safety -
2021 Emergency Management Performance
Grant (EMPG)
Misc Grants 42,500.00 42,500.00 42,500.00 42,500.00 One-time -
7 Cities of Service, Johns Hopkins, Justice for
the Jordan Grant, Love Your Block
Misc Grants 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 One-time -
8 Utah State Office for Victims of Crime,
Violence Against Women Act, Domestic
Violence Victim Advocate
Misc Grants 101,039.00 101,039.00 101,039.00 101,039.00 One-time -
1 Council Office Reclassifications GF - - - - On-Going
Total of Budget Amendment Items 69,523,304.48 72,455,134.48 52,910,185.48 54,327,204.48 22.00
Administration Proposed Council Approved
Section I: Council Added Items
Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards
5
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Total by Fund Class, Budget Amendment #4:
General Fund GF 1,608,044.00 4,492,779.00 - 1,451,847.00 19.00
Water Fund Water - 18,118.00 - - -
Sewer Fund Sewer - 7,941.00 - - -
Storm Water Fund Storm Water - 2,278.00 - - -
Airport Fund Airport - 39,790.00 - - -
Refuse Fund Refuse 24,907.00 4,109.00 24,907.00 - -
Golf Fund Golf 14,310.00 1,802,257.00 14,310.00 1,800,000.00 -
Fleet Fund Fleet 438,905.00 423,258.00 243,185.00 224,600.00 -
IMS Fund IMS 161,380.00 135,492.00 30,380.00 - -
Miscellaneous Grants Fund Misc Grants 17,497,861.48 15,751,215.48 3,032,403.48 1,285,757.48 3.00
Housing Fund Housing - - - - -
Debt Service Fund Debt Service 26,165,000.00 26,165,000.00 26,165,000.00 26,165,000.00 -
CIP Fund CIP 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00 23,400,000.00
Risk Fund Risk 212,897.00 212,897.00 - - -
- - -
Total of Budget Amendment Items 69,523,304.48 72,455,134.48 52,910,185.48 54,327,204.48 22.00
Administration Proposed Council Approved
6
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2021-22 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
FY 2021-22
Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total
^^ Total Through
BA#5 ^^
General Fund (FC 10)367,582,070 (5,138,235.00) 986,298.00 2,000,000.00 1,451,847.00 366,881,980.00
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)2,033,573 2,033,573.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,550,000 1,550,000.00
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,699,663 7,098.00 5,706,761.00
Water Fund (FC 51)127,365,555 460,716.00 - 127,826,271.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52)268,213,796 221,826.00 - 268,435,622.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,201,013 19,705.00 - 19,220,718.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)706,792,500 1,350,949.00 - 708,143,449.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57)24,713,505 36,538.00 - 24,750,043.00
Golf Fund (FC 59)9,697,417 19,649.00 88,749.00 1,800,000.00 11,605,815.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60)4,056,856 4,056,856.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61)28,090,576 18,999.00 112,646.00 224,600.00 28,446,821.00
IMS Fund (FC 65)24,302,487 219,193.00 - 24,521,680.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)5,307,142 5,307,142.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,341,332 5,341,332.00
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)18,684,617 10,427,551.76 1,522,743.00 1,285,757.48 31,920,669.24
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)273,797 273,797.00
Donation Fund (FC 77)2,752,565 2,752,565.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)16,121,000 - 16,121,000.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)31,850,423 26,165,000.00 58,015,423.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,503,216 (150,753.00) 23,400,000.00 52,752,463.00
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)2,933,913 24,843.00 2,958,756.00
Risk Fund (FC 87)52,939,489 19,705.00 - 52,959,194.00
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,755,009,505 7,688,537.76 2,559,683.00 2,000,000.00 54,327,204.48 - 1,821,584,930.24
Budget Manager
Analyst, City Council
Contingent Appropriation
The Council adopted the items highlighted in yellow at the Council meeting on November 16th.
7
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
1
Section A: New Items
A-1: Risk Excess Liability and Cyber Insurance Costs Risk $212,897.00
GF $128,888.00
Water $18,118.00
Sewer $7,941.00
Storm Water $2,278.00
Airport $39,790.00
Refuse $4,109.00
Golf $2,257.00
Fleet $2,938.00
IMS $4,492.00
Department: Attorney - Risk Prepared By: Tamra Turpin
For Questions Please Include: Tamra Turpin, Sandee Moore, Katherine Lewis, Aaron Bentley
(1) The cost of excess liability insurance increased significantly for FY22 – more than a 65% increase in premium cost over
the previous policy period. The bulk of this is driven by recent claim development.
Last year’s premium was $267,278. The renewal premium cost is $443,112.54. We had projected a 15% increase and the
actual cost is more than we could cover with our allocated budget.
The City’s insurance brokers were able to arrange for us to pay the premium in two installments with the second half
($221,556.27) being due by 1/1/2022 to give us time to request a budget amendment.
(2) The cost of cyber liability insurance also increased significantly for FY22 -- 320%. Last year’s premium was $45,490.
The renewal premium cost is $190,887.60. Although we had projected an increase, the actual cost is far more than we could
have anticipated. There are a number of reasons for this; particularly the fact that public agencies are becoming frequent
targets, and the number and cost of claim payouts have increased exponentially. After conferring with the City's Chief
Information Officer and City Attorney, it was agreed that allowing the City's cyber coverage to lapse would be too risky.
The City’s insurance brokers were able to arrange a 45-day extension and then a 90-day premium payment deferral in
order to get a budget amendment in place. The cost will be allocated to all funds as shown in the amendment.
A-2: Department of Air Quality Lawnmower Exchange GF $250,000.00
Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Gregg Evans
For Questions Please Include: Debbie Lyons, Sophia Nicholas, Gregg Evans
The Utah Department of Air Quality (UDAQ) administers an annual gas-powered lawnmower and yard equipment
exchange in order to reduce criteria pollutants in the areas of the Wasatch Front that are in non-attainment with the Clean
Air Act air quality standards. Because the Wasatch Front is on track for attainment of wintertime PM2.5, UDAQ is not
running a snowblower exchange this year. Instead, they are focusing on programs to reduce summertime ozone pollution,
for which the Wasatch Front is out of attainment.
UDAQ has $900,000 set aside to continue the exchanges for the foreseeable future. The size of the lawnmower exchange
varies each year depending on the size of financial contributions from partners. Typically, UDAQ contributes between
$300,000 and $400,000 per exchange.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
2
The Sustainability Department is proposing a budget amendment of $250,000 General Funds to partner with UDA Q in
FY22 on a gas-powered lawnmower exchange. This would facilitate exchanges for approximately 1,000 Salt Lake City
residents
Salt Lake City participated in 2021, spending nearly $161,000 which helped 582 residents participate. In total, 509 gas -
powered mowers were exchanged (the remaining participants bought new mowers without exchanging an old one). This is
the equivalent of removing 4.02 tons of pollution from the airshed each year. A majority of residents also opted to
participate in our Call 2 Haul program to have their gas mower picked up curbside and recycled by Salt Lake City Waste
and Recycling.
The Administration proposes continuing this program in FY 22 (spring 2022). The goal will be to increase participation
from 582 to 1,000 with a continued focus on our Westside neighborhoods. The Administration anticipates greater
awareness and uptake of the program in the comin g year due to increased familiarity with the program, and plans to work
with UDAQ on earlier, targeted outreach given the lessons learned from spring 2021. UDAQ anticipates the program
logistics will change in FY 22 to facilitate easier participation and lower administrative burden. In particular, they are
hoping to develop a phone app that participants will use to sign up and upload any required receipts.
UDAQ is also envisioning the next program will offer a promotional discount code to be used towar d the purchase of
electric lawn equipment and an app would also help separate Salt Lake City residents from other participating Wasatch
Front residents. This will reduce confusion as to who is eligible for curbside pickup of their old mowers. We also hope the
app will help us keep the exchange open for longer for Salt Lake City residents instead of opening, closing it, and opening i t
again while UDAQ verifies addresses.
While the exact amount of the discounts have yet to be determined, the Sustainability D epartment proposes using
$250,000 in City General Funds to facilitate approximately 1,000 gas-powered mower exchanges. This budget amendment
would also fund temporary staffing expenses to assist with running curbside collection of old mowers through Call 2 Haul.
This benefit was very popular last year and helped make this program more equitable to those who might not have the
ability to haul their own mower to a metal recycler.
A-3: COVID Safe Building Improvements GF $844,000.00
IMS $131,000.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente
For Questions Please Include: Lorna Vogt, Dawn Valente
At the beginning of the year, and in anticipation of the reopening of the City and County Building, the Public Services
Department identified a series of critical improvements to minimize the spread of diseases such as COVID -19. Following
recommendations from hired consultants (see attached COVID annex) as well as health officials, changes include a multi -
level approach to keeping building occupants safe, from controlled access through a check-in desk and appointment
management software, to improved indoor air quality. The Department has been informed previously that the following list
of items are likely eligible to be covered under ARPA:
* Needlepoint Devices. When installed in the air handling system of a building, indoor air quality improves reducing
airborne contaminants $250,000 (CCB)
* Open and Public Meeting Rooms: Redesign public meeting rooms for spacing and cleaning considerations. This i ncludes
replacing chairs for disinfecting purposes. $60,000
* Lobby Appointment management software to be installed at the entrance to the building, allowing for IDing and
occupancy control. $5,000
* Entrance furniture. Desk and chairs to be installed at the entrance to the building, creating a check-in area $6,000
* Noticing Board outside of the City & County and Plaza 349 Buildings: Due to State noticing adjustments and the building
access being limited, public notices are not addressing the community in the various accessible options (walking public,
visitors to the building, etc.). Hybrid meetings and other noticing requirements are required to be completed and are
currently being posted on the doors that are frequently accessed. $10,000
* Staffing Entrance. Customer service-oriented staff, under seasonal status, to welcome and direct visitors to the building.
$17,000
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
3
* Enhanced Janitorial. Adjusting the cleaning schedule of all areas of the building from 3 to 5 days a week. (9 months)
$165,000
* Cubicle Pieces. To accommodate office reconfigurations. $100,000
* COVID Supplies/PPE. These supplies are being made available throughout buildings, including facemasks, hand sanitizer
and disposable gloves. $100,000
* Teleconference and Recording Meeting Equipment. Required to accommodate virtual and hybrid public meetings, and
training/orientation including those for Mayor's Board & Commissions, and City Council. $131,000
$844,000 TOTAL
A-4: Pulled Prior to Submission
A-5: Community Health Access Team Vehicles GF $150,000.00
Fleet $150,000.00
Department: Fire/Public Services Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Karl Lieb, Chris Milne, Clint Rasmussen, Lorna Vogt, Nancy Bean, Dawn
Valente
Community Health Access Team, CHAT (formerly known as the Community Healthcare Paramedic Team) was initially
established in 2013, comprised of one SLCFD paramedic. It quickly grew to include a SLCFD Captain and then another
paramedic. The two Paramedics responded as a team to patients that were identified by fire EMS crews as: (1) not meeting
the criteria for emergency service, or (2) not benefitting from the scope of training provided to fire department Paramedics
and EMTs. The CHAT initiative proposes adding two (2) social workers to increase the team’s scope and the ability of the
team to address the overall needs of their patients particularly pertaining to the challenges of mental health and
homelessness.
Currently, the Community Heath team operates with one vehicle. The addition of two social workers will create the need
for two vehicles as two teams will be operating simultaneously. This budget amendment will allow the fire department to
replace the current vehicle, a larger inefficient Chevy Tahoe with a fuel-efficient hybrid Ford Explorer. Additionally, a
second vehicle of the same kind will be purchased for the additional team. The third purchased fuel -efficient hybrid Ford
Explorer will replace an additional Chevy Tahoe in the Medical Division which will be used to support the CHAT initiative
immediately and provide for the anticipated rapid expansion of the CHAT program.
The three hybrid Ford Explorers will need to be outfitted with graphics, radios, tablets, etc. The $50,000 cost pe r vehicle is
the fully loaded cost.
Cost of Vehicle 42,500 127,500
Make ready 2,500 7,500
GPS 316 948
Fuel 2,950 8,850
Maintenance 1,734 5,202
TOTAL 50,000 150,000
A-6: Non-Represented Employees' Job Salary Survey GF $75,000.00
Department: Human Resources Prepared By: David Salazar
For Questions Please Include: Debra Alexander, David Salazar, John Vuyk
This request is intended for consultative services to be provided by a qualified third -party consultant or firm to conduct a
compensation survey to assess, evaluate and compare the overall pay structure, including actual base pay and other job
elements, of SLC’s non-represented employees to other public and private sector entities with whom the city competes for
talent. The recommended survey project includes data collection, analysis, and the development and presentation of a
report with recommendations for the City’s Department of Human Resources, Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee
(CCAC), and elected officials to consider. The survey will be conducted with a primary focus on cash compensation and rely
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
4
on the same caliber and methodology as surveys previously completed for the City's public safety and AFSCME-covered
employee groups (as completed by Mercer in early 2019 and 2020, respectively).
A-7: Sugar House SAA GF $60,000.00
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Ben Kolendar
For Questions Please Include: Ben Kolendar
The City received a request from the Sugar House Community Council regarding the creation of an economic promotion
special assessment area (SAA) for the Sugar House for roughly west/east boundaries of 700 East to 1300 East and
north/south of Hollywood Avenue (possibly extending north on 1100 East to Ramona Avenue to include supporters in that
area) to I-80. The Department of Economic Development would run the Initial phases of the assessment and present
considerations to Council prior to formal action.
The funding request will provide consulting services for shape files, tax revenue estimates. The funding will also provide
bond counsel for the language in the draft notice of Intent to designate.
A-8: Sorenson Impact Center Social Investment GF $150,000.00
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Ben Kolendar
For Questions Please Include: Ben Kolendar
The Administration would like to request $150,000 for the completion of Phase II of the Sorenson Social Impact
investment project.
A-9: Pulled Prior to Submission
A-10: Community Health Access Team (CHAT)
Personnel Transfer
GF $0.00
Department: Fire Development Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen
For Questions Please Include: Karl Lieb, Clint Rasmussen
CHAT (formerly known as the Community Healthcare Paramedic Team) was initially established in 2013, comprised of one
SLCFD paramedic. It quickly grew to include a SLCFD Captain and then another paramedic. The two Paramedics
responded as a team to patients that were identified by fire EMS crews as: (1) not meeting the criteria for emergency
service, or (2) not benefitting from the scope of training provided to fire department Paramedics and EMTs. The CHAT
initiative proposes transferring two (2) social workers and one (1) case manager (LCSW) from the Police Department to
increase the team’s scope and the ability of the team to address the overall needs of their patients particularly pertaining to
the challenges of mental health and homelessness.
This amendment would transfer three (3) PCNs from the Police Department to the Fire Department and adjust the staffing
document. The funding for these positions remains in Non-Departmental.
A-11: Rose Park Golf Course Water & Energy Efficiency
Grant (Matching Funds)
Golf $1,800,000.00
Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Bryce Lindeman
Dawn Valente
For Questions Please Include: Kristen Riker, Bryce Lindeman, Dawn Valente, Laura Briefer
The Administration is recommending recognizing $1.8 million in Golf revenue as matching funds for a potential grant. The
grant funds and cash match will be used for the installation of water conservation landscape irrigation measures for the
Rose Park Golf Course. The existing simple grid irrigation system will be replaced with a head-to-head system with high
efficiency nozzles that enable watering to match turf type. Turf removal will reduce square footage of high -water fairway
grass types and increase square footage of out of bounds rough areas re -seeded with low water grass types.
The project is a shared priority for the City's Department of Public Utilities and Department of Public Lands. Department
of Public Utilities is the project lead for the grant application. Any additional match committed at the time of application
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
5
that is over and above $1.8 million requested in this budget amendment will be in the form of the cash value of the
dedication of effort by existing full-time position(s) in the Department of Public Utilities and/or Department of Public
Lands to the project.
A-12: ARPA Funding -Public Safety and Homelessness
Outreach - Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park
Ranger program (see Item C-1, E-3 & E-4)
GF $1,064,368.00
GF $443,676.00
Fleet $195,720.00
Department: Mayor’s Office & Public Lands Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, Kristen Riker, John
Vuyk
Over the past few years, Public Lands has experienced a dramatic increase of individuals experiencing homelessness using
the parks for overnight camping. This vulnerable population also attracts an increase in people who prey upon them and
impact other park users with drug use, drug sales, and other crime. Public Lands employees have found themselves in the
middle of this extremely complex community crisis, without training or resources to work in this new environment. Public
Lands relies on the SLCPD to enforce camping and anti-loitering ordinances, to assist in clearing areas so staff can
complete their duties, and to respond to calls for public safety in parks. However, SLCPD has city-wide responsibilities and
is not always available for non-urgent park safety needs.
SLC Public Lands is proposing a Park Ranger program to maximize public safety, protect park resources, and to provide
services and information to park visitors. Park rangers may serve as law enforcement officers, environmental experts,
interpreter of cultural and historical points of interest or a combination of the three. This proposal is intended to meet the
following program success indicators:
Making people feel welcome and safe in our parks
Deterring inappropriate activity
Gaining voluntary compliance of park codes and rules
Reducing the number of annual vandalism incidents
Reducing annual costs to repair/replace damaged landscape & infrastructure
The Mayor is proposing to allocate $5.1 million toward a Public Lands Park Ranger program. Funding for the program will
be partially supported through the use of eligible salary restoration dollars. The program will help ensure park safety,
including homeless outreach in the parks.
The Program will include the addition of nineteen employees in the Public Lands Department. The positions are two Park
Ranger Sergeants, sixteen Park Ranger Officers and one support person. The projected annual cost for personnel including
uniforms, training and operational costs is $2,350,983. The amendment proposes to add these positions on January 1 at a
cost of $1,175,491 for the current fiscal year.
The proposed funding will also support one-time costs to implement the program of $401,800, including the purchase of
three trucks and two light response vehicles. Funding for personnel and ongoing costs will be transferred to the General
Fund while funding for the vehicles will be transferred to Fleet.
This funding will be established through a capture of funding for salary restoration from the current fiscal year.
A-13: Pulled Prior to Submission
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
6
C-1: ARPA Funding – Public Safety and Homeless
Outreach – Public Lands Park Ranger program (See Item
A-12, E-3 & E-4)
Misc Grants $1,064,368.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
Over the past few years, Public Lands has experienced a dramatic increase of individuals experiencing homelessness using
the parks for overnight camping. This vulnerable population also attracts an increase in people who prey upon them and
impact other park users with drug use, drug sales, and other crime. Public Lands employees have found themselves in the
middle of this extremely complex community crisis, without training or resources to work in this new environment. Public
Lands relies on the SLCPD to enforce camping and anti-loitering ordinances, to assist in clearing areas so staff can
complete their duties, and to respond to calls for public safety in parks. However, SLCPD has city -wide responsibilities
and is not always available for non-urgent park safety needs.
SLC Public Lands is proposing a Park Ranger program to maximize public safety, protect park resources, and to provide
services and information to park visitors. Park rangers may serve as law enforcement officers, environmental experts,
interpreter of cultural and historical points of interest or a combination of the three. This proposal is intended to meet t he
following program success indicators:
Making people feel welcome and safe in our parks
Deterring inappropriate activity
Gaining voluntary compliance of park codes and rules
Reducing the number of annual vandalism incidents
Reducing annual costs to repair/replace damaged landscape & infrastructure
•
The Mayor is proposing to allocate $5.1 million toward a Public Lands Park Range r program. Funding for the program will
be partially supported through the use of eligible salary restoration dollars. The program will help ensure park safety,
including homeless outreach in the parks.
The Program will include the addition of nineteen employees in the Public Lands Department. The positions are two Park
Ranger Sergeants, sixteen Park Ranger Officers and one support person. The projected annual cost for personnel including
uniforms, training and operational costs is $2,350,983. The amendment proposes to add these positions on January 1 at a
cost of $1,175,491 for the current fiscal year.
The proposed funding will also support one-time costs to implement the program of $401,800, including the purchase of
three trucks and one light response vehicle. Funding for personnel and ongoing costs will be transferred to the General
Fund while funding for the vehicles will be transferred to Fleet.
This funding will be established through a capture of funding for salary restoration from the current and future fiscal years.
C-2: ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness– CCP
Rapid Intervention Team (See Item A-13 & E-5)
Misc Grants $164,750.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
In September 2020, Mayor Mendenhall launched the Community Commitment Program through the Homeless
Engagement and Response Team. The CCP prioritizes outreach to individuals experiencing homelessness while also
emphasizing the need to keep public spaces safe, clean, and accessible to all. The first phase of the CCP was a 12-week
enhanced neighborhood cleaning program based on neighborhood hot spots reported in CitySourced via the SLC Mobile
app. The second phase, which has transitioned into an ongoing partnership with Salt Lake County and over a dozen service
providers, focused on intensive encampment outreach of varying lengths of time depending on the size and other
characteristics of camps. After approximately 9 months of this sec ond phase, the City and our partners have been in a
maintenance stage, during which the City has fewer large encampments but is still attempting to handle the nearly 6,000
CitySourced reports over this past year. This figure is triple the number of complai nts reported in the app in years past.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
7
To more effectively and rapidly address these complaints from residents and businesses, the Mayor is proposing the
creation of a Rapid Intervention Team coordinated through HEART. The HEART coordinator (via a positi on that was
funded by the Council in the FY23 budget) will ensure that complaints are responded to with the appropriate level of
outreach through the SLCPD’s CCC or VOA, SLCPD officers to standby if necessary, as well as a City cleaning team working
with Advantage Services. By having a dedicated team to respond, Public Services and Waste & Recycling employees will not
be pulled away from their regular duties, as they are currently when the County Health Department requires camp
abatement support. The Public Services and Waste and Recycling employees will also be available to respond to illegal
dumping complaints throughout the City.
The program will add three FTE’s for the Rapid Intervention Team. These employees will be covered in part the first year.
Section D: Housekeeping
D-1: Economic Development Loan Fund Move Housing -$100,000.00
Housing $100,000.00
GF $100,000.00
Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Jolynn Walz / Randy Hillier
For Questions Please Include: Ben Kolendar, Loreno Riffo Jensen, Jolynn Walz, Randy Hillier
Under Budget Amendment #7 of FY 2021, $100,000 was appropriated to the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF)
within the Housing Fund (FC78) to provide funding for outdoor dining activities and events in the form o f forgivable loans.
The purpose of these loans is to assist restaurants and bars recover from the financial effects of the pandemic by offering
funding to expand outdoor dining.
After further examination of the EDLF guidelines, DED was unable to provide forgivable loans. DED has determined that a
traditional grant program is the best way to distribute these funds to businesses and is proposing the $100,000 be moved
to a separate account, allowing DED to administer the grant program.
D-2: Increase Grant Fund Misc Grants $0.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
The annual budget proposed funding from the American Recovery Plan Act (ARPA) for revenue replacement. During
budget adoption, the expense was adjusted based on updated grant guidelines. This increased the expense side of the grant
fund, but recognition of the revenue was not included. This request adjusts the revenue side to recognize the revenue side
of the transaction in the Grant Fund.
This proposal will bring the Fund into balance in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
D-3: Premium Holiday – Other Funds Refuse $0.00
Golf $0.00
Fleet $0.00
IMS $0.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
The Premium Holiday was submitted with the budget with the transfer from the Insurance Fund, but the transfer into
other funds was not included. This amendment is to balance the inter-fund transfers.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
8
D-4: GPS Housekeeping GF -$74,600.00
GF $74,600.00
Fleet $74,600.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente
For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk, Dawn Valente
For FY22 there is an accounting change to put the GPS fees for vehicles in the Fleet budget. We missed the piece to move
the current budgets over to Fleet. Public Services has a budget of $39,203; Public Lands has a budget of $26,797; and CAN
has a budget $8,600 that we need to move to Fleet.
D-5: Signage FTE Correction GF $51,847.00
Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente
For Questions Please Include: Lorna Vogt, Dawn Valente, John Vuyk
In the Mayor's Recommended Budget, an FTE for Signage for the Planning & Ecological Services Division was initially
approved, but later reduced . However, the funding was again inadvertently reduced at the Council level, thus doubling the
reduction. This housekeeping request is to replace the funding that was inadvertently cut from the Signage budget.
D-6: General Obligation Series 2021A Bonds CIP $23,400,000.00
Debt Service $200,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Brandon Bagley / Marina Scott
For Questions Please Include: Brandon Bagley, Marina Scott, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
In November 2018, voters authorized the issuance of up to $87 million in general obligation bonds to fund street
construction. The General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A will be issued in November 2021 as the third issuance of the
authorization. This amendment creates the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure budget to
pay for construction of the street projects associated with the bonds. It also creates expenditure budget to pay the costs of
issuance for the bonds.
Bond proceeds will be allocated to five project cost centers in Fund 83 and one cost center in Fund 81 for the costs of
issuance associated with the bond. Two cost centers will receive $6,000,000 each for the 200 South Phase 1 & 2 (400 W to
900 E) projects. A third cost center will receive $6,800,000 for the 1100 East (900 S to Warnock Ave) project. The fourth
cost center will receive $1,600,000 for the 300 North (300 W to 1000 W) project. The fifth cost ce nter will receive
$3,000,000 for local streets. The proceeds to pay the costs of issuance associated with the bonds will be deposited to the
debt service cost center in Fund 81.
D-7: Sales Tax Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2021A Debt Service $10,665,000.00
Debt Service $10,400,000.00
Debt Service $4,900,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Brandon Bagley / Marina Scott
For Questions Please Include: Brandon Bagley, Marina Scott, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A, were issued in June 2012 for the purpose of replacing the North
Temple Viaduct and improving North Temple Boulevard.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
9
Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B, were issued in November 2013 for the purpose of financing a portion of
the costs of the Sugarhouse Streetcar and paying for the portion of various improvements to create a "greenway" within the
corridor.
The Series 2012A and 2013B bonds are being refunded with the Sales Tax Refunding Revenu e Bonds, Series 2021A. This
budget amendment will create the revenue budget for the receipt of bond proceeds and the expenditure budget to pay off
the old bonds and to pay the costs of issuance for the bonds. Two Local Building Authority bonds will also b e refunded by
the Series 2021A bonds. This budget amendment creates the budget for the transfer to the LBA to pay those off. A separate
budget amendment for the LBA is being submitted to create budget for the payoff of those bonds.
D-8: Budget Carry Forward GF $1,175,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk, Teresa Beckstrand
In the General Fund there were a number of budgets that did not have encumbrances at the close of fiscal year 2021 the
Administration would request Council approval to roll budget for the projects into fiscal year 2022. The budgets requested
are listed below:
CC CC Name OC OC Description Amount
0900503 Demographer Contract 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $50,000.00
0900925 Financial Risk Assessment 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $100,000.00
0900930 Gentrification Mitigation Study 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $100,000.00
0900705 Washington DC Contract 2324 Special Consultant $75,000.00
0900513 NW Northpoint Plan Airport 2329 Other Professional & Tech Serv $50,000.00
0900508 Home to Transit Program 2590 Other Expenses $800,000.00
TOTAL $1,175,000.00
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: ARPA Funding – Water and Sewer Infrastructure
Projects Misc Grants $2,000,000.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Laura Briefer, Mary Beth Thompson, John
Vuyk
The Mayor proposes to set aside $2 million for required matching funding as we prepare to apply for State funds for water
and sewer infrastructure projects.
E-2: ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness –Winter
Shelter Support Misc Grants $1,000,000.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
Mayor Mendenhall is proposing that the Council set aside approximately $1 million of the City’s Rescue Plan allocation for
emergency shelter needs. Such funds could be used to assist the shelter operator with operations costs or go toward other
expenses such as public safety or neighborhood mitigation.
Under the revised transmittal the Administration is recommending $400,000 for Public Safety, Police, needs associated
with homeless shelters. Two documents outlining the expenses are attached to the revised transmittal as backup
information.
E-3: ARPA Funding – Public Safety and Homeless
Outreach – Salary Restoration - Public Lands Park
Ranger program (See Item A-12, C-1 & E-4)
Misc Grants $443,677.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
10
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
Over the past few years, Public Lands has experienced a dramatic increase of individuals experiencing homelessness using
the parks for overnight camping. This vulnerable population also attracts an increase in people who prey upon them and
impact other park users with drug use, drug sales, and other crime. Public Lands employees have found themselves in the
middle of this extremely complex community crisis, without training or resources to work in this new environment. Public
Lands relies on the SLCPD to enforce camping and anti-loitering ordinances, to assist in clearing areas so staff can
complete their duties, and to respond to calls for public safety in parks. However, SLCPD has city -wide responsibilities
and is not always available for non-urgent park safety needs.
SLC Public Lands is proposing a Park Ranger program to maximize public safety, protect park resources, and to provide
services and information to park visitors. Park rangers may serve as law enforcement officers, environmental experts,
interpreter of cultural and historical points of interest or a combination of the three. This proposal is intended to meet t he
following program success indicators:
Making people feel welcome and safe in our parks
Deterring inappropriate activity
Gaining voluntary compliance of park codes and rules
Reducing the number of annual vandalism incidents
Reducing annual costs to repair/replace damaged landscape & infrastructure
The Mayor is proposing to allocate $5.1 million toward a Public Lands Park Ra nger program. Funding for the program will
be partially supported through the use of eligible salary restoration dollars. The program will help ensure park safety,
including homeless outreach in the parks.
The Program will include the addition of nineteen employees in the Public Lands Department. The positions are two Park
Ranger Sergeants, sixteen Park Ranger Officers and one support person. The projected annual cost for personnel including
uniforms, training and operational costs is $2,350,983. The amend ment proposes to add these positions on January 1 at a
cost of $1,175,491 for the current fiscal year.
The proposed funding will also support one-time costs to implement the program of $401,800, including the purchase of
three trucks and one light response vehicle. Funding for personnel and ongoing costs will be transferred to the General
Fund while funding for the vehicles will be transferred to Fleet.
This funding will be established through a capture of funding for salary restoration from the current fiscal year.
E-4: ARPA Funding – Public Safety and Homeless
Outreach – Public Lands Park Rangers (See Item A12, C-1
& E3)
Misc Grants $69,244.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
Over the past few years, Public Lands has experienced a dramatic increase of individuals experiencing homelessness using
the parks for overnight camping. This vulnerable population also attracts an increase in people who prey upon them and
impact other park users with drug use, drug sales, and other crime. Public Lands employees have found themselves in the
middle of this extremely complex community crisis, without training or resources to work in this new environment. Public
Lands relies on the SLCPD to enforce camping and anti-loitering ordinances, to assist in clearing areas so staff can
complete their duties, and to respond to calls for public safety in parks. However, SLCPD has city -wide responsibilities
and is not always available for non-urgent park safety needs.
SLC Public Lands is proposing a Park Ranger program to maximize public safety, protect park resources, and to provide
services and information to park visitors. Park rangers may serve as law enforcement officers, environmental experts,
interpreter of cultural and historical points of interest or a combination of the three. This proposal is intended to meet t he
following program success indicators:
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
11
Making people feel welcome and safe in our parks
Deterring inappropriate activity
Gaining voluntary compliance of park codes and rules
Reducing the number of annual vandalism incidents
Reducing annual costs to repair/replace damaged landscape & infrastructure
The Mayor is proposing to allocate $5.1 million toward a Public Lands Park Ranger program. Funding for the program will
be partially supported through the use of eligible salary restoration dollars. The program will help ensure park safety,
including homeless outreach in the parks.
The Program will include the addition of nineteen empl oyees in the Public Lands Department. The positions are two Park
Ranger Sergeants, sixteen Park Ranger Officers and one support person. The projected annual cost for personnel including
uniforms, training and operational costs is $2,350,983. The amendment proposes to add these positions on January 1 at a
cost of $1,175,491 for the current fiscal year.
The proposed funding will also support one-time costs to implement the program of $401,800, including the purchase of
three trucks and one light response vehicle. Funding for personnel and ongoing costs will be transferred to the General
Fund while funding for the vehicles will be transferred to Fleet.
This funding will be a direct charge to the ARPA grant..
E-5: ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness – CCP
Rapid Intervention Team (See Item A-13 & C-2) Misc Grants $160,500.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
In September 2020, Mayor Mendenhall launched the Community Commitment Program through the Homeless
Engagement and Response Team. The CCP prioritizes outreach to individuals experiencing homelessness while also
emphasizing the need to keep public spaces saf e, clean, and accessible to all. The first phase of the CCP was a 12-week
enhanced neighborhood cleaning program based on neighborhood hot spots reported in CitySourced via the SLC Mobile
app. The second phase, which has transitioned into an ongoing partne rship with Salt Lake County and over a dozen service
providers, focused on intensive encampment outreach of varying lengths of time depending on the size and other
characteristics of camps. After approximately 9 months of this second phase, the City and ou r partners have been in a
maintenance stage, during which the City has fewer large encampments but is still attempting to handle the nearly 6,000
CitySourced reports over this past year. This figure is triple the number of complaints reported in the app in years past.
To more effectively and rapidly address these complaints from residents and businesses, the Mayor is proposing the
creation of a Rapid Intervention Team coordinated through HEART. The HEART coordinator (via a position that was
funded by the Council in the FY23 budget) will ensure that complaints are responded to with the appropriate level of
outreach through the SLCPD’s CCC or VOA, SLCPD officers to standby if necessary, as well as a City cleaning team working
with Advantage Services. By having a dedicated team to respond, Public Services and Waste & Recycling employees will not
be pulled away from their regular duties, as they are currently when the County Health Department requires camp
abatement support. The Public Services and Waste and Recycling employees will also be available to respond to illegal
dumping complaints throughout the City.
The program will add three FTE’s for the Rapid Intervention Team. These employees will be covered in part the first year.
This funding will be established through a capture of funding for salary restoration from the current fiscal year.
E-6: ARPA Funding – Housing & Homelessness – CCP
Rapid Intervention Team (Police Support) Misc Grants $1,505,920.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
12
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk
The Administration is requesting $1,505,920 of funding, to provide funding for Clean Neighborhoods Teams for the Police
Department to provide staffing to support the homeless encampment cleanup and camp re -establishment stabilization as
requested by the Salt Lake County Health Department. Police of ficers working extra overtime shifts will provide security to
ensure the cleanups can proceed in an environment that will be safe for all involved. Staffing numbers will vary depending
on the size, number of cleanups and the location.
Activity # days Officers # hours Rate Amount Requested
Major Cleanups 14 40 10 $65 $364,000
Minor Cleanups* 122 24 6 $65 $1,141,920
And area stabilization
Total Requested $1,505,920
*previously utilized on-duty resources that are no longer available
E-7: Pulled Prior to Submission to allow for the completion of
phase 2 of the Social Impact Investment
In Budget Amendment 4, Mayor Mendenhall proposes to allocate $150,000 in General Fund money to complete Phase 2 of
this study (Item A-9). Mayor Mendenhall further proposes that the City Council hold approximately $10 million of the
City’s Rescue Plan appropriation until the completion of Phase 2, when the City and Sorenson Impact Center have fully
completed a recommendation on the financial structure of the investment, including but not limited to the contributions of
private investors and the long-term financial viability of these programs. Because Rescue Plan funds need not be spent
until the end of 2024, Mayor respectfully requests that the Council leave a portion of the City’s funds un -allocated until the
completion of Phase 2, which is anticipated to t ake 6-9 months, at which point the Administration and Council can make
an informed decision on seed funding for this initiative. During this time, the Administration will also be working with
potential investment partners with the ultimate goal of funding a $100 million social impact project on the two
interventions Sorenson has identified as the most impactful to the long -term economic health of City residents.
E-8: ARPA Funding – CCP HEART Rapid Intervention Team Misc Grants $57,000.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk, Michelle
Hoon
To more effectively and rapidly address these complaints from residents and businesses, the Mayor is proposing the
creation of a Rapid Intervention Team coordinated through HEART. The HEART coordinator (via a position that was
funded by the Council in the FY23 budget) will ensure that complaints are responded t o with the appropriate level of
outreach through the SLCPD’s CCC or VOA, SLCPD officers to standby if necessary, as well as a City cleaning team working
with Advantage Services. By having a dedicated team to respond, Public Services and Waste & Recycling e mployees will not
be pulled away from their regular duties, as they are currently when the County Health Department requires camp
abatement support. The Public Services and Waste and Recycling employees will also be available to respond to illegal
dumping complaints throughout the City.
Work will be coordinated with Advantage Services. The program will be monitored for the first six months to evaluate the
effectiveness of the service.
E-9: ARPA Funding – Westside Community Initiative Misc Grants $4,000,000.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Ben Kolendar, Danny Walz, Mary Beth
Thompson, John Vuyk
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
13
As a function of utilizing the tax differential collected by the Inland Port Authority and allocated to the RDA for affordabl e
housing, the RDA Board has endorsed the creation of an Urban Land Fund in order to develop and secure perpetual
housing affordability on the City’s west side. Under the direction of the RDA, the fund would look to maximize
opportunities for affordability in both rental housing and home ownership as well as limited commercial uses
within mixed use developments. RDA staff is currently working on potential options for the structure of the land fund. This
process includes the evaluation of opportunities for community wealth building and cooperative housing models within a
perpetual housing fund. The allocation of this funding source is i ntended to offset the impacts on the west side from the
Inland Port development. The opportunity of this program is to strengthen the community by providing a mechanism to
help reverse the historical impacts of disinvestment and inequality on the residents in this area of the City. Mayor
Mendenhall proposes the allocation of $4 million in seed funds for implementing the policy proposals that emerge from
the current study, including the following goals:
Develop Land with a Long-Term Approach to Continuously Serve a Community-Defined Purpose
WCI will take a long-term approach to land development and community building so that the RDA may retain the
fee ownership to and a reversionary interest in the property. By ground leasing to development partners, the RD A
will provide an opportunity to receive revenue generation to serve other public benefits.
Create Opportunities for Revenue Generation while Balancing the Implementation of Public
Benefits
WCI will strive to balance the development of property with the incorporation of public benefits. Benefits such as
affordable housing and below-market commercial space which generate limited or no cash flow would potentially
be subsidized with land uses that generate positive cash flow. Revenue generated by projects and received by the
RDA will then be reinvested back into the WCI with the goal of furthering shared prosperity.
Assist the Westside in Mitigating Gentrification and Displacement
WCI will acquire land with the goal of holding it for the community in perpetuity, thereby removing land from the
speculative market so that it serves low and moderate-income residents in perpetuity. Housing will remain
affordable even as neighborhood change occurs and gentrification pressures mount, which protects families from
displacement.
Give Lower Income Households the Opportunity to Build Wealth Through Ownership
WCI will create opportunities for families to buy homes at affordable prices by focusing on a sh ared-equity model.
A shared equity model offers an alternative form of ownership that provides benefits traditional markets cannot,
such as long-term housing affordability and the ability for low and moderate -income families to build
equity. When families decide to sell, they will receive their portion of the appreciation but the RDA remains as the
land owner and is in the position to continue to sell the home at a below-market price, making it affordable to
another family of limited means. Keeping the home affordable, from family to family, will benefit future
generations by acting as a steppingstone for low-income families to go from renting to building wealth.
Engage Community Members in Development Decisions
The RDA will involve the community in the planning and goals regarding long term land use and housing
development. This can translate into residents actively involved in creating positive change within their
communities and projects that reflect the value of its residents. The result will be projects that incorporate a
shared mission and vision with the community.
Leverage Resources for Other Neighborhood Development Purposes
Revenues acquired through ground leases or partnerships could contribute to other purposes, including
subsidizing deeply affordable housing, below-market commercial space, infrastructure, public art, etc.
Collaborate with Other Partners to Broaden the Pool of Funding and Expertise
The RDA would actively work to acquire outside funding sources and professional resour ces by bringing together
financial institutions, the private sector, nonprofits, public officials, other government agencies, researchers, and
practitioners to collaborate on community and economic development activities.
Carry Out Efforts with a “Collective Impact” Approach
The RDA will continuously evaluate how projects work together to address common goals through a “collective
impact” approach that produces measurable results. These measurable results will be tracked and reported on to
promote data-driven and outcome-based decisions.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
14
E-10: ARPA Funding – Community Grants Misc Grants $4,000,000.00
Department: Mayor’s Office Prepared By: John Vuyk
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Ben Kolendar, Blake Thomas, Mary Beth
Thompson, John Vuyk
Community grants
Mayor Mendenhall proposes an allocation of $ 4 million toward community grants. These grants will give community
organizations and local businesses the opportunity to propose to the City what COVID -related problems they are trying to
solve City staff and volunteers from relevant City boards and commissions would select grantees at the conclusion of an
open solicitation process. The Administration proposes to split these grant funds into two categories, with half of the
allocation going to Economic Development and half to Community and Neighborhoods. These departments will scope the
challenge facing residents and businesses, and launch two solicitations seeking proposals on the COVID -related problem
that the applicant desires to address under the following broad categories:
o CAN grants -- Nonprofit support (to be further refined by CAN): This could include programs like
retraining of displaced workers, nonprofit legal services for eviction assistance, expanded educational
opportunities, resources to mitigate the digital divide, access to healthcare for underserved populations,
mental health assistance, etc.
o DED grants -- Business assistance (to be further refined by DED): This could include grants for
businesses not included in other government programs during the pandemic, especially small and local
businesses, and support for artist/artisan businesses.
Section F: Donations
Section G: Consent Agenda
Consent Agenda #2
G-1: Police Department Asset Forfeiture Grant Misc. Grants $1,500.00
Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Jordan Smith, Shellie Dietrich
The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for and received a $1,500 grant award from the State of Utah, Commission
on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), under the State Asset Forfeiture Grant (SAFG) program. The SAFG program
funds crime prevention and law enforcement activities within specific guidelines. CCJJ de veloped the SAFG program as a
means of evaluating and distributing state forfeiture funds.
The funds will be used for confidential informant funds to enhance investigations in narcotics -related cases.
A public hearing was held 9/7/21 for this grant application.
G-2: Utah Department of Health - Bureau of Emergency Medical
Services (EMS)grant, FY22 Per Capita Allocation Misc. Grants $10,250.00
Department: Emergency Management Prepared By: Brittany Blair/ Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Clint Rasmussen, Brittany Blair
The Fire Department applied for and was awarded $10,250 of grant funding from the Utah Department of Health, Bureau
of Emergency Medical Services. This funding will be used towards the purchase of a 12 -Lead Cardiac Monitor and medical
supplies relating to the provision of Emergency Medical Services as funding permits.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
15
A Public Hearing was held on 2/16/21 for the grant applications on this award.
G-3: State of Utah, CCJJ (Commission on Criminal and Juvenile
Justice), Jurisdictions with Halfway Houses and Parole Violator
Centers Grant, Law Enforcement Services Account (LESA)
Misc. Grants $295,571.00
Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Clint Rasmussen, Brittany Blair
The Police Department has applied for and been awarded a $295,570 grant from the State of Utah, Commission on
Criminal and Juvenile Justice, in support of the Jurisdictions with Halfway Houses and Parole Violator Centers grant.
This grant provides funding for law enforcement agencies that provide services directly to areas with halfway houses or
parole violator centers, or both. The Police Department will use these funds for law enforcement overtime related to
reducing criminal activity including targeted enforcement operations, increased patrol response, and responding to mental
health calls for service. The Department will also utilize funds for case transcription services, six overt camera units and
maintenance/repairs/supplies for units in the Department's camera program.
A public hearing was held 9/7/21 for this grant application.
G-4: Utah State Office for Victims of Crime, 2021-2023 VOCA Victims
of Crime Act Grant Misc. Grants $364,162.48
Department: Police Department Prepared By: Wendy Isom/ Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Wendy Isom, Jordan Smith, Shellie Dietrich
The Police Department applied for and received a $364,162.48 grant from the State of Utah, Office for Victims of Crime
under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) program, to be used for the continuation of the Victim Advocate Program. These
funds will be used to pay for salary and fringe for 4 existing full-time Victim Advocate positions and all of the part-time
Victim Advocate positions. This grant also covers the costs for Rita, the program's facility dog. Additionally, there are
supplies for the program, emergency funds for assisting victims, and training for Advocate staff.
No match is required by the funding agency.
VOCA funds cover local and national conferences and trainings needed to meet statutory training requirements for the
Victim Advocates. It also provides and emergency fund that can be used when no other victim funding options are available
- these funds can be used for food, clothing, shelter, transportation and 911 phones for victims of violent crime.
Additionally, it provides for supplies such as Victim Advocate brochures, Traumatic Death Handbooks, cell phone costs,
etc.
A $109,938.89 match is required which will be satisfied by the salary and benefits of City funded Victim Advocates and the
Program Coordinator. In-kind matching funds are provided by the student interns/volunteers that participate in the
Victim Advocate Program.
A Public Hearing was held 9/7/21 on this grant application.
G-5: Department of Workforce Services, Housing & Community
Development Division, FY22 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation
Grant Program
Misc. Grants $370,735.00
Department: Community and Neighborhoods Prepared By: Michelle Hoon / Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Michelle Hoon, Brent Beck
The Community and Neighborhoods Dept. applied for and received State Department of Workforce Services funding of
$370,735 to continue efforts to encourage businesses, residents, Homeless Resource Center (HRC) operators and guests to
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
16
participate in constructive community engagement opportunities and encourage service-based interventions in order to
successfully integrate the HRCs into the fabric of their host neighborhoods and ensure the safety of those
neighborhoods.
The SLC Mitigation team currently consists of a SLC Community Engagement Coordinator, VOA Business and Community
Liaison, and VOA Outreach Case Manager. This application requests to continue the current team and expand the team to
include an additional VOA Business and Community Liaison, additional VOA Outreach Case Manager, and a VOA
Outreach Peer Support Specialist, and three new positions as part of the City's existing Downtown Ambassador program -
tailored to the areas surrounding the HRCs (King, Miller, and Youth).
A Public Hearing will be scheduled for the application on this grant.
G-6: Utah State Department of Public Safety - 2021 Emergency
Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Misc. Grants $42,500.00
Department: Emergency Management Services Prepared By: Audrey Pierce / Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Audrey Pierce, Clint Rasmussen
The Emergency Management Services Division received a $42,500 FY2021 EMPG grant from the State of Utah,
Department of Public Safety. This grant is awarded on an annual basis to jurisdictions to help offset costs of planning and
updating emergency preparedness plans, conduct emergency preparedness exercises and produce materials and other
media for public educational outreach and training pertaining to emergency preparedn ess.
SLC's population increases from 180,000 to an estimated 310,000 each workday. Should a disaster occur during the
workday, employees become a part of the SLC emergency response, but are not trained to assist themselves or others.
These funds will offset costs in providing National Incident Management System (NIMS) training to SLC staff with
emergency response responsibilities during a disaster or other significant event. The funds will be used to fund community
preparedness activities, purchase training materials, supplies and equipment including books, brochures, handouts, etc.
The grant requires a 50% match which will be satisfied with the Community Preparedness Coordinator's time and
budgeted for within Emergency Managements general fund.
A public hearing will be held for this grant application.
G-7: Cities of Service, Johns Hopkins, Justice for the Jordan Grant,
Love Your Block Misc. Grants $100,000.00
Department: Office of the Mayor Prepared By: Hailey Leek / Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Hailey Leek
The office of the Mayor applied for and received $100,000 in grant funding for the Justice for the Jordan, Love your Block
grant.
The grant provides:
1. $60,000 to hire a Love your Block Fellow for 2 years.
2. $40,000 to distribute to the community as mini grants
3. The City is also required to engage 2 AmeriCorps VISTA volunteers, one each year of the grant.
4. The City also receives technical assistance from Cities of Service
The Cities of Service Love Your Block program connects mayor’s offices with community residents to revitalize their
neighborhoods one block at a time. Typically, cities implementing Love Your Block invite community groups to identify
priority projects and award mini-grants to support volunteer-fueled solutions that the community can implement. The City
identifies a problem and then engages with volunteers within the neighborhoods of focus and engages them early in the
project design phase as well as implementation and evaluation. The City i dentified the neighborhoods adjacent to the
Jordan River in Glendale (census tract 1026, 1027.01, & 1028.01) as the target area.
A public hearing will be held for this grant application.
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #4
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
17
G-8: Utah State Office for Victims of Crime, Violence Against Women
Act, Domestic Violence Victim Advocate Misc. Grants $101,039.00
Department: Attorney’s Office Prepared By: Scott Fisher / Melyn Osmond
For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Katherine Lewis, Scott Fisher
The City Prosecutors office applied for and received a $101,039 grant from the State of Utah, Office for Victims of Crime
under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) program, to be used for the Violence Against Women’s Act to fund Salt Lake City
Prosecutor Domestic Violence Victim Advocate.
The Prosecutor’s Office is requesting a Victim Advocate to assist and support victims of domestic violence as their cases
move to the prosecution and adjudication phases. The services include information, education and advocacy through the
case and prosecution, assistance with victim impact statements, support and accompaniment to court and meetings with
investigators and prosecutors. The Victim Advocate assist in post release safety planning, preparation for court
appearances, and jail release agreements.
Until this year, Salt Lake County District Attorney Victim Services has provided this support for victims whose cases are
adjudicate in Salt Lake City Justice Court. Funding cutbacks required the county to reassign the advocates to County
prosecutions. Salt Lake City is applying for this new city position to fill the gap in services.
The match is $12,630 each fiscal year, for a total of $25,260 for the two-year performance period of the
grant. The match is met with cash available in the Office of the Attorney’s budget.
A Public Hearing was held 6/15/21 on this grant application
Section I: Council Added Items
Impact Fees ‐ Summary Confidential
Data pulled 10/29/2021
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Area Cost Center UnAllocated
Cash Notes:
Impact fee - Police 8484001 415,503$ A
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 1,487,183$ B
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 8,948,216$ C
Impact fee - Streets 8484005 6,101,644$ D
16,952,545$
Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month
202007 (Jul2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202008 (Aug2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202009 (Sep2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202010 (Oct2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202011 (Nov2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202012 (Dec2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202101 (Jan2021)2021Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202102 (Feb2021)2021Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202103 (Mar2021)2021Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202104 (Apr2021)2021Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202105 (May2021)2021Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202106 (Jun2021)2021Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202107 (Jul2021)2022Q1 (0)$ -$ -$ -$ (0)$
202108 (Aug2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202109 (Sep2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month
202110 (Oct2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202111 (Nov2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202112 (Dec2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202201 (Jan2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202202 (Feb2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202203 (Mar2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202204 (Apr2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202205 (May2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202206 (Jun2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202305 (May2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total, Currently Expiring through June 2021 0$ -$ -$ -$ 0$ FY 2023Calendar
Month
Fiscal Year 2021FY 2022Fiscal
Quarter
E = A + B + C + D
Police Fire Parks Streets
Total
Impact Fees Confidential
Data pulled 10/29/2021 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Police
Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Police Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Police Allocation
Encumbrances Sum of Police Allocation YTD Expenditures
Sum of Police Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Public Safety Building Replcmn 8405005 14,068$ 14,068$ -$ 0$
Police Impact Fee Refunds 8421102 338,448$ -$ 60,722$ 277,727$
Sugarhouse Police Precinct 8417016 10,331$ 10,331$ -$ -$
Police Refunds 8418013 -$ -$ (3,588)$ 3,588$
PolicePrecinctLandAquisition 8419011 239,836$ 239,836$ -$ -$
Eastside Precint 8419201 21,639$ 21,639$ -$ -$
Police'sConsultant'sContract 8419205 3,565$ -$ 3,565$ -$
ReimbExcessPoliceCapacity IF 8422800 1,898,497$ -$ 1,898,497$ -$ A
Grand Total 2,526,385$ 285,875$ 1,959,195$ 281,315$
Fire
Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Study for Fire House #3 8413001 15,700$ -$ -$ 15,700$
Fire Station #3 8415002 1,568$ -$ -$ 1,568$
Fire Station #3 8416009 565$ 96$ -$ 469$
Fire Station #14 8415001 6,083$ 6,083$ -$ -$
Fire Station #14 8416006 44,612$ -$ -$ 44,612$
Fire refunds 8416007 82,831$ -$ -$ 82,831$
Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 4,941$ 3,021$ 1,862$ 58$
FY20 FireTrainingFac. 8420431 56,031$ -$ -$ 56,031$ B
Grand Total 212,331$ 9,200$ 1,862$ 201,268$
Parks
Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
9line park 8416005 21,958$ 19,702$ -$ 2,256$
Park refunds 8416008 11,796$ -$ -$ 11,796$
Parks and Public Lands Compreh 8417008 7,500$ -$ -$ 7,500$
Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,094,430$ 9,402$ 24,821$ 1,060,208$
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$
Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,110$ -$ -$ 1,110$ C
Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$
Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$
Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 1,570$ -$ -$ 1,570$
Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 23,530$ 23,000$ -$ 530$
Fairmont Park Lighting Impr 8418004 49,752$ 6,000$ 37,597$ 6,155$
Bridge to Backman 8418005 290,276$ 10,285$ 4,515$ 275,475$
ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 10,830$ -$ -$ 10,830$
Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 4,857$ 2,596$ 2,219$ 42$
Fisher Carriage House 8420130 1,098,764$ 1,038,968$ 59,796$ -$
Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 20,411$ -$ 20,411$ -$
Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 431,000$ -$ -$ 431,000$
9Line Orchard 8420136 195,045$ 32,650$ -$ 162,395$
Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 12,795$ 4,328$ -$ 8,467$
JR Boat Ram 8420144 15,561$ 6,378$ -$ 9,183$
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 489,688$ 64,333$ -$ 425,355$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,343,904$ 169,077$ 59,946$ 3,114,882$
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 135,084$ 21,169$ 1,355$ 112,560$
Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 388,477$ 92,174$ 30,958$ 265,346$
Cnty #2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 88$ -$ 88$ -$
FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 722,920$ 571,809$ 3,343$ 147,769$
IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 58,014$ 1,905$ -$ 56,109$
Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 523,889$ 287,290$ 8,852$ 227,746$
Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 224,247$ 173,467$ 34,134$ 16,646$
Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ -$ 275,000$
Parks Impact Fee Refunds 8418015 101,381$ -$ -$ 101,381$
Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$
GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,200,000$ -$ -$ 3,200,000$
Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 610,000$ -$ -$ 610,000$
Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 420,000$ -$ -$ 420,000$
SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$ -$ -$ 1,304,682$
SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 425,000$ -$ -$ 425,000$
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 510,000$ -$ -$ 510,000$
RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 180,032$ -$ -$ 180,032$
Grand Total 16,694,447$ 2,534,534$ 288,033$ 13,871,881$
Streets
Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Gladiola Street 8406001 16,109$ 13,865$ -$ 2,244$
500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 32,718$ 16,691$ 16,027$ -$
Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$
700 South Reconstruction 8415004 2,449$ -$ 2,449$ -$
1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$
Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 1,444$ -$ -$ 1,444$
500 to 700 S 8418016 96,637$ 22,744$ 73,893$ -$
9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 152,500$ 139,280$ 13,220$ -$ D
Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 200,000$ -$ 12,484$ 187,516$
Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 35,392$ -$ -$ 35,392$
Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 95,653$ 44,088$ 50,864$ 700$
Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ 13,000$ -$ -$
Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 29,817$ 17,442$ -$ 12,374$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 221,688$ 10,244$ 7,033$ 204,411$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8420105 300,000$ 300,000$ -$ -$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 875,000$ -$ -$ 875,000$
Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 58,780$ 20,697$ -$ 38,083$
Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 2,250,220$ 290,460$ 1,216,451$ 743,309$
TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 302,053$ -$ -$ 302,053$
IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$
200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 37,422$ -$ -$ 37,422$
900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$ -$ -$ 28,000$
Local Link Construction IF 8422606 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$
Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ -$ -$ 25,398$
400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$
Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$
900 S Signal Improvements IF 8422615 70,000$ -$ -$ 70,000$
Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$
Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 44,400$ -$ -$ 44,400$
1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$
Grand Total 5,967,404$ 888,511$ 1,392,421$ 3,686,472$
Total 25,400,567$ 3,718,120$ 3,641,511$ 18,040,936$
E = A + B + C + D
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
8,948,216$
6,101,644$
16,952,545$
8484002
8484003
8484005
415,503$
$1,487,183
8484001
UnAllocated
Budget
Amount
FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 TOTAL
Taking Care of the City:
Revenue Loss (Based on Calendar Year Calculations)11,432,646$ 34,372,399$ -$ 45,805,045$ 1
Salary: Bonus 1,193,000$ 1,193,000$
Salary: Police Retention and Recruitment 7,798,233$ 7,798,233$
Council Adopted ARP Allocation
- Special Projects Assistant for Community Commitment Program (CAN)93,829$ 93,829$
- Youth & Family Community and Program Manager (from BA#2) (CAN)90,633$ 90,633$
- Youth & Family COVID Programming Continuation (CAN)711,350$ 711,350$
- Economic Development Strategic Plan (Economic Development)50,000$ 50,000$
- Economic Development Staff (Economic Development)290,000$ 290,000$
- Grant Administrator (Finance)101,020$ 101,020$
- Grant Manager (Finance)95,000$ 95,000$
- Apprenticeship Program (All Departments)1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
- MRT Expansion [6 Months] (Fire)136,762$ 136,762$
- MRT Expansion [One-Time $46,700] (Fire)46,700$ 46,700$
Water and Sewer Infrastructure 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$
Council Added BA2 - Annex Building Renovation for Odyssey House 500,000$ 500,000$
Homelessness and Public Safety: the City's Greatest Current Need
Clean Neighborhoods teams 1,505,920$ 1,505,920$
Public Lands Park Rangers (from Salary Restoration)1,508,044$ 1,545,746$ 792,195$ 3,845,985$ 2
Public Lands Park Rangers (One-time directly from ARPA funding)69,247$
CCP clean-up 325,250$ 329,500$ 164,750$ 819,500$
HEART 57,000$ 290,000$ 290,000$ 637,000$
Advantage Services Contract -$
Emergency Shelter Set Aside 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$
Building Community Resilience
Social Impact Investment 10,000,000$ 10,000,000$ 3
Urban Land Fund 4,000,000$ 4,000,000$
Community Grants
Community Grants 4,000,000$ 4,000,000$
TOTAL 1,193,000$ 36,811,634$ 46,537,645$ 1,246,945$ 85,719,977$
Amount of Distibution 85,411,572$
Salt Lake City
ARPA Budgeted Funding
FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 FY2024 TOTAL
Salt Lake City
ARPA Budgeted Funding
Items listed in Blue are new proposals.
1 Projected Amount. This funding is not allocated to projects, creates flexible spending dollars.
Revenue Loss Dollars can potentially cover all or a portion of these expenses in FY2023 and FY2024
Police Retention and Recruitment (Salary Enhancements)7,993,189$ 4,096,509$ 12,089,698$
Special Projects Assistant for Community Commitment Program (CAN)96,175$ 49,290$ 145,464$
Youth & Family Community and Program Manager (from BA#2) (CAN)92,899$ 47,611$ 140,509$
Youth & Family COVID Programming Continuation (CAN)729,134$ 373,681$ 1,102,815$
Economic Development Strategic Plan (Economic Development)51,250$ 26,266$ 77,516$
Economic Development Staff (Economic Development)297,250$ 152,341$ 449,591$
Grant Administrator (Finance)103,546$ 53,067$ 156,613$
Grant Manager (Finance)97,375$ 49,905$ 147,280$
Apprenticeship Program (All Departments)1,025,000$ 525,313$ 1,550,313$
MRT Expansion [6 Months] (Fire)140,181$ 71,843$ 212,024$
Park Ranger Program 805,237$ 383,297$ 1,188,534$
Fiscal Year 2022 One-Time Revenues
ARPA Revenue Loss 11,432,646$ 11,432,646$
One Time Use of General Fund Balance 15,335,334$ 15,335,334$
One Time Use of General Fund Balance (FOF)2,129,483$ 2,129,483$
46,157,818$
2 Park Ranger Program
Annual Costs 1,175,491$ 2,350,983$ 1,175,492$
One-Time Costs 401,800$
TOTAL 1,577,291$ 2,350,983$ 1,175,492$
Available Salary Restoration Funding 1,508,044$ 1,545,746$ 792,195$
Difference (Another Funding Source is needed, possibly revenue loss)(805,237)$ (383,297)$
3 Social Impact Investment
Focus will be on two specific interventions -- early childhood education and workforce training -- that will increase residents’ access to opportunity and
economic mobility.
Request to hold allocation of approximately $10 mil until the completion of Phase 2. Can be adjusted based on actual spending.
1
Weisberg, Brent
From:Brown, Mike
Sent:Wednesday, December 1, 2021 03:56 PM
To:'rruso@ch.utah.gov'; 'j.eining@draper.ut.us'; Troy D. Carr; 'cburnett@murray.utah.gov';
'dhutson@rivertonpd.org'; 'gseverso@sandy.ut.gov'; 'Jeff Carr';
'dcarruth@southsaltlakecity.com'; 'btcottam@taylorsvilleut.gov'; 'fross@rideuta.com';
Ken Wallentine; 'colleen.jacobs@wvc-ut.gov'; Sheriff Rosie Rivera; 'dcarruth@sslc.com';
'ken.wallentine@westjordan.utah.gov'
Cc:Brown, Mike; VanDongen, Lance; Zayas, Yvette; Weisberg, Brent; Ewell, Lamar; Purvis,
Brian
Subject:Winter Shelter Outside Agencies
Chiefs and Sheriff:
As you may know, after many months of effort to find a location for a temporary winter emergency homeless
shelter, the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness has requested the use of a motel within Salt Lake
City for winter overflow shelter. The intent of this facility is to allow access to indoor beds through this winter
to adults in the county experiencing homelessness. Salt Lake City has agreed to allow this use. However, the
city needs support to ensure the safety and security of those accessing shelter, as well as for the surrounding
neighborhood.
I understand that all of our departments are experiencing staffing shortages. SLCPD is not immune to this
reality as well. Hosting this county-wide service requires all of us to share some level of responsibility for its
support to allow all to benefit from the services. Below is a proposed plan and a request of each of you, as our
partner agencies, to assist in making this winter service available as soon as possible.
SLCPD will contribute four officers and a supervisor. The city would be responsible for coordinating the
schedule.
Our ask is that at least three other agencies, or a combination of agencies, contribute four officers (on
overtime) to fill the four, five-hour shifts each day.
The hourly rate is $80 with $15 going back to the agency for vehicle, fuel, and maintenance
reimbursement.
The remaining $65 is paid in overtime to the officer.
Shifts will be scheduled starting as soon as the program can open in December and will last until the
end of the winter program in April.
As this is both a county and state involved program, Unified PD and the State Department of Public Safety
have been contacted and invited to provide support as well.
Please review this draft and let me know how your department will be able to contribute to this multi-
jurisdictional approach.
I will be reaching out to all of you by phone in the very near future to have additional conversations.
2
Thank you,
Mike
MIKE BROWN
Chief of Police
Salt Lake City Police Department
801.799.3801 | mike.brown@slcgov.com
www.slcpd.com | @slcpdPAGE 1
UTAH EMERGENCY WINTER HOUSING SHELTER
dATE RANGE FOR OPERATION: DECEMBER 15, 2021 - APRIL 15, 2022 (120 d AYS)
www.slcpd.com | @slcpd
LAW ENFORCEMENT BUDGET AND STAFFING
4 OFFICERS A DAY 5 HOUR SHIFTS $80 AN HOUR
$15 goes to
the agency as
a vehicle, fuel,
maintenance
reimbursement.
$65 goes to
the officer as
overtime pay.
= $1600 DAILY RATE X 120 DAYS (Estimated shelter operating period.) = $192,000
SHIFT 1
SHIFT 3
SHIFT 4
SHIFT 2
AGENCY AGENCY AGENCY
SLCPD A B C
SLCPD WILL PROVIDE 1 SUPERVISOR PER DAY
SUPERVISOR 5 HOUR SHIFTS
= $400 DAILY RATE X 120 DAYS = $48,000
THE TOTAL OVERTIME COST FOR THE SAFETY PLAN IS $816,000.
FUNDING SOURCES FOR PARTICIPATING AGENCIES ARE
STILL BEING IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME
AND WILL BE DETERMINED AT A LATER DATE.
Item C5
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
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:Sam Owen, Policy Analyst
DATE:December 14, 2021
RE:Ordinance: 2020 Salt Lake City Street Light Master Plan
MOTION 1
I move the Council adopt the ordinance, with the following qualifications:
A. That the department continue to evaluate and implement location of wireless cell facilities on city
light poles, in coordination with the Administration’s review of the constraints and factors in the
course of doing so; and
B. That the department’s Statement of Intent letter (attached) clarifying dark skies values as part of
master plan implementation be included with the final adopted version of the plan.
MOTION 2
I move the Council not adopt the ordinance.
MOTION 3
I move the Council adopt the ordinance without one or both of the qualifications above (specify).
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:August 17, 2021
RE:2020 Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan
NEW INFORMATION
Pursuant to city resolution and state code, the City Council asked the Administration to present the
Street Lighting Master Plan proposal to the City Planning Commission. The April 14, 2021 City
Planning Commission forwarded the following along with a positive recommendation (i.e. a
recommendation that the City adopt the plan & its accompanying documents): the Commissioner
recommended that the Council “further explore the warmness of the light and the kelvin temperatures
and further understand that fully.” (Attachment 3)
It’s the understanding of Council staff that the Department of Public Utilities is confident in the plan’s
current recommendations and resources in the context of color temperature. The following
reconstruction of feedback and new information might be helpful and draws from a technical memo
(Attachment 2) prepared by the department & its consultant on the topic of light temperature and
impacts to the following categories of organic life.
The Department has communicated that the plan in its current state has adequate and appropriate
control measures to mitigate impacts to humans and wildlife, such as its neighborhood-level
evaluation and engagement recommendations for the process of developing lighting solutions for
unique geographic areas throughout the city.
-Birds:
o “There is no evidence that color temperature is a driving force in attraction and
mortality of migratory birds.” (Attachment 2, page 11, last paragraph).
-Insects:
o “One group where color is relatively more important is insects, which are, in general,
more attracted to blue, violet, and ultraviolet than yellows and reds. There are
exceptions to this pattern, but studies of insect attraction to different color
temperatures of LED find that lower color temperatures attract fewer insects. This
relationship has been quantified and can be used to compare attraction of specific
options for street lighting [citation omitted for clarity]. For nearly all [insect]
organisms investigated, lower color temperatures are assessed to have reduce impacts.”
(Attachment 2, page 11, last full paragraph)
Item Schedule:
Briefing: August 17, 2021
Public Hearing: TBD
Potential Action: TBD
Page | 2
-Human beings:
o “Scientists who are skeptical about the potential for outdoor to affect human health
point to the intensity thresholds for melatonin suppression. Based on models of human
physiology, they demonstrate that melatonin suppression is likely to be very small or
not measurable below approximately 5 [lux] [this is a technical measurement for one
dimension of lighting intensity]. Since outdoor lighting rarely reaches these levels
within dwellings, the impact is presumed to be minimal, regardless of color
temperature. This argument, however, does not extend to exposures outdoors at night
and illumination under street lighting often exceeds 5 lux.
A precautionary approach to color temperature for human circadian health relative to
outdoor lighting would be to favor the use of lower color temperature lighting… which
then would be balanced against other guideposts.” (Attachment 2, page 11, first
paragraph, emphasis added)
Finally, dark skies interests have been referenced or represented as compelling for inclusion and
serious consideration in the plan. The Department’s technical memo provides the following advice for
technical implementation sensitive to dark skies interests: “The take-home message of this research
for the Salt Lake City street lighting master plan is that for LED lamps lights to reduce light pollution
compared with the previously common HPS lamps, they must be 0% uplight [sic], 50% less bright,
and with a [color temperature] of no greater than 3000 K.” (Attachment 2, page 12, last paragraph)
In other words, for dark skies interests & for purposes of reducing impacts to organic life, the
Department has represented that the plan allows for flexible and responsive implementation of
lighting strategies to address a range of concerns, such as those listed as examples above.
In the future, the Council might consider the following elements in the context of a
potential motion considering adoption of the plan:
-The Council could include legislative intent language that the “dark skies” mitigation criteria
for “minimum impact on light pollution” be followed uniformly & that the department provide
annual or bi-annual reports on locations where that guidance has been superseded by other
constraints in the course of lighting implementation.
-The Council could ask the Department to consider where impacts to wildlife can be reduced or
eliminated, and provide a report on proactive lighting implementation that takes this value
into account as the plan moves ahead.
-The Council might ask the Department or Administration to consider options for evaluating
impacts to insect communities as a result of City street lighting changes.
-The Council might ask the Department to consider whether and where there are situations
where residents or groups of residents could regularly experience lighting intensity from public
fixtures at a level that would disrupt melatonin regulation.
Attachments
1. Transmittal
2. Department correlation report
3. April 14, 2021 Planning Commission minutes
Page | 3
PREVIOUS INFORMATION FROM THE FEBRUARY 2021 BRIEFING
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive a briefing on the proposed Street Lighting master plan. The new plan
synthesizes community feedback and technical advice into a document by which the department
proposes to guide street lighting improvement and maintenance throughout the city. The plan seeks to
create accommodation for different lighting needs and desires throughout the city.
Adoption of the street lighting master plan does not have a budget impact for this fiscal year; however
it is likely that deliberation on and adoption of the plan would pave the way for a new capital
improvement program and financial strategy for the Street Lighting enterprise fund. These
subsequent phases would have budgetary impacts for the enterprise fund, as well as potential impacts
to ratepayers.
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND
From the transmittal: “The most recent street lighting plan was completed in 2006. In 2013, the
management of the streetlight system was transferred from the Transportation Division to the
Department of Public Utilities. This transfer included changing the funding source for the operation,
maintenance and capital improvements of the system from the General Fund and Special Assessment
Areas [SAA] to a newly created street lighting enterprise fund.”
The city provides different tiers of lighting service through the Street Lighting enterprise fund that the
current system inherited from the previous SAA structure; for example, enhanced lighting areas in
Rose Park, Yalecrest, and in the downtown area are assessed different rates for corresponding lighting
service that varies from the basic streetlighting in most of the city. Additionally, the department
maintains a private lighting program that receives a $20,000 annual grant from the general fund. This
funding allows property owners to obtain matching funds from the city for private light installation in
the public right-of-way. Maintenance of those private lights is the responsibility of the property owner,
although the department facilitates access to a lighting contractor to support that.
From the transmittal: “During the first few years of conversion to the new LED fixtures mainly within
industrial, commercial and higher density residential areas, Public Utilities received more positive
feedback than negative. When installation [of new LED lights] began in the residential neighborhoods,
there were more complaints. Residents were not pleased with the brightness of the lights as well as the
white light emitted. The City is also proactively working on various streets projects, community
improvement projects, pedestrian and bicycle friendly projects, and issues related to crime. Street
lighting has a role to play in all of these endeavors.” To this end, the plan also contemplates its
intersections with other adopted city planning documents. (transmittal page 39 et seq., plan page 19 et
seq.)
The department conducted extensive outreach through community and technical advisor groups. A
more detailed report on the outreach is located in the transmittal on pages three and four.
Furthermore, Council Members met in small groups with the administration to discuss the plan over
the summer of 2020.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Administration transmittal
Page | 4
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Council Members often receive persistent and sometimes conflicting requests from
community members and community groups for lighting.
a. The Council might be interested in hearing from the administration about how
requests from community members and community groups would be vetted so
that lighting implementation takes place with inclusive engagement.
b. Council Members might wish to know how the administration proposes
resolving conflicting lighting requests; e.g. would those be resolved by taking
polls of property owners; what other methods would be available to determine
how to move forward when requests are conflicting for one area.
2. Council Members have adopted the expectation through resolution that master plans
go through a vetting process that includes review by the city’s Planning Commission.
The Street Lighting master plan has been in progress since before that resolution was
officially adopted in 2020. The Council has adopted other planning documents since
the resolution adoption that have not been reviewed by the Planning Commission.
a. Council Members might wish to request feedback from the administration on
the potential value of the Planning Commission reviewing the lighting plan
before its potential adoption.
3. The Council might wish for more specific figures related to the anticipated annual
budget impact when it comes to ongoing, regular implementation of the guidance in the
plan.
a. Additionally, when it comes to annual budget deliberations for the Street
Lighting enterprise fund, the Council might request a more extensive oversight
and guidance role when it comes to capital planning and appropriations for
each coming year, not unlike the general fund capital improvement program
process.
b. An opportunity to review this enterprise fund budget in greater depth each year
and throughout the interim could give the Council greater opportunity to review
the capital planning and budget proposals for equity considerations.
c. Because the technical and service requirements of the Street Lighting fund are
different from the other Public Utilities enterprise funds, additional budget
oversight and engagement could be more appropriate when it comes to the
improvements and expansions of the city’s lighting system on the basis of the
proposed plan.
4. Community members have inquired about the creation of enhanced lighting areas
through the general fund capital improvement program (CIP). Council Members might
ask for feedback from the department about the feasibility of creating these enhanced
lighting areas through general fund CIP, and then transferring the asset to the
enterprise fund for maintenance and cost recovery through increased lighting fees.
APPENDIX A
The master plan proposes the following policy statements (transmittal page 18; plan page 10):
Based on the application of planning guideposts and input of the steering and
technical committees, the master plan implements the following major policies:
• Street lighting will enhance safety through the implementation
of industry recognized standards.
Page | 5
• Street lighting standards include allowances to encourage dimming strategies
relating to pedestrian activity, wildlife and dark skies lighting.
• Street lighting will minimize the obtrusive effects of light at night resulting from
light trespass, light pollution, and glare through the selection and placement of
appropriate poles, fixtures, light type, and light levels.
• Provide pedestrian lighting in accordance with neighborhood plans and in
accordance with the typologies in this plan.
• Provide street and pedestrian lighting that minimizes impacts to sensitive
wildlife species.
• Select fixture types to provide dark skies protection.
• Implementation based on neighborhood and community input to determine pole,
fixture type, maximum and minimum light level, and the implementation of
adaptive dimming applications when appropriate.
The plan also enumerates a number of implementation priorities and steps; “proposed for
highest priority are neighborhoods current underserved for street and/or pedestrian
lighting based on adjacent land uses.” (plan page 11) Furthermore, “high conflict areas”
such as neighborhood byways and transit stations are proposed to be highest priority.
High conflict refers to the potential for an area to have a diversity of uses and needs. The
plan offers a helpful side-by-side table showing how the policy proposals have been
revised from their 2006 predecessors. (transmittal pages 34-35, plan pages 14-15)
APPENDIX B
The plan proposes the following process for implementation (transmittal page 19, plan
page 11). This process, all four steps, would take place systematically based on
recommendations and classifications made in the plan.
STEP ONE:
• Identify high conflict areas in the City
• Review the current lighting map to identify underserved neighborhoods
and high conflict areas
• Respond to request from community or neighborhood for lighting change
STEP TWO:
Page | 6
• Contact community and neighborhood representatives to identify
priorities and review options according to the matrix
•Identify neighborhood-preferred option according to the matrix
STEP THREE:
• Estimate cost of preferred option
• Seek funding approval
STEP FOUR:
• Design, schedule and implement preferred option
APPENDIX C
Page | 7
Page | 8
APPENDIX D
Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan
Process & Issues Related to Correlated Color Temperatures (CCT)
06/16/2021
The topic of Correlated Color Temperature (CCT), which describes the perceived color of a light source, related
to street lighting has become quite controversial with the transition from predominantly high pressure sodium
(HPS) street lights with an amber color temperature (2200K CCT) to light emitting diode (LED) street lights,
which are can vary in color temp, typically from warm white (2700K) to cool/bluish white (5000K).
Recommendation: With a complexity of various research and opinions related to the CCT of street lighting, we
recommend that Salt Lake City perform a few pilot installations that demonstrate and compare different
CCTs in a few areas throughout the city, such as Single-Family Residential, Multi-Family Residential,
Commercial, and Downtown. These demonstrations will allow Salt Lake City to engage the public and
stakeholder groups in the final selection of CCT that is preferred and appropriate for each area. This process
should include some educational outreach to inform the public about the various issues related to CCT as
described in this memo and gather data on the preferences of the public and stakeholder groups.
What is Correlated Color Temperature (CCT)?
Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) is a measure of light source color appearance as compared to an ideal
blackbody radiator that is heated to a specific temperature, measured in degrees Kelvin (K). This is similar to
the variation of color seen in flames of a fire or gas stove. The higher temperature flame is perceived as blue
and lower temperature flame is perceived as yellow to orange.
How CCT is Addressed in the SLC Street Lighting Master Plan
The CCT of street lighting affects a few different areas of human experience and environmental impacts,
including: Brightness Perception, Nighttime Visibility, Color Identification, Aesthetic Character, Personal and
Cultural Preference, Human Health, Dark Skies and Behavior of Wildlife and Insects. This article from Pew
Charitable Trusts, “Citing Health Concerns, Some Cities Consider Dimmer LED Streetlights” provides an
overview of some of the controversial topics.
The Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan has considered all of these perspectives by implementing a
thorough Engagement Process, evaluating current research, and providing flexibility of on-going community
engagement to determine the final CCT to be used in each neighborhood or Council District. This Engagement
Process helped to develop the Guideposts for this Street Lighting Master Plan, which are: Safety, Character,
Responsibility and Equity. All of the decisions and guidance within this Plan have been considered and
balanced in relationship to these Guideposts. Considering the Guidepost of Responsibility, the Street Lighting
Master Plan has followed the advice from the American Medical Association (AMA) and International Dark-Sky
Association (IDA) for a maximum of 3000K CCT in Commercial, Retail, Civic and Downtown areas. This Master
Plan goes further, by limiting the CCT in Residential areas to 2700K maximum, and near environmentally
sensitive areas to 2200K maximum. By stating “maximum” CCT levels, and providing a path for on-going
community engagement, this plan allows the flexibility for each community to determine if they would
prefer lower CCTs than these maximums.
The topic of CCT related to visibility and health are currently very active areas of research, with varying
conclusions which are sometimes contradictory. In general, the current body of research, and understanding
of human preferences indicates the following trends, which have been categorized according to the Street
Lighting Master Plan Guideposts:
• Safety – Brightness Perception: Higher CCT’s tend to appear brighter at night, even at lower measured
light levels. This is related to a shift in spectral sensitivity toward blue light in lower light levels
experienced at night under street lighting. While this can have a positive effect on visibility, it can also
have a negative effect of increased glare if not properly controlled. Early LED streetlight conversions
using cool/bluish white (5000K) LEDs installations received significantly negative public reaction.
• Safety – Nighttime Visibility: Higher CCT’s may improve visibility at night, however, some studies are
contradictory. Some street lighting visibility studies show that higher CCT’s result in improved visual
detection distance1. Other studies show lower CCT’s with improved detection distance, however, the
lower CCT may result in fatigue and reduced detection distance over longer periods of time2.
• Safety – Color Identification: Color Rendering is more important than CCT for color identification. This
topic of color identification was noted as a high priority for the Police Department. Prior to LED, lower
CCT light sources like high pressure sodium (HPS) (2200K) and low pressure sodium (LPS) (1800K) also
had very low color rendering index (CRI), making it more difficult to accurately identify colors of
objects seen under these light sources. Newer LEDs that use a phosphor-corrected amber (PC Amber)
to achieve lower CCTs (1800K – 2200K) can have improved CRI that is closer to higher CCT light
sources. The PC Amber light source does not yet have wide-spread use in street lighting, and has not
been included in many street lighting research studies. The proposed pilot studies are an excellent
opportunity for Salt Lake City to evaluate PC Amber LED against standard white-light LEDs that are
based on phosphor-corrected blue LEDs.
• Character – Aesthetics, Personal & Cultural Preference: CCT can evoke a wide variety of emotions or
perceptions, which can vary from person to person. The very warm amber light from streetlights with
lower CCT’s (1800K – 2200K) associated with the legacy light sources of LPS and HPS may be perceived
as “outdated” by some, while others perceive this color as “warm” and “inviting. Higher CCT’s (4000K
+) are often perceived as “institutional” or “sterile”, while some may perceive this as “contemporary”,
“clean” and “crisp”. The proposed pilot studies would allow citizens and stakeholders to express their
subjective opinions and allow the City to make a data-driven decision for what is appropriate in
different areas.
1800K 2200K 2700K 3000K 3500K 4000K
Warmer --- Cooler
Private/Intimate --- Public
Residential/Hospitality --- Commercial/Institutional
Historic --- Contemporary
Fuzzy/Dingy --- Crisp/Clean
Comfortable --- Glary
• Responsibility – Human Health: Exposure to too much light at night, especially higher CCT light with
more blue content, can disrupt healthy sleeping cycles, or circadian rhythms, in humans. Light in the
blue spectrum suppresses melatonin, which is needed during the day for people to wake up and be
alert. Exposure to blue spectrum light at night also suppresses or delays melatonin production,
resulting in sleep disruption, which can lead to increased long-term risk of some types of cancer,
including breast cancer and prostate cancer. While higher CCT lighting does play a significant role in
melatonin suppression, it is also important to control light levels, reduce glare, and avoid light trespass
from street lighting. Total exposure to light at night, or dosage of light, is needed to understand the
full impact of street lighting as compared to other light exposure from interior lighting, computer
screens, TVs and light trespass from private property.
• Responsibility – Dark Skies: Higher CCT light sources with more blue spectrum light contribute more to
sky glow than lower CCT light sources. The molecular composition of the Earth’s atmosphere refracts,
or scatters, blue spectrum light, which is why our sky looks blue. Controlling light that is distributed
directly upward into the sky is critical to reducing light pollution. This Street Lighting Master Plan
includes recommendations to reduce light pollution from all decorative lights, including Downtown
and Sugarhouse historic lights and neighborhood pedestrian lighting, such as Rose Park. This Plan also
reduces blue spectrum content, changing from 4000K CCT to 3000K, 2700K and 2200K CCTs,
depending on adjacent land use.
• Responsibility – Behavior of Wildlife and Insects: In general, higher CCT light sources with more blue
spectrum light result in more negative effects on wildlife and insects. All full spectrum white lights
(2700 K and up) are considerably more biologically active than existing HPS lights and new PC Amber
LED lights. Using fully-shielded, low glare lights is also an important factor in reducing impacts to
wildlife and the ecosystem. Limiting light trespass into open space areas and critical wildlife habitats,
and providing adaptive dimming schedules are also included in this Street Lighting Master Plan.
• Equity – What is the Right Thing for each Neighborhood?: Engaging each community in the final
decision for the type of lighting and CCT is an important part of an equitable solution. This process
should include some education on the topics included in this memo and others related to street
lighting, as well as some survey and pilot demonstration to gather data on the opinions of the
residents and business owners in the area. While some areas may want more light and higher CCT for
safety concerns, this should be balanced with a responsible approach that incorporates all the issues
of human and environmental health, especially in residential areas.
More Background Information
1. Engagement Process
The Salt Lake City Street Lighting Masterplan was developed from a multi-level approach with a diverse set of
stakeholders and community members including:
• An Advisory Committee which met six times and included representatives from each City Council
District, Department of Public Utilities, and the Mayor’s Office. The Advisory Committee provided
guidance on policy issues and visioning. This group participated in site tours and surveys, visioning
sessions and progress updates along the way.
• A Technical Committee with City representatives from Police, Fire, Sustainability, Engineering,
Planning and Urban Forestry. The Technical Committee represented the interests of their
departments and contributed to the vision and guiding principles. This group participated in a site
tour to inform their feedback throughout the process.
The material and ideas produced from both groups was them reviewed by a community stakeholder group
with representation from Education, Business, Transit/Multi-modal transportation, and Environmental
organizations. The final draft plan includes input from both committees and feedback received during
stakeholder review. Once the draft document was complete, it received initial review from the City Council
and Planning Commission with a final recommendation to the City Council for adoption.
2. Guideposts: Safety, Character, Responsibility, Equity
a. Safety
i. Brightness Perception
The human eye contains two types of light activated cells in the retina, cones and rods. Cone cells require a
higher light level to be activated, and are responsible for color perception, experienced during the day and
under interior light levels. The rod cells are activated under lower light level conditions typically experienced
at night, and provide only gray-scale visual perception. The cones are more sensitive to the yellow end of the
spectrum and rods are more sensitive to the blue end of the spectrum. All lighting metrics, even for street
lighting use the daytime visual sensitivity curve, yet LED light sources with more blue spectrum content, or
higher CCT, appear brighter under lower light levels than lower CCT light sources. This effect is known as the
Purkinje Shift. This explains why people often perceive LED street lights as “brighter” and “more glary”.
ii. Nighttime Visibility Research
There are multiple studies by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute (VTTI) that study how different street
lighting characteristics affect visibility. These studies measure visual detection distance of objects under
different light levels and CCT’s. Some studies show that higher CCT’s, particularly 4000K – 4100K resulted in
increased visual detection distance, even at 25% of the light level of HPS lights at 2100K1. Yet, the results are
not consistent when comparing CCT and detection distance across multiple studies, and a more recent study
showed that HPS at 2100K resulted in increased visual detection distance than 4000K LED 2.
Figure summarizing studies on detection distance under different roadway lighting in Anchorage, San Jose, San
Diego, and Seattle.
Figure showing comparison of CCT and different light levels on Detection Distance over multiple laps driving
around a test roadway at Virginia Tech Transportation Institute2.
iii. Color Identification
Accurate color identification of objects depends on the spectrum of the light source illuminating the object.
This is measured as Color Rendering Index (CRI), which ranges from 0 – 100, using a broad spectrum light
incandescent source as the reference. The image below shows a red car parked in front of a convenience store
with two different light sources illuminating the car. The parking lot has low pressure sodium lights (CRI - 0)
that have a very narrow, amber color spectrum, which distorts the red color of the car. The front of the car,
near the fluorescent light (CRI - 70) emanating from the convenience store has a broader spectrum of light,
which more accurately renders the red color.
LED light sources commonly used for street lighting with CCT of 2700K – 5000K typically have a CRI of 70 – 80.
The most common legacy light source for street lighting was high pressure sodium (HPS) with a CCT of 2200K
had a CRI of 20 – 35. The image below shows a side-by-side comparison of these light sources (LED on the left,
and HPS on the right) and their resulting ability to render colors in the field of vision.
Newer PC Amber LED light sources provide 2200K and lower CCT with CRI’s ranging from 35 - 68. The higher
range of this CRI is comparable to the lower range of CCT for LEDs with higher 2700K - 5000K. While most
major street lighting manufacturers do not currently offer PC Amber as a standard option, most
manufacturers will consider providing PC Amber as a special modification.
3. Character
a. Perception of Character and Aesthetics
Color temperature of lighting affects many different aspects of human experience. Color temperature is
perceived as cooler (blue) to neutral (white) to warmer (yellow to orange), which is inverse to the
temperature measurement of the ideal black body radiator (or flame temperature). Higher color temperatures
are described as “cooler” and lower color temperatures are described as “warmer”. Color temperature can
also evoke certain emotions or perceptions such as:
1800K 2200K 2700K 3000K 3500K 4000K
Warmer --- Cooler
Private/Intimate --- Public
Residential/Hospitality --- Commercial/Institutional
Historic --- Contemporary
Fuzzy/Dingy --- Crisp/Clean
Comfortable --- Glary
Figure 1. Example of PC Amber used in an environmentally sensitive area. https://adlt.com.au/wp-
content/uploads/2014/02/IMG_7110-620x413.jpg
References 1800K 2200K 2700K 3000K 3500K 4000K 5000K 6000K
In Nature Campfire Sunrise/Sunset Moon Daylight
Color
Description Orange Amber Warm White Warm White Neutral White Cool White Cool Blue
Legacy Light
Sources
Low Pressure
Sodium (LPS)
High Pressure
Sodium (HPS)Incandescent Halogen Neutral White
Fluorescent
Cool White
Fluorescent
Daylight
Fluorescent
(Limited Use)
Interior
Lighting Limited Use Dimmed
Hospitality
Residential /
Hospitality
Residential /
Hospitality Office Office /
Healthcare
Office /
Healthcare
(Limited Use)
Exterior
Lighting
Near
Astronomic
Observatories
Street Lighting
before LED
Higher End
Pedestian
Lighting
Early LED Street
Lighting
Installations
Figure 2. Example of 2200 K LED used for environmental and aesthetic sensitivity.
https://www.atpiluminacion.com/files/actualidad/201223_Yamaguchi/atp-iluminacion-yamaguchi-2@2x.png
Figure 3. Example of 2700 K LEDs in the field.
Figure 4. Example of 3000 K LEDs in the field. https://www.clantonassociates.com/our-projects/16th-street-mall
Responsibility (Longcore)
b. CCT / Spectrum & Human Health
Human circadian rhythms can be influenced by exposure to light at night. The mechanism is presumed to be
the suppression of melatonin production. Melatonin is a naturally occurring hormone that is produced by
humans and most organisms during darkness and it plays central roles in regulating human daily rhythms
across all aspects of human physiology. It is also “oncostatic”, meaning that it keeps cancer tumors from
growing. Because exposure to too much light at night suppresses melatonin, unnatural light exposure has
been identified as a risk factor for certain cancers, including breast and prostate cancer. Suppression of
melatonin varies depending on the wavelengths of light, with a peak sensitivity in the light blue. Daylight, with
a color temperature of 6500 K, is very effective at suppressing melatonin production (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Spectral power of daylight (colors) with the overlap with human melatonin suppression sensitivity (lighter colors). Melatonin
sensitivity curve is in the background in gray. Upper left: Daylight (D65), Upper right: 4200 K LED, Lower left: 2200 K LED, Lower right:
1900K High Pressure Sodium. Source: fluxometer.com
The relative power of lights to suppress melatonin can be calculated, and it decreases with color temperature
for standard light sources (Figure 3).
Few studies connect color temperature with health outcomes in the epidemiological literature, perhaps
because the technology to do such studies is only recently becoming available. A study of breast and prostate
cancer in Spain published in 2018 provides initial information, which is consistent with greater effects being
associated with higher color temperatures. In this study, greater blue light outdoors at residences of cancer
patients compared with those of controls was associated with a 47% increased risk of breast cancer and a
doubling in prostate cancer risk3. In contrast, outdoor lighting alone (of all colors) was not associated with
increased risk. The study also accounted for light experienced in the sleeping environment, with a significantly
greater risk of prostate cancer for those sleeping in a “quite illuminated” bedroom, but no statistically
significant result for breast cancer3.
Figure 3. Relative sensitivity of human circadian system, as measured by melatonin suppression, for typical LED light sources and High
Pressure Sodium, compared with an equal brightness of daylight.
Scientists who are skeptical about the potential for outdoor to affect human health point to the intensity
thresholds for melatonin suppression. Based on models of human physiology, they demonstrate that
melatonin suppression is likely to be very small or not measurable below approximately 5 lux4. Since outdoor
lighting rarely reaches these levels within dwellings, the impact is presumed to be minimal, regardless of color
temperature. This argument, however, does not extend to exposures outdoors at night and illumination
under street lighting often exceeds 5 lux.
A precautionary approach to color temperature for human circadian health relative to outdoor lighting would
be to favor the use of lower color temperature lighting (Figure 3), which then would be balanced against other
guideposts.
c. CCT / Spectrum & Critical Wildlife Habitat
i. Tracy Aviary
Color temperature is one factor that influences the degree to which light at night affects wildlife. Depending
on the group of organisms, color may be able to reduce or increase effects a little or a lot. One group where
color is relatively more important is insects, which are, in general, more attracted to blue, violet, and
ultraviolet than yellows and reds. There are exceptions to this pattern, but studies of insect attraction to
different color temperatures of LED find that lower color temperatures attract fewer insects. This relationship
has been quantified and can be used to compare attraction of specific options for street lighting (Figure 4).
For nearly all organisms investigated, lower color temperatures are assessed to have reduce impacts. The
difference between 2700 K and 3000 K tends to be small, and all full spectrum white lights (2700 K and up) are
considerably more biologically active than existing HPS lights.
There is no evidence that color temperature is a driving force in attraction and mortality of migratory birds,
however. Light visible from above affects the distribution of migratory birds 5, 6, but the satellite used for these
studies does not distinguish between colors of light and in fact does not measure blue and violet light at all.
The recommended approach to reduce impacts on migratory birds from roadway lighting is to fully shield
lights to eliminate upward glare and to only use the amount of light necessary so that the reflected light is
kept to a minimum. Current efforts to reduce bird mortality in Salt Lake City by the Tracy Aviary focus on
voluntary efforts by building owners to shut off interior lights during migration. The amount of lighted
window area on buildings correlates with bird collisions 7. The project team discussed these issues with Ms.
Cooper Farr of the Tracy Aviary during the development of the Master Plan.
Figure 4. Relative attractiveness of different LEDs and High Pressure Sodium to insects, as quantified Longcore et al.8 from an insect
attraction curve developed by Donners et al.9
d. CCT / Spectrum & Dark Skies
We followed the work of the Department of Energy with respect to the effect of different color temperatures
on light pollution for astronomical observation 10. The DOE study modeled the effects of different
combinations of spectrum, uplight, and intensity under different weather conditions, human vision adaptation
levels, and distance from the lights. These results compare high-pressure sodium as the baseline, with PC
Amber LED (1872 K), and 2700–6100 K LEDs. When compared on an equal basis for other factors (same
uplight and intensity), only the PC Amber produced roughly equivalent light pollution compared with HPS and
all full-spectrum LEDs produced significantly more light pollution, especially when considering human night
vision. This difference is shown for a range of LEDs and HPS using the “starlight index”11 (Figure 5). When
both HPS and LEDs were assumed to have 0% uplight and the LEDs were set at half the intensity of the LEDs,
then LEDs with CCT < 3000 K were comparable to or produced less light pollution than HPS. Results were
similar with HPS at 2% uplight and LEDs at 0% uplight and 50% intensity.
The take-home message of this research for the Salt Lake City street lighting master plan is that for LED lamps
lights to reduce light pollution compared with the previously common HPS lamps, they must be 0% uplight,
50% less bright, and with a CCT of no greater than 3000 K. The minimum impact on light pollution could be
achieved with PC Amber or comparable filtered LEDs that produce a similar CCT as HPS (~ 1800 K).
Figure 5. Relative impact of LEDs and HPS compared with a source similar to daylight, using the starlight index9. 2700–3000 K LEDs are
similar in impact to HPS if they are operated with half of the lumen output of the HPS.
4. Equity
This Street Lighting Master Plan strives to provide an equitable approach to the recommendations and
establishment of priorities for implementation. This approach identifies areas that are currently underserved
with street and pedestrian lighting. Some of these areas have expressed concerns of safety, and would prefer
to have more lighting installed in their neighborhood. Other areas, that currently darker and have few street
or pedestrian lights, have expressed concerns about dark skies and light trespass, and would prefer to no
additional lighting it their neighborhood. With these disparate perceptions, this Street Lighting Master Plan
encourages on-going community engagement before implementing any street lighting projects to determine
what lighting strategies the community would prefer.
During this on-going public engagement process, it is important to include some public education about the
issues involved with guideposts, including CCT issues that are discussed in this memo. It is also as important to
implement pilot demonstrations that allow citizens to see and experience the lighting options, including CCT
and dimming, to gather data to make a fully informed decision on the final street and pedestrian lighting
strategies to implement in any neighborhood.
1 Gibbons, Clanton. Seattle LED Adaptive Lighting Study. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, 2014. p. 42
2 Bhagavathula, R., R. Gibbons, J. Hanifin, and G. Brainard. LED Roadway Lighting: Impact on Driver Sleep Health and
Alertness, 2021. Pre-publication draft of NCHRP Research. p.
Report 968. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.
3 Garcia-Saenz, A., et al., Evaluating the association between artificial light-at-night exposure and breast and prostate
cancer risk in Spain (MCC-Spain study). Environmental Health Perspectives, 2018. 126(4): p. 047011.
4 Grubisic, M., et al., Light pollution, circadian photoreception, and melatonin in vertebrates. Sustainability, 2019. 11(22):
p. 6400.
5 La Sorte, F.A., et al., Seasonal associations with urban light pollution for nocturnally migrating bird populations. Global
Change Biology, 2017. 23(11): p. 4609–4619.
6 McLaren, J.D., et al., Artificial light at night confounds broad-scale habitat use by migrating birds. Ecology Letters, 2018.
21(3): p. 356–364.
7 Parkins, K.L., S.B. Elbin, and E. Barnes, Light, glass, and bird–building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist,
2015. 22(1): p. 84–94.
8 Longcore, T., et al., Rapid assessment of lamp spectrum to quantify ecological effects of light at night. Journal of
Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological and Integrative Physiology, 2018. 329(8-9): p. 511–521.
9 Donners, M., et al., Colors of attraction: modeling insect flight to light behavior. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A:
Ecological and Integrative Physiology, 2018. 329(8-9): p. 434–440.
10 Kinzey, B., et al., An investigation of LED street lighting’s impact on sky glow. 2017, U.S. Department of Energy (Contract
DE-AC05-76RL01830): Richland, Washington.
11 Aubé, M., J. Roby, and M. Kocifaj, Evaluating potential spectral impacts of various artificial lights on melatonin
suppression, photosynthesis, and star visibility. PLoS ONE, 2013. 8(7): p. e67798.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 14, 2021 Page 1
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
This meeting was held electronically pursuant to the
Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation
Wednesday, April 14, 2021
A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to
order at approximately 5:30 pm. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for
a period. These minutes are a summary of the meeting. For complete commentary and presentation of
the meeting, please visit https://www.youtube.com/c/SLCLiveMeetings.
Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Vice Chairperson, Amy Barry; Commissioners;
Maurine Bachman, Adrienne Bell, Carolynn Hoskins, Jon Lee, Matt Lyon, Andres Paredes, Sara
Urquhart, and Crystal Young-Otterstrom. Chairperson Brenda Scheer was excused.
Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Wayne Mills, Planning Manager; Molly Robinson,
Planning Manager; Paul Nielson, Attorney; David Gellner, Principal Planner; Krissy Gilmore, Principal
Planner; Aaron Barlow, Principal Planner; Marlene Rankins, Administrative Assistant; and Aubrey Clark,
Administrative Assistant.
Vice Chairperson, Amy Barry read the Salt Lake City emergency proclamation.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
Chairperson Scheer was not present.
Vice Chairperson Barry stated she had nothing to report.
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR
Wayne Mills, Planning Manager, provided the public with instructions on how to participate during the
meeting. He also provided the commission with information regarding how permits and zoning functions
in the City.
CONSENT AGENDA
Red Rock Brewery Brewhouse at approximately 426 West 400 North - Conditional Use and
Conditional Building and Site Design Review Time Extension Requests - MJSA Architects representing
200 West Holding, LC the property owner, is requesting that the Planning Commission grant a one-year
time extension on the Conditional Use and Conditional Building and Site Design (CBSDR) approvals for
a brewery at the above listed address. The Commission originally granted Conditional Use and CBSDR
approval for this project on April 24, 2019. A one-year extension to the Conditional Use approval was
previously granted on April 22, 2020. This request would extend both approvals to expire on April 24,
2022. The project is located within the TSA-UC-T (Transit Station Area Urban Center Transition) zoning
district within Council District 3, represented by Chris Warton. (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at (385-
226-3860 or david.gellner@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2018-01008 & PLNPCM2019-00255
APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 24, 2021, MEETING MINUTES.
MOTION
Commissioner Lyon moved to approve the consent agenda. Commissioner Bell seconded the
motion. Commissioners; Bachman, Bell, Hoskins, Lee, Paredes, Urquhart, Young-Otterstrom, and
Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 14, 2021 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Bookbinder Studios on 2nd West Design Review at approximately 422 South 200 West - A request
by Scott Harwood, representing OZ Opportunity Fund LLC, is requesting Design Review approval to
develop a 7-story, 83’-1" tall residential structure to be located on two contiguous parcels located at 418
S 200 W and 422 S 200 W. The proposed building will encompass 115 studio and one-bedroom units.
The building will have two structured parking levels with 58 parking stalls and five levels of apartment
units above. The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to allow for additional building height
and modification to the required building entrances. The project site is located in the D-2 (Downtown
Support) zoning district and is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros (Staff
contact: Krissy Gilmore at (801) 535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Case number
PLNPCM2021-00035
Krissy Gilmore, Principal Planner, reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report (located in the
case file). She stated Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the request with the
conditions listed in the staff report.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification on number of parking spaces provided
Scott Harwood, Eric Hansen, and Jonathan Kland, applicants, provided a presentation with further
details.
The Commission, Staff and Applicant discussed the following:
• Clarification on entrance layout
• Whether the entrance is visible from the street or the parking lot
PUBLIC HEARING
Vice Chairperson Barry opened the Public Hearing;
Lisa Hazel – Raised concern with energy efficiency and would like to see bike parking.
Cindy Cromer – Stated that in the East downtown, a building of this height used to be an allowed use.
She also stated she thinks it’s time that something is done about the fact that the planners are spending
time on a request like this, where units that will be available and are modestly priced have been delayed
arriving in the market place by the amount of time that the petition has been in the Planning Department.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Vice Chairperson Barry closed the Public Hearing.
The applicant addressed the public comments.
The commission and applicant discussed the following:
• Clarification on height of structure behind the proposal
• Clarification on whether the City will be undertaking mandatory zoning amendments with the result
of legislative changes
• Affordable Housing Overlay zone
• Design Review ordinance modifications and when a proposal for height should go before the
Commission
Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 14, 2021 Page 3
MOTION
Lyon Based on the analysis and findings listed in the staff report, information presented, and the
input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission approve the
Design Review request (PLNPCM2021-00035) for the project located at approximately 422 S 200
W with the conditions listed in the staff report.
Commissioner Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Bell, Hoskins, Lee,
Paredes, Urquhart, Young-Otterstrom, and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed unanimously.
2020 Salt Lake City Street Light Master Plan - Representatives from the Department of Public Utilities
of the City will provide an overview of the 2020 Salt Lake City Street Light Master Plan (Plan). Major
changes in the 2020 Plan from the 2006 Plan include a systematic approach for choosing lighting
strategies of public ways based on adjacent land use, pedestrian activity, and street typology. The 2020
City Street Light Master Plan includes all areas of the City and will impact all City Council districts. (Staff
Contact: David Pearson, Streetlight Program Manager at (801) 483-6738 or david.Pearson@slcgov.com;
or Marian Rice, Deputy Director at (801) 483-6765 or marian.rice@slcgov.com)
Aaron Barlow, Principal Planner, introduced Marian Rice, Deputy Director of Salt Lake City Department
of Public Services, and Jesse Stewart Salt Lake City Department of Public Services.
The following participants were also available for questions:
• Laura Briefer; SLCDPU
• Jesse Stewart; SLCDPU
• Marian Rice; SLCDPU
• David Pearson; SLCDPU
• Dane Sanders, Clanton & Associates;
• Annaka Egan, GSBS;
• Jesse Allen, GSBS;
• Travis Longcore;
Jesse Stewart, provided a presentation with details regarding the proposal.
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification on how neighborhood byway is defined
• Process when a resident request a light on their street
• Clarification on whether there is a standard number of lights on a street
PUBLIC HEARING
Vice Chairperson Barry opened the Public Hearing;
Lisa Hazel – Stated her opposition of the request.
Judi Short – Provided an email comment that was read into the record requesting to know the type of
public engagement was performed.
Dave Iltis – Stated his opposition of the request in its current form.
Seeing no one else wished to speak; Vice Chairperson Barry closed the Public Hearing.
Dane Sanders addressed the public comments and concerns.
Salt Lake City Planning Commission April 14, 2021 Page 4
The Commission and Staff discussed the following:
• Clarification on why the highest amount of kelvin was chosen
MOTION
Commissioner Lyon stated, based on the findings, analysis, testimony and plan presented, I move
that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to adopt
the 2020 Street Lights Master Plan and the accompanying Technical Guidance and
Implementation document. With a recommendation to the City Council:
1. To further explore the warmness of the light and the kelvin temperatures and further
understand that fully.
Commissioner Young-Otterstrom seconded the motion. Commissioners Bachman, Bell, Hoskins,
Lee, Paredes, Urquhart, Young-Otterstrom and Lyon voted “Aye”. The motion passed
unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:05 pm.
ERIN MENDENHALL
MAYOR
LAURA BRIEFER, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
1
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
_______________________ Date Received: ___________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 10-14-2020
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Amy Fowler, Chair
Laura Briefer, Director, Department of Public Utilities
2020 Salt Lake City Street Light Master Plan
STAFF CONTACTS: Jesse Stewart, Deputy Director, jesse.stewart@slcgov.com;
Jason Brown, PE, Chief Engineer, jason.brown@slcgov.com;
David Pearson, PE, Street Lighting Manager, david.pearson@slcgov.com;
Jeff Snelling, PE, Senior Engineer, jeff.snelling@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the 2020 Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan.
BUDGET IMPACT: The adoption of the 2020 Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan does not have a budget impact
for this fiscal year. The Street Lighting Utility budget is prepared annually, and implementation of this proposed plan will
be reflected in future annual budgets. Due to certain recommended changes related to pedestrian lighting and safety, it is
anticipated that Public Utilities will need to prepare an updated capital improvement program and financial strategy for
the Street Lighting Enterprise Fund to implement the Plan beginning in Fiscal Year 2022.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Salt Lake City was the 5th City in the United States to have streetlights. The City’s first systematic plan for installing
streetlights was adopted in 1908. The most recent street lighting plan was completed in 2006. In 2013, the management of
the streetlight system was transferred from the Transportation Division to the Department of Public Utilities. This transfer
included changing the funding source for the operation, maintenance and capital improvements of the system from the
General Fund and Special Assessment Areas (SAA’s) to a newly created street lighting enterprise fund.
Currently Public Utilities maintains over 15,500 streetlights within Salt Lake City boundaries. The Street Lighting
Enterprise Fund was primarily developed to maintain existing lighting and upgrade fixtures to newer technology LED.
First generation LED lights installed had few options regarding lumen output (measure of light output and brightness) and
color temperature (whiteness of the light). The City’s practice was to replace the older fixtures with LED fixtures at the
same lumen output using a 4,000-Kelvin temperature, which at the time was the industry standard. These new LED
fixtures had the same measurable light output but were perceived as a brighter light. During the first few years of
conversion to the new LED fixtures mainly within industrial, commercial and higher density residential areas, Public
Utilities received more positive feedback than negative. When installation began in the residential neighborhoods, there
were more complaints. Residents were not pleased with the brightness of the lights as well as the white light emitted. The
City is also proactively working on various streets projects, community improvement projects, pedestrian and bicycle
10/14/2020
1/13/2021
Lisa Shaffer (Jan 13, 2021 13:43 MST)
friendly projects, and issues related to crime. Street lighting has a role to play in all of these endeavors.
2020 Street Lighting Master Plan Development and Content
In 2018, Public Utilities began the process of updating the Streetlighting Master Plan (Plan). This planning effort includes
a review and update of policies related to the system, engagement of stakeholders in the planning process and design
guidance for the City’s street light system.
Public Utilities partnered with GSBS Consulting and Clanton & Associates to develop the Plan. This Plan provides design
guidance for improving street and pedestrian lighting that will create a quality nighttime visual experience while being
more energy efficient. Four guideposts, developed by stakeholder committees, that include Safety, Character,
Responsibility, and Equity, drive the Plan’s policies. The Plan also draws on bodies of knowledge throughout the world
regarding advancements in the technology and science of how we can light our public ways.
The 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan incorporates two volumes, including the Master Plan itself and Technical Guidance
and Implementation guide. Both are attached to this transmittal, as well as the Executive Summary for the Master Plan.
Primary components of the Plan include:
•System Background
•System Evaluation
•Plan Guideposts
•Street Lighting Basics Overview
•Process for Evaluating the Lighted Environment
•Comprehensive Improvements
•Minimal Improvements
•Lighting Controls and Adaptive Dimming Strategies
•Lighting Calculations
•Appendices
o Lighting Terms
o Meeting Notes
o Existing Conditions Report
o Nocturnal Infrastructure for Ecological Health (report)
o Luminaire Submittal Form
If approved, the 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan would implement the following major policy statements for the City:
1)Street lighting will enhance safety through the implementation of industry recognized standards.
2)Street lighting standards will include allowances to encourage dimming strategies relating to pedestrian activity,
wildlife, and dark skies lighting.
3) Street lighting will minimize the obtrusive effects of light at night resulting from light trespass, light pollution,
and glare through the selection and placement of appropriate poles, fixtures, light type, and light levels.
4) Provide pedestrian lighting in accordance with neighborhood plans and in accordance with the typologies of this
Plan.
5) Provide street and pedestrian lighting that minimizes impacts to sensitive wildlife species.
6) Select fixture types to provide dark skies protection.
7) Implementation based on neighborhood and community input to determine pole, fixture type, maximum and
minimum light level, and the implementation of adaptive dimming applications when appropriate.
Funding and prioritization are the key drivers in implementation of the polices, standards, and strategies in the Plan.
Implementation recommendations outlined in the Plan are as follows:
1)Priority One
a.Neighborhoods currently underserved for street and/or pedestrian lighting based on adjacent land uses
b. High conflict areas including school zones, bus stops, transit stations, and neighborhood byways.
2)Priority Two
a. Areas with non-compliant existing street lighting.
3) Ongoing
a. Replacement of lamps with LED luminaires on regular maintenance schedule as appropriate.
b. Replacement of non-compliant street lighting in areas of ecological sensitivity.
c. Installation of dimming capability.
d. New development or redevelopment proposals.
4) Step One
a. Identify high conflict areas in the City
b. Review the current lighting map to identify underserved neighborhoods.
c. Respond to requests from community or neighborhoods for lighting changes
5) Step Two
a. Contact community and neighborhood representatives to identify priorities and review options according
the matrix developed in the Plan.
b. Identify the community preferred option.
6) Step Three
a. Estimate cost of preferred option.
b. Seek funding approval/develop financial strategy
7) Step Four
a. Design, schedule, and implement the preferred option.
If the Plan is adopted, it will reflect public feedback and the City’s street lighting system will be better incorporated into
City livability and development goals. Major changes in the 2020 Plan from the 2006 Plan include a systematic approach
for choosing lighting strategies of public ways based on adjacent land use, pedestrian activity, and street typology.
Procedures for determining pedestrian lighting are included, as are lighting procedures for environmentally sensitive
areas. Because of this, the current base street lighting standard will likely change depending on the land use, pedestrian
activity, and street typology. It is anticipated that Public Utilities will need to prepare an updated capital improvement
program and schedule for the street lighting system if this Plan is adopted, along with an updated evaluation of street
lighting rates, rate structure and financial strategies for capital improvements.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
Public Utilities consistently receives feedback regarding the current lighting system, both positive and negative. A major
driver of the 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan includes this public feedback. For instance, Public Utilities has received
feedback regarding the performance of LED fixtures, public safety, environment, and equity.
As part of the Plan effort, three groups were formed to advise in the development of the Plan. The first group, the
Advisory Committee, consisted of representatives from each City Council District recommended by City
Councilmembers or Council staff. Advisory Committee members were asked to provide input on lighting in their specific
district and in common areas of the City. Throughout the course of developing the Plan this committee helped in
evaluating the existing system and provided guidance pertaining to the Plan’s scope and reach.
A second group formed as a Technical Committee consisting of staff from City Departments and Divisions who hold a
direct interest in the street lighting program. Technical Committee members include representatives from Salt Lake City
Police Department, Fire Department, Sustainability Department, Engineering Division, Planning Division, and the Urban
Forestry Division. Technical Committee members provided input based on their unique responsibilities with respect to
how streetlighting influenced their tasks. This committee provided direction in how lighting design criteria could assist in
meeting the City’s goals and more specifically, helping to accomplish their Department’s individual responsibilities.
The third group was formed from stakeholders in the community including representatives from agencies and groups in
the transportation, education, environmental, and business sectors who have a vested interest in Salt Lake City. The
primary purpose of this group was to provide input as the Plan progressed. This provided a level of transparency and
allowed for feedback to ensure the Plan had a solid foundation to address the multiple values of a comprehensive lighting
system.
Public Utilities and the GSBS Consulting team met with the Advisory and Technical Committees to help frame the vision
and goals of the Plan. The committees were encouraged to offer their opinion on existing lighting conditions throughout
the City and what improvements could be made. These Committees toured 17 sites throughout the City with varied
lighting characteristics and land use. At each of these sites committee members were asked several questions to gauge
their opinion on the existing lighting conditions. The GSBS Consulting team also took light measurements at each of these
locations to compare with current industry lighting standards. Using the data collected from the measured light readings
and input from the committees, GSBS created an Existing Lighting Conditions report. This report summarized current
lighting conditions to assist with developing design criteria and a future implementation plan using the guideposts detailed
in the Plan.
Meetings and Formal Engagement:
•November 5, 2018: Street Lighting Site Tour and Surveys – Advisory and Technical Committees
•April 3, 2019: Street Lighting 101 – Advisory Committee
•April 25, 2019: Visioning Session – Advisory Committee
•April 26, 2019 – Technical Committee
•May 24, 2019: City Council and Mayor’s Office Briefing
•July 29 and 30, 2019: Stakeholder Update
•April 2019 – November 2019: Public Street Lighting Survey, 160 respondents
•January 8, 2020: Progress Update – Advisory Committee
•October 22nd, 2020: Public Utilities Advisory Committee (planned)
Enclosures:
Draft Ordinance Adopting the 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan
2020 Street Lighting Master Plan Executive Summary
2020 Street Lighting Master Plan Volume 1 – Master Plan (June 2020)
2020 Street Lighting Master Plan Volume 2 – Technical Guidance and Implementation (June 2020)
SALT LAKE CITY, UT
Street Lighting Master Plan
VOLUME 1 - MASTER PLAN
JUNE 2020
3
INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS..........7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................. 9
Current System Evaluation ................................9
Policy Statements ................................................10
Implementation Steps ..........................................11
SYSTEM BACKGROUND, HISTORY ..........................13
CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION ..........................16
CURRENT LIGHTING POLICIES AND PROGRAMS ...16
2006 Street Lighting Master Plan .............16
Special Improvement Districts ...................16
Private Lighting Program ..............................16
EXISTING LIGHTING CONDITIONS ........................17
Process ...................................................................17
CITY PLANNING GUIDANCE .................................19
Plan Salt Lake ......................................................19
Neighborhood Master Plans ......................20
Lighting Levels & Gaps ..................................24
Evaluation by Community/District ..........25
PLAN GUIDEPOSTS ..................................................27
Safety .........................................................................27
Character ..................................................................27
Responsibility .........................................................27
Equity .........................................................................28
STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW ..................29
SYSTEMWIDE CONSIDERATIONS ............................29
Health and Wellbeing..........................................29
Wildlife Impacts .....................................................29
LIGHTING CHARACTERISTICS ..................................29
Appropriate Light Levels ..................................29
Glare Reduction .....................................................31
Uniformity vs. Contrast ......................................32
Adaptation ...............................................................33
Color Rendering and Nighttime
Visibility ....................................................................34
Color Temperature and Nighttime
Visibility .....................................................................35
Light Trespass ........................................................36
Light Pollution ........................................................37
COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION ................................38
Initial Costs ..............................................................38
Long Term Life Cycle Costs .............................38
Maintenance ............................................................39
Energy ........................................................................39
Standardization .....................................................39
STREET LIGHTING PLAN..........................................40
Lighting Improvement Strategies ...........40
Purpose ................................................................40
Lighting Layout Strategies .........................40
Street Lighting Only ........................................42
Street and Pedestrian Lighting .................43
Pedestrian Lighting Only .............................44 TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS
4
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Special Lighting Districts ............................ 45
Intersection Lighting .....................................46
Vertical Illumination in Crosswalks ..........47
Bus Stop ..............................................................48
Environmentally Protected Areas ...........48
IMPLEMENTATION OF UPGRADED LIGHTING .......48
Street Lighting Equipment and
Technology ........................................................50
Lighting Improvements
Complexity & Cost ...........................................52
Minimal 1-for-1 Replacements .....................52
Supplemental .....................................................52
Comprehensive .................................................52
PRIORITIZING LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS ...........52
Areas Underserved by
Street Lighting ...................................................53
High Priority Conflict Areas ........................53
1-for-1 Lighting Improvements ...................57
APPENDIX ..........................................................59
A. Glossary of Lighting Terms ........................59
B. Committee Meeting Notes ..........................61
C. Existing Conditions Report
Presentation ......................................................67
D. Nocturnal Infrastructure for
Ecological Health ...........................................89
E. Luminaire Submittal Forms ......................123
5
FIGURE 1: Site Evaluation Map ...................................10
FIGURE 2: Neighborhood
Master Plans Map – 2017 ...........................................20
FIGURE 3: Street Light Density Map .......................24
FIGURE 4: Community Character Map ..................25
FIGURE 5: Appropriate Light Level ..........................29
FIGURE 6: Glare Reduction ...........................................31
FIGURE 7: Uniformity Vs. Glare ..................................32
FIGURE 8: Adaptation ....................................................33
FIGURE 9: Color Rendering ........................................34
FIGURE 10: Color Temperature ..................................35
FIGURE 11: Light Trespass .............................................36
FIGURE 12: Light Pollution ............................................37
FIGURE 13: Initial Costs: Guidepost Synergy &
Balance ...............................................................................38
FIGURE 14: Energy ..........................................................39
FIGURE 15: Street Lighting Warrants Matrix .........41
FIGURE 16: Street Lighting Only
Cross Section ..................................................................42
FIGURE 17: Street & Pedestrian
Lighting Cross Section............................................... 43
FIGURE 18: Pedestrian Only
Lighting Cross Section...............................................44
FIGURE 19: Cactus Lights Cross Section .............. 45
FIGURE 20: Intersection Lighting Plan ..................46
FIGURE 21: Crosswalk Lighting ..................................47
FIGURE 22: School Locations .....................................53
FIGURE 23: Bus Stop Locations ................................54
FIGURE 24: Transit Stations .........................................55
FIGURE 25: Neighborhood Byways .........................56
TABLE OF FIGURES TABLE OF TABLES
TABLE 1: Plan Policy Statement Comparison
2006-2020 ........................................................................14
TABLE 2: Street and Sidewalk Lighting
Conditions Council District Locations ..................17
TABLE 3: Street and Sidewalk
Existing Lighting Ratings ............................................19
TABLE 4: Street Lighting Policy
and Implementation Items .........................................21
TABLE 5: Lighting Layout Strategy
By Land Use ....................................................................49
TABLE 6: Recommended Luminaries
By Land Use ......................................................................51
6
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
7
The 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan was
developed with the input and guidance of two
committees and reviewed by a Stakeholders
group. The Advisory Committee included
representatives from:
• Each City Council District
• Department of Public Utilities
• Mayor’s Office
The Advisory Committee met six times during
the process to provide guidance on policy
issues:
• Street Lighting Site Tour & Surveys
(November 5, 2018)
• Street Lighting 101 (April 3, 2019)
• Visioning Session (April 25, 2019)
• Council & Mayor’s Office Briefing (May 24,
2019)
• Stakeholder Update (July 30, 2019)
• 50% Progress Update (January 8, 2020)
The Advisory Committee created a list of
lighting concerns and priorities for each district
across the City as well as provided guidance on
the City’s street lighting vision and guideposts.
Notes from their meetings are found in the
appendix.
The second committee was the Technical
Committee with representatives from the
following City departments:
• Police
• Fire
• Sustainability
• Engineering
• Planning
• Urban Forestry
Technical Committee members represented
the interests of their departments in the master
planning process. They also participated in the
street lighting site tour. Technical Committee
input also contributed to the vision and guiding
principles used in the planning process. Notes
from their meetings are found in the appendix.
The current system evaluation and the plan
vision and guideposts were reviewed by
stakeholder groups on July 29-30, 2019 with
representatives from:
• Education
• Business
• Transit/Multi-modal transportation
• Environmental
Stakeholder input is included in this draft plan.
This draft plan is submitted to the City Council
for review, possible revision, and adoption.
Following adoption, the Department of Public
Utilities will hold a series of community
meetings to familiarize residents, developers,
and stakeholders on the policies, standards and
processes included in this plan.INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS
8
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Salt Lake City requested an evaluation of
existing street lighting conditions and a
master plan to aid in transitioning all Salt
Lake City-owned street lighting from a high
pressure sodium system to an LED system, a
process begun in 2013. In addition, the master
plan identifies methods to improve visibility
and aesthetics while reducing energy and
maintenance through a lighting control system.
The master plan identifies new street lighting
standards for retrofit and new construction.
The goal of this document is to provide Salt
Lake City with a consistent approach for
street and pedestrian lighting that creates
a quality nighttime visual experience. Street
and pedestrian lighting plays a key role in
how people experience the city in which they
live, work, and play. Lighting helps drivers
and pedestrians understand the streetscape
through visual cues and heightened awareness
of their environment. Providing good visibility
with lighting increases comfort levels and
encourages use of public streets and spaces.
The plan identifies a strategy that balances
safety, character, responsibility, and equity
using a series of guideposts for evaluating the
lit environment and the technical elements of a
streetlighting system.
CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION
The Advisory and Technical Committees along
with the consulting team surveyed seventeen
locations in the city. In addition, the consulting
team conducted nighttime surveys and
measured the light levels along primary arterial,
minor arterial, collector and local streets.
Survey sites were selected in each Council
District to represent a variety of existing
lighting conditions throughout the city. Based
on the survey and evaluations, the consulting
team created an Existing Conditions Report
(Appendix C) to aid the city in understanding
relationship of visual perception to measured
light levels.
The consulting team categorized each survey
site according to IES standards acceptability
light level, lamp wattage, street type, luminaire
spacing and measured lighting levels. The four
levels of acceptability are:
• Excellent. the survey sites identified as
“Excellent” received the highest scores from
the Advisory and Technical Committees,
indicating excellent visibility, appropriate
light levels, low glare, uniformity and good
color.
• Acceptable. the street meets lighting
standards based on street classification
and existing luminaire spacing. Block faces
categorized as “Acceptable” require only
LED retrofit.
• Moderate. the street does not meet lighting
standards based on street classification
and existing luminaire spacing. Block faces
categorized as “Moderate” require minor
improvements to address relatively small
dark spaces between poles as well as LED
retrofit.
• Poor. the street has very low or no street
lighting. Block faces categorized as “Poor”
require significant investment in new lighting
and electrical infrastructure to meet lighting
standards.
As seen in Figure 1, of the sites surveyed, 17
percent are categorized as Excellent, 35 percent
are Acceptable, 24 percent are Moderate and
24 percent are Poor.
The following policy statements are intended
to guide the approach to addressing identified
needs and gaps in the City’s current street
lighting as well as apply to future changes in
the system.
10
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1EXECUTIVE SUMMARYPOLICY STATEMENTS
Based on the application of planning guideposts
and input of the steering and technical
committees, the master plan implements the
following major policies:
• Street lighting will enhance safety through
the implementation of industry recognized
standards.
• Street lighting standards include allowances
to encourage dimming strategies relating to
pedestrian activity, wildlife and dark skies
lighting.
• Street lighting will minimize the obtrusive
effects of light at night resulting from light
trespass, light pollution, and glare through
the selection and placement of appropriate
poles, fixtures, light type, and light levels.
• Provide pedestrian lighting in accordance
with neighborhood plans and in accordance
with the typologies in this plan.
• Provide street and pedestrian lighting that
minimizes impacts to sensitive wildlife species.
• Select fixture types to provide dark skies
protection.
• Implementation based on neighborhood
and community input to determine pole,
fixture type, maximum and minimum light
level, and the implementation of adaptive
dimming applications when appropriate.
The standards and implementation strategies
to achieve Salt Lake City’s major street lighting
policies are included in this plan. Salt Lake City
utilizes IES standards with allowances to respond
to pedestrian, wildlife, and dark skies priorities.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
SLC Public Utilities
Excellent Site
Acceptable Site
Moderate Site
Poor Site
1000 North
I-80
Redwood RoadSouth Temple
400 South
900 South
1300 South
1700 South
Sunnyside Avenue
Footh
i
l
l
D
r
ive
1300 East700 EastState StreetI-15900 West1
2
Figure 1: Site Evaluation Map
Site # Site Name Street
Classification
Existing
Lighting
Sterling & American
Beauty Dr. Local / Residential Excellent
Riverside Park
& 600 North Arterial / Park Acceptable
Redwood Rd.
& South Temple Collector / Industrial Poor
700 South
& Post Street Local / Residential Poor
500 West & Dalton
Ave.Arterial / Residential Acceptable
Glendale Dr. &
Navajo St.
Collector / Residential
/ Commercial Moderate
J St. & 2nd Ave. Local / Residential Poor
800 East & South
Temple Arterial / Commercial Excellent
200 South & Floral St. Arterial / Commercial Excellent
650 South & Main St. Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
700 East & Harrison
Ave.Arterial / Residential Poor
900 East & 900 South Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
Layton Ave. & West
Temple Local / Residential Moderate
1500 South & Yale Collector / Residential Acceptable
19th East & Sunnyside Arterial / Residential /
Commercial Moderate
1400 East & Redando Local / Residential Moderate
1000 East & 2100
South Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
11
IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
Funding and prioritization are the key drivers
in implementation of the policies, standards,
and strategies in this plan. Road classification
and adjacent land use are the driving factors
in selection of street lighting type, spacing and
light levels. There are neighborhoods and high
conflict areas of the City that are recommended
for priority implementation.
In all cases, the initial step in implementation
is coordination with the community and
immediate neighborhood to ensure that the
solution identified meets resident, business
owner and user needs.
Implementation recommendations prioritize
the following:
• PRIORITY ONE:
- Neighborhoods currently underserved
for street and/or pedestrian lighting
based on adjacent land uses.
- High conflict areas including:
• School Zones
• Bus Stops
• Transit Stations
• Neighborhood Byways
• PRIORITY TWO:
- Areas with non-compliant existing
streetlighting (luminaire, light source or
pole spacing)
• ONGOING:
- Replacement of lamps with LED
luminaires on regular maintenance
schedule as appropriate
- Replacement of non-compliant street
lighting in areas of ecological sensitivity
- Installation of dimming capability at
neighborhood request
- New development or redevelopment
proposals
STEP ONE:
• Identify high conflict areas in the City
• Review the current lighting map to identify
underserved neighborhoods and high
conflict areas
• Respond to request from community or
neighborhood for lighting change
STEP TWO:
• Contact community and neighborhood
representatives to identify priorities and
review options according to the matrix
• Identify neighborhood-preferred option
according to the matrix
STEP THREE:
• Estimate cost of preferred option
• Seek funding approval
STEP FOUR:
• Design, schedule and implement preferred
option
12
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
SALT LAKE CITY, UT
Street Lighting Master Plan
VOLUME 1 - MASTER PLAN
JUNE 2020
3
INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS..........7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................9
Current System Evaluation ................................9
Policy Statements ................................................10
Implementation Steps ..........................................11
SYSTEM BACKGROUND, HISTORY ..........................13
CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION ..........................16
CURRENT LIGHTING POLICIES AND PROGRAMS ...16
2006 Street Lighting Master Plan .............16
Special Improvement Districts ...................16
Private Lighting Program ..............................16
EXISTING LIGHTING CONDITIONS ........................17
Process ...................................................................17
CITY PLANNING GUIDANCE .................................19
Plan Salt Lake ......................................................19
Neighborhood Master Plans ......................20
Lighting Levels & Gaps ..................................24
Evaluation by Community/District ..........25
PLAN GUIDEPOSTS ..................................................27
Safety .........................................................................27
Character ..................................................................27
Responsibility .........................................................27
Equity .........................................................................28
STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW ..................29
SYSTEMWIDE CONSIDERATIONS ............................29
Health and Wellbeing..........................................29
Wildlife Impacts .....................................................29
LIGHTING CHARACTERISTICS ..................................29
Appropriate Light Levels ..................................29
Glare Reduction .....................................................31
Uniformity vs. Contrast ......................................32
Adaptation ...............................................................33
Color Rendering and Nighttime
Visibility ....................................................................34
Color Temperature and Nighttime
Visibility .....................................................................35
Light Trespass ........................................................36
Light Pollution ........................................................37
COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION ................................38
Initial Costs ..............................................................38
Long Term Life Cycle Costs .............................38
Maintenance ............................................................39
Energy ........................................................................39
Standardization .....................................................39
STREET LIGHTING PLAN..........................................40
Lighting Improvement Strategies ...........40
Purpose ................................................................40
Lighting Layout Strategies .........................40
Street Lighting Only ........................................42
Street and Pedestrian Lighting .................43
Pedestrian Lighting Only .............................44 TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS
4
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Special Lighting Districts ............................45
Intersection Lighting .....................................46
Vertical Illumination in Crosswalks ..........47
Bus Stop ..............................................................48
Environmentally Protected Areas ...........48
IMPLEMENTATION OF UPGRADED LIGHTING .......48
Street Lighting Equipment and
Technology ........................................................50
Lighting Improvements
Complexity & Cost ...........................................52
Minimal 1-for-1 Replacements .....................52
Supplemental .....................................................52
Comprehensive .................................................52
PRIORITIZING LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS ...........52
Areas Underserved by
Street Lighting ...................................................53
High Priority Conflict Areas ........................53
1-for-1 Lighting Improvements ...................57
APPENDIX ..........................................................59
A. Glossary of Lighting Terms ........................59
B. Committee Meeting Notes ..........................61
C. Existing Conditions Report
Presentation ......................................................67
D. Nocturnal Infrastructure for
Ecological Health ...........................................89
E. Luminaire Submittal Forms ......................123
5
FIGURE 1: Site Evaluation Map ...................................10
FIGURE 2: Neighborhood
Master Plans Map – 2017 ...........................................20
FIGURE 3: Street Light Density Map .......................24
FIGURE 4: Community Character Map ..................25
FIGURE 5: Appropriate Light Level ..........................29
FIGURE 6: Glare Reduction ...........................................31
FIGURE 7: Uniformity Vs. Glare ..................................32
FIGURE 8: Adaptation ....................................................33
FIGURE 9: Color Rendering ........................................34
FIGURE 10: Color Temperature ..................................35
FIGURE 11: Light Trespass .............................................36
FIGURE 12: Light Pollution ............................................37
FIGURE 13: Initial Costs: Guidepost Synergy &
Balance ...............................................................................38
FIGURE 14: Energy ..........................................................39
FIGURE 15: Street Lighting Warrants Matrix .........41
FIGURE 16: Street Lighting Only
Cross Section ..................................................................42
FIGURE 17: Street & Pedestrian
Lighting Cross Section...............................................43
FIGURE 18: Pedestrian Only
Lighting Cross Section...............................................44
FIGURE 19: Cactus Lights Cross Section ..............45
FIGURE 20: Intersection Lighting Plan ..................46
FIGURE 21: Crosswalk Lighting ..................................47
FIGURE 22: School Locations .....................................53
FIGURE 23: Bus Stop Locations ................................54
FIGURE 24: Transit Stations .........................................55
FIGURE 25: Neighborhood Byways .........................56
TABLE OF FIGURES TABLE OF TABLES
TABLE 1: Plan Policy Statement Comparison
2006-2020 ........................................................................14
TABLE 2: Street and Sidewalk Lighting
Conditions Council District Locations ..................17
TABLE 3: Street and Sidewalk
Existing Lighting Ratings ............................................19
TABLE 4: Street Lighting Policy
and Implementation Items .........................................21
TABLE 5: Lighting Layout Strategy
By Land Use ....................................................................49
TABLE 6: Recommended Luminaries
By Land Use ......................................................................51
6
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
7
The 2020 Street Lighting Master Plan was
developed with the input and guidance of two
committees and reviewed by a Stakeholders
group. The Advisory Committee included
representatives from:
• Each City Council District
• Department of Public Utilities
• Mayor’s Office
The Advisory Committee met six times during
the process to provide guidance on policy
issues:
• Street Lighting Site Tour & Surveys
(November 5, 2018)
• Street Lighting 101 (April 3, 2019)
• Visioning Session (April 25, 2019)
• Council & Mayor’s Office Briefing (May 24,
2019)
• Stakeholder Update (July 30, 2019)
• 50% Progress Update (January 8, 2020)
The Advisory Committee created a list of
lighting concerns and priorities for each district
across the City as well as provided guidance on
the City’s street lighting vision and guideposts.
Notes from their meetings are found in the
appendix.
The second committee was the Technical
Committee with representatives from the
following City departments:
• Police
• Fire
• Sustainability
• Engineering
• Planning
• Urban Forestry
Technical Committee members represented
the interests of their departments in the master
planning process. They also participated in the
street lighting site tour. Technical Committee
input also contributed to the vision and guiding
principles used in the planning process. Notes
from their meetings are found in the appendix.
The current system evaluation and the plan
vision and guideposts were reviewed by
stakeholder groups on July 29-30, 2019 with
representatives from:
• Education
• Business
• Transit/Multi-modal transportation
• Environmental
Stakeholder input is included in this draft plan.
This draft plan is submitted to the City Council
for review, possible revision, and adoption.
Following adoption, the Department of Public
Utilities will hold a series of community
meetings to familiarize residents, developers,
and stakeholders on the policies, standards and
processes included in this plan.INTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESSINTRODUCTION TO THE PLANNING PROCESS
8
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Salt Lake City requested an evaluation of
existing street lighting conditions and a
master plan to aid in transitioning all Salt
Lake City-owned street lighting from a high
pressure sodium system to an LED system, a
process begun in 2013. In addition, the master
plan identifies methods to improve visibility
and aesthetics while reducing energy and
maintenance through a lighting control system.
The master plan identifies new street lighting
standards for retrofit and new construction.
The goal of this document is to provide Salt
Lake City with a consistent approach for
street and pedestrian lighting that creates
a quality nighttime visual experience. Street
and pedestrian lighting plays a key role in
how people experience the city in which they
live, work, and play. Lighting helps drivers
and pedestrians understand the streetscape
through visual cues and heightened awareness
of their environment. Providing good visibility
with lighting increases comfort levels and
encourages use of public streets and spaces.
The plan identifies a strategy that balances
safety, character, responsibility, and equity
using a series of guideposts for evaluating the
lit environment and the technical elements of a
streetlighting system.
CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION
The Advisory and Technical Committees along
with the consulting team surveyed seventeen
locations in the city. In addition, the consulting
team conducted nighttime surveys and
measured the light levels along primary arterial,
minor arterial, collector and local streets.
Survey sites were selected in each Council
District to represent a variety of existing
lighting conditions throughout the city. Based
on the survey and evaluations, the consulting
team created an Existing Conditions Report
(Appendix C) to aid the city in understanding
relationship of visual perception to measured
light levels.
The consulting team categorized each survey
site according to IES standards acceptability
light level, lamp wattage, street type, luminaire
spacing and measured lighting levels. The four
levels of acceptability are:
• Excellent. the survey sites identified as
“Excellent” received the highest scores from
the Advisory and Technical Committees,
indicating excellent visibility, appropriate
light levels, low glare, uniformity and good
color.
• Acceptable. the street meets lighting
standards based on street classification
and existing luminaire spacing. Block faces
categorized as “Acceptable” require only
LED retrofit.
• Moderate. the street does not meet lighting
standards based on street classification
and existing luminaire spacing. Block faces
categorized as “Moderate” require minor
improvements to address relatively small
dark spaces between poles as well as LED
retrofit.
• Poor. the street has very low or no street
lighting. Block faces categorized as “Poor”
require significant investment in new lighting
and electrical infrastructure to meet lighting
standards.
As seen in Figure 1, of the sites surveyed, 17
percent are categorized as Excellent, 35 percent
are Acceptable, 24 percent are Moderate and
24 percent are Poor.
The following policy statements are intended
to guide the approach to addressing identified
needs and gaps in the City’s current street
lighting as well as apply to future changes in
the system.
10
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1EXECUTIVE SUMMARYPOLICY STATEMENTS
Based on the application of planning guideposts
and input of the steering and technical
committees, the master plan implements the
following major policies:
• Street lighting will enhance safety through
the implementation of industry recognized
standards.
• Street lighting standards include allowances
to encourage dimming strategies relating to
pedestrian activity, wildlife and dark skies
lighting.
• Street lighting will minimize the obtrusive
effects of light at night resulting from light
trespass, light pollution, and glare through
the selection and placement of appropriate
poles, fixtures, light type, and light levels.
• Provide pedestrian lighting in accordance
with neighborhood plans and in accordance
with the typologies in this plan.
• Provide street and pedestrian lighting that
minimizes impacts to sensitive wildlife species.
• Select fixture types to provide dark skies
protection.
• Implementation based on neighborhood
and community input to determine pole,
fixture type, maximum and minimum light
level, and the implementation of adaptive
dimming applications when appropriate.
The standards and implementation strategies
to achieve Salt Lake City’s major street lighting
policies are included in this plan. Salt Lake City
utilizes IES standards with allowances to respond
to pedestrian, wildlife, and dark skies priorities.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
SLC Public Utilities
Excellent Site
Acceptable Site
Moderate Site
Poor Site
1000 North
I-80
Redwood RoadSouth Temple
400 South
900 South
1300 South
1700 South
Sunnyside Avenue
Footh
i
l
l
D
r
ive
1300 East700 EastState StreetI-15900 West1
2
Figure 1: Site Evaluation Map
Site # Site Name Street
Classification
Existing
Lighting
Sterling & American
Beauty Dr. Local / Residential Excellent
Riverside Park
& 600 North Arterial / Park Acceptable
Redwood Rd.
& South Temple Collector / Industrial Poor
700 South
& Post Street Local / Residential Poor
500 West & Dalton
Ave.Arterial / Residential Acceptable
Glendale Dr. &
Navajo St.
Collector / Residential
/ Commercial Moderate
J St. & 2nd Ave.Local / Residential Poor
800 East & South
Temple Arterial / Commercial Excellent
200 South & Floral St.Arterial / Commercial Excellent
650 South & Main St.Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
700 East & Harrison
Ave.Arterial / Residential Poor
900 East & 900 South Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
Layton Ave. & West
Temple Local / Residential Moderate
1500 South & Yale Collector / Residential Acceptable
19th East & Sunnyside Arterial / Residential /
Commercial Moderate
1400 East & Redando Local / Residential Moderate
1000 East & 2100
South Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
11
IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
Funding and prioritization are the key drivers
in implementation of the policies, standards,
and strategies in this plan. Road classification
and adjacent land use are the driving factors
in selection of street lighting type, spacing and
light levels. There are neighborhoods and high
conflict areas of the City that are recommended
for priority implementation.
In all cases, the initial step in implementation
is coordination with the community and
immediate neighborhood to ensure that the
solution identified meets resident, business
owner and user needs.
Implementation recommendations prioritize
the following:
• PRIORITY ONE:
- Neighborhoods currently underserved
for street and/or pedestrian lighting
based on adjacent land uses.
- High conflict areas including:
• School Zones
• Bus Stops
• Transit Stations
• Neighborhood Byways
• PRIORITY TWO:
- Areas with non-compliant existing
streetlighting (luminaire, light source or
pole spacing)
• ONGOING:
- Replacement of lamps with LED
luminaires on regular maintenance
schedule as appropriate
- Replacement of non-compliant street
lighting in areas of ecological sensitivity
- Installation of dimming capability at
neighborhood request
- New development or redevelopment
proposals
STEP ONE:
• Identify high conflict areas in the City
• Review the current lighting map to identify
underserved neighborhoods and high
conflict areas
• Respond to request from community or
neighborhood for lighting change
STEP TWO:
• Contact community and neighborhood
representatives to identify priorities and
review options according to the matrix
• Identify neighborhood-preferred option
according to the matrix
STEP THREE:
• Estimate cost of preferred option
• Seek funding approval
STEP FOUR:
• Design, schedule and implement preferred
option
12
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
13
SYSTEM BACKGROUND, HISTORYSalt Lake City was the fifth city in the United
States to have electric lights. By 1887,
streetlights were operating on Main Street and
along First and Second South Streets. The City’s
first systematic plan for locating streetlights
was adopted in 1908. The most recent previous
update to Salt Lake City’s streetlighting plan
was completed in 2006 when the system was
operated and maintained by the Salt Lake
City Transportation Department within the
Community Development Department.
In 2012 responsibility for streetlight policy,
operations and maintenance was transferred
to the Street Lights Department within the
Department of Public Utilities. This move
coincided with the implementation of a monthly
user included in business and residential
public utility bills along with drinking water,
wastewater, stormwater and sanitation services.
The Department manages and maintains
more than 15,500 streetlights in Salt Lake
City and has overseen the conversion of the
City’s inventory to high-energy efficiency LED
lamps with a target completion date of 2021.
The Department placed the conversion to LED
streetlights on hold in 2018 to allow this Street
Lighting Master Plan to guide the conversion of
the remaining streetlights.
As part of the Street Light Master Plan
update, the current system was reviewed and
recommendations for changes to the system
and updates to Salt Lake City’s streetlighting
policies were developed. In addition, guidance
for installation of new lighting in newly
developed areas as well as changes to existing
areas is included in Volume 2 - Technical
Guidance and Implementation Plan.
SYSTEM BACKGROUND, HISTORY
14
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1SYSTEM BACKGROUND, HISTORYThe 2012 LED conversion project implements
the 2006 Master Plan policy statements. In the
interim there have been lighting technology
advances, revisions in standards and a new
awareness of the impact of exterior lighting
on human and environmental health as well
as attention to dark skies initiatives. This plan
updates Salt Lake City’s policies and standards
to reflect these advances and changes.
Table 1 provides a comparison of the 2006 Street
Lighting Master Plan policy statements and
revisions and additions to those policy statements
recommended in this update to the Plan.
TABLE 1 - PLAN POLICY STATEMENT COMPARISON 2006 TO 2020
2006 PLAN POLICY STATEMENT 2020 PLAN PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDED
POLICY REVISIONS/ADDITIONS
Salt Lake City lighting standards are based on IES
recommendations
Revise policy: Salt Lake City lighting standards are
based on IES recommendations with allowances
for adaptive standards that encourage dimming
strategies relating to pedestrian activity, community
engagement, wildlife and dark skies lighting.
Lighting level and design will be upgraded to
current standards as lights are replaced and new
lights are installed
No Change
All newly installed utility lines shall be underground No Change
When practical installation of underground
conduit for utility lines shall be included in road
reconstruction projects
No Change
Only dedicated publicly owned streets are eligible
for street lighting funded by the City
No Change (Possible future revision for public
alleyways. Discussion with transportation and
planning.)
Placement of street light poles shall meet safety
standards including lateral clearance requirements No Change
Energy efficient lights shall be used for new and
replacement lighting.
Revise policy to balance energy efficiency with
human/environmental health. Process to identify
areas better suited to amber LEDs primarily for
open space and wildlife.
All new streetlights must meet, at a minimum,
the “dark sky semi-cutoff” standard with the
exception that all new “shoe box” or “cobra head”
style streetlights must meet the “dark sky cutoff”
standard.
Provide street and pedestrian lighting that reduces
the obtrusive effects of light at night, including
light trespass that intrudes on private property,
light pollution to preserve dark skies, and glare that
reduces visibility and annoys drivers, pedestrians
and residents.
15
SYSTEM BACKGROUND, HISTORY2006 PLAN POLICY STATEMENT 2020 PLAN PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDED
POLICY REVISIONS/ADDITIONS
Lighting appropriate for conditions shall insure
uniform and safe lighting on major streets and
commercial district streets
No change to the policy. Standards relating to
decorative poles and fixtures to be updated.
Standards relating to private lighting standards in
the Northwest Quadrant to be developed.
Public input may be sought regarding fixture and
pole type in commercial areas
Additional public input may be sought to determine
maximum and minimum light levels on residential
collector and local streets for adaptive dimming
application.
Residential neighborhoods may adopt a decorative
street light fixture and pole from the approved
list on non-major streets in accordance with a
neighborhood master plan
No Change
All new and replacement lighting shall be from the
approved list developed by the City Transportation
Engineer
No change to the policy (except departmental
designation.) Possible changes to the approved list.
It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Transportation
Department to support the use of Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design principles in the
design and operation of street lighting within Salt
Lake City.
No Change (except departmental designation)
It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Transportation
Department to support the use of banners on street
light poles to enhance a sense of community and
contribute to traffic calming.
No Change (except departmental designation)
It is the policy of the Salt Lake City Transportation
Department to coordinate the location of new street
lights with the Salt Lake City Forester and, in turn,
coordinate on the planting of new trees such that
both are compatible in providing desired benefits
to the neighborhood.
No Change (except departmental designation)
Provide street and pedestrian lighting that
minimizes impacts to sensitive wildlife species.
Pedestrian scale lights (typically 12’ to 15’ mounting
height) are on any streets where streetlighting
alone does not effectively illuminate the sidewalk
due to shadowing from trees, or the location of
the sidewalk in relation to the street. Pedestrian
scale lights on local residential streets to minimize
light trespass and create more pedestrian friendly
streets, and in commercial areas to encourage
pedestrian usage.
16
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION2006 STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN
Salt Lake City last published a Street Lighting
Master Plan in 2006. While most of the lighting
principles and goals from 2006 are continued
in this master plan, technical advancements in
lighting equipment have allowed improvements
to be made in the control and application of
light. The 2006 Master Plan pushed the lighting
in the city to be safer and more pedestrian
friendly while minimizing light pollution
and light trespass. It encouraged the use of
decorative luminaires to match the character
of the neighborhood or enhance downtown
commercial districts. These principles of
safety and character established in 2006
are guideposts to this Master Plan and will
be continued in the lighting strategies and
principles throughout the City. The new Master
Plan is striving to create a more pedestrian
centric city where auto-alternate solutions can
be safer and more widely used. The new plan is
still encouraging the use of decorative luminaire
options in certain areas throughout the city but
is requiring enhanced control of light to further
minimize light pollution and light trespass.
Since 2006 advances in LED technology have
allowed for significant increases in control of
light distribution and color. The new Master
Plan takes advantage of these advances to
recommend the best lighting solutions for each
block based on adjacent land use, pedestrian
volume, and environmentally sensitive areas.
The new plan sets luminaire criteria for lumen
output, distribution, and color temperature
to ensure appropriate and effective lighting
that aims to reduce light pollution and light
trespass. Additionally, this master plan provides
guidance on lighting controls to help the City
establish a citywide wireless control network
that will assist in more efficient management
and control of streetlights.
SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
Certain areas within the City have decorative
lighting as a replacement or supplement
to the baseline lighting as part of a Special
Improvement District. In these residential or
commercial areas, the property managers agree
to pay the capital costs for new or replacement
lighting plus 75% of the ongoing operating
and maintenance costs. Special Improvement
Districts include the Cactus Poles in the
downtown commercial area and the pedestrian
post top lights in the Rose Park Neighborhood.
PRIVATE LIGHTING PROGRAM
In 1995 Salt Lake City started the Private
Lighting program, allowing residents to
purchase, install and maintain streetlights on
their blocks. The program is designed to allow
the residents of Salt Lake to choose the poles
and luminaires that are installed on their block
while still ensuring sufficient lighting in the
neighborhood. Each block is required to have
at least six lights, including at least one at each
intersection. Lights are owned by the residents
and are connected to home of the owner with
underground wiring. Residents can apply for
a one-time grant from the city to help offset
costs. Depending on funding, the grant can be
up to $5,000 per block, but must be matched
by the neighborhood, dollar for dollar. The City
must approve all lighting equipment and will
inspect all installations.
CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION
17
CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONEXISTING LIGHTING CONDITIONS
PROCESS
The Advisory and Technical Committees surveyed seventeen sites in different areas of the city.
The sites were selected based on street type, arterial, collector, or residential, and on their
surrounding environments in the city, industrial, commercial, transit or residential. The diversity of
the sites provide an understanding of the lighting and environmental conditions found in different
neighborhoods and along different transportation corridors throughout the city. Only streets,
sidewalks and pedestrian paths in the Public Right of Way were evaluated. Privately owned lighting
was not included. The survey asked participants about the street and sidewalk lighting conditions
at each of the following seventeen sites.
TABLE 2: STREET AND SIDEWALK LIGHTING CONDITIONS COUNCIL DISTRICT LOCATIONS
LOCATION CLASSIFICATION COUNCIL DISTRICT
Sterling Drive & American
Beauty Drive
Local/Residential 1
700 North & Riverside Park Arterial/Park 1
Redwood Road & South Temple Collector/Industrial 1 & 2 Boundary
700 South & Post Street Local/Residential 2
900 West & Dalton Avenue Arterial/Residential 2
Glendale Drive & Navajo St.Collector/Residential/
Commercial
2
J St. & 1st Avenue Local/Residential 3
800 East South Temple Arterial/Commercial 3 & 4 Boundary
200 South Floral Street Arterial/Commercial 4
650 South Main Street Arterial/Commercial 4
700 East Harrison Avenue Arterial/Residential 5
900 South & 900 East Arterial/Commercial 5
Layton Ave. & West Temple Local/Residential 5
1500 East & Yale Avenue Collector/Residential 6
1900 East & Sunnyside Arterial/Residential/Commercial 6
1400 East & Redondo Local/Residential 7
1000 East & 2100 South Arterial/Commercial 7
The survey included the following statements to which participants indicated their level of
agreement by ranking their response between Strongly Agree and Strongly Disagree.
• It would be safe to walk here alone during daylight hours.
• It would be safe to walk here alone during darkness hours.
• The light is uneven (patchy).
• The light sources are glaring.
• The lighting is poorly matched to the neighborhood.
18
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONTo supplement survey responses, High Dynamic
Range photographs were taken and horizontal
and vertical illuminance light measurements
recorded for the sidewalks and luminance
measurements taken along the roadway at
each site. The measurements were compared to
recommended levels in the IES Recommended
Practice for Roadway Lighting (RP-8-18).
Based on survey results, HDR photographic
evidence and light measurements, the
consulting team rated lighting at each site as
Excellent, Acceptable, Moderate or Poor.
Excellent rated lighting is sufficient and
appropriate on the roadway, provides adequate
vertical illumination to allow for object detection
and facial recognition. Excellent lighting is
relatively uniform, free of direct glare and
properly illuminates the roadway and sidewalk.
Acceptable rated lighting is comfortable. In
some cases, such as residential areas, the light
level might be lower than the IES Recommended
Practice but the lack of glare and shadowing
from surrounding landscaping, along with
some surrounding surface brightness, creates
a comfortable nighttime environment without
light trespass.
Moderate rated lighting does not provide enough
light on the roadway or on the sidewalk. The color
of the light may be inconsistent, and the presence
of glare may result in an uncomfortable space.
Some of these sites were shadowed due to trees,
and lighting was not appropriately spaced.
Poor rated lighting occurs when the luminaires
are spaced too far apart to provide adequate light
levels and uniformity or there are no luminaires on
the street at all. These sites included residential
areas without sufficient light, industrial sites and
an arterial road where lights were malfunctioning.
Of the 17 sites evaluated, three were excellent.
Of the excellent sites one is a local residential
street and two are arterial commercial streets.
Six sites were ranked good. Of the good sites
five are arterials, one adjacent to a park, one
in a residential area, three in commercial areas,
and one is a collector in a residential area. Four
sites were moderate. Of the moderate sites two
are local residential streets, one is a collector in a
residential/commercial area, and one is an arterial
in a residential/commercial area. Four sites were
rated poor. Of the poor sites one is a collector in
an industrial area, two are local residential areas
and one is an arterial residential area.
19
CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONTable 3: Street and Sidewalk Existing Lighting Ratings
SITE #CLASSIFICATION EXISTING LIGHTING RATING
1 Sterling Drive & American
Beauty Drive
Local/Residential Excellent
2 700 North & Riverside Park Arterial/Park Acceptable
3 Redwood Road & South Temple Collector/Industrial Poor
4 700 South & Post Street Local/Residential Poor
5 900 West & Dalton Avenue Arterial/Residential Acceptable
6 Glendale Drive & Navajo St.Collector/Residential/ Commercial Moderate
7 J St. & 1st Avenue Local/Residential Poor
8 800 East South Temple Arterial/Commercial Excellent
9 200 South Floral Street Arterial/Commercial Excellent
10 650 South Main Street Arterial/Commercial Acceptable
11 700 East Harrison Avenue Arterial/Residential Poor
12 900 South & 900 East Arterial/Commercial Acceptable
13 Layton Ave. & West Temple Local/Residential Moderate
14 1500 East & Yale Avenue Collector/Residential Acceptable
15 1900 East & Sunnyside Arterial/Residential/Commercial Moderate
16 1400 East & Redondo Local/Residential Moderate
17 1000 East & 2100 South Arterial/Commercial Acceptable
The ratings provide an understanding of the
variety of nighttime environments in different
areas of the city and guided the development of
improvement options. Each option focuses on
improving light levels and uniformity, reducing
glare, and enhancing wayfinding.
The full report including site specific metrics can
be found in Appendix C.
CITY PLANNING GUIDANCE
PLAN SALT LAKE
In Plan Salt Lake adopted in 2015 the community
identified 13 guiding principles. Although not
always specifically mentioned, high quality street
lighting can contribute to achievement of most of
the guiding principles.
Six of the principles can be directly affected
through the implementation of quality street
lighting:
1/Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment,
opportunity for social interaction, and services
needed for the wellbeing of the community
therein.
4/A transportation and mobility network
that is safe, accessible, reliable, affordable,
and sustainable, providing real choices and
connecting people with places.
6/Minimize our impact on the natural environment.
7/Protecting the natural environment while
providing access and opportunities to recreate
and enjoy nature.
20
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATION8/A beautiful city that is people focused.
13/A local government that is collaborative,
responsive, and transparent.
Plan Salt Lake includes specific initiatives to that
mention street lighting to achieve the Guiding
Principles. These include “Incorporate pedestrian
oriented elements, including street trees,
pedestrian scale lighting, signage, and embedded
art, into our rights-of-way and transportation
networks” as an initiative to create a safe
mobility network. This is a critical initiative to
achieve several other initiatives, including overall
connectivity and safety in the public realm. Plan
Salt Lake also includes an initiative to “promote
and expand the city’s street lighting program
throughout the City” as part of the beautiful city
Guiding Principle. This is also a critical initiative
to achieve several other initiatives, including
reinforcing and preserving neighborhood and
district character and providing a strong sense of
place.
In addition, implementation of this Street Lighting
Master Plan to identify and address current
gaps in service and upgrade overall lighting will
contribute to the fulfillment of several other of
the Guiding Principles.
NEIGHBORHOOD MASTER PLANS
Salt Lake City has completed eleven neighborhood
master plans for the areas of the City represented
on the map in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Neighborhood Master Plans Map - 2017
21
CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONThe master plans date from the 1980s through 2017 with amendments and updates. Street lighting is
mentioned in many of them as a tool to enhance community character and identify the City’s special
lighting district program as a tool for implementation. Several of the plans also identify the installation
of pedestrian level lighting as a community enhancement strategy.
Some plans identified specific policies and implementation measures relating to street lighting as
identified in the table below:
TABLE 4: STREET LIGHTING POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION ITEMS
COMMUNITY ADOPTION GOAL OR POLICY STATEMENT ACTION OR
IMPLEMENTATION ITEMS
Avenues 1987 None • Streetscape “demonstration project”
to illustrate use of streetscape,
including street lighting, to improve the
neighborhood.
Capitol Hill 1999
Amended
2001
• Coordinate any new
street lighting program in
designated historic districts
with the Historic Landmark
Commission to ensure the
design of the street lights are
compatible with the historic
character and comply with the
historic district regulations.
• Provide a consistent design
theme and increase the
amount of street lighting on
300 West and 400 West.
• Analyze the feasibility and demand for
increasing the amount of street lighting
in areas of the Capitol Hill Community
where needed and determine funding
sources.
• Develop and implement a consistent
lighting and street furniture theme for
the Capitol Hill neighborhood (north of
North Temple).
Central 2002
Amended
2006
• Relate right-of-way designs to
land use patterns.
• Ensure that public streets are
maintained and improved
throughout the Central
Community
• Encourage where appropriate rights-
of-way that have landscaped street
medians, landscaped park strips, street
trees, on-street parking, pedestrian
lighting, and furnishings such as major
arterials.
• Provide consistent neighborhood
design themes for street lighting and
ensure that street lighting is provided
at a pedestrian scale. Coordinate street
lighting in designated historic districts
with the Historic Landmark Commission
to ensure that compatible design and
placement patterns are met.
22
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONDowntown 2016 • Make downtown a unique
destination for visitors.
• A complete pedestrian
network that makes walking
downtown safe, convenient
and comfortable.
• A public realm that is looked
after 24/7.
• A downtown known for its
well-maintained public realm.
• Maintain and refresh existing policies
regarding sidewalk paving materials and
street lighting in districts where these
items have already been established
in this plan or other plans such as the
Street Lighting Master Plan.
• Address pedestrian safety and comfort
issues with regularly planted trees,
shortened crossing distances, tighter
curb radii, hawk or other pedestrian-
activated signals, pedestrian lighting,
and regularly spaced benches and
seating.
• Continue implementation of pedestrian
lighting throughout downtown.
• Maintain the city improvements such as
street lights, seating, and paving.
Westside 2014 • Create a more conducive
environment for
redevelopment at
neighborhood nodes.
• Street lighting should be emphasized
at intersections and be scaled to the
pedestrian level.
23
CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONEast Bench 2017 • Business Districts that
Promote Neighborhood
Identity
• Improve the Street Rights-of-
way to Create Beautiful and
Safe Gateway Corridors
• Dark Sky Friendly Lighting
• Building features, such as height,
placement and materials, as well as
street improvements such as signage,
landscaping, lighting, paving materials,
and pedestrian crossings activate the
individual business districts, create a
distinct identity, create a sense of place,
and help create a more pleasant auto-
pedestrian interface.
• Establishing a gateway should not stop
at creating an entrance feature at the
beginning of the street, but should carry
through the entire length of the corridor
with consistent design treatment, such
as street lighting, street furniture, and
pavement treatments that relate to the
character of each gateway.
• The East Bench is the interface between
the natural and urban environment. As
such the built environment within the
community should respect the natural
surroundings. One particular aspect
of development that can impact both
the natural and human environment
is lighting. In an effort to minimize
disruption to wildlife, impacts on
adjacent property, and the community’s
enjoyment of the night sky, lighting
should:
- Only be on when needed;
- Only light the area that needs it;
- Be no brighter than necessary;
- Minimize blue light emissions; and
- Be fully shielded and pointing
downward.
Northwest 1990 None None
Northwest
Quadrant
2016 • Promote the design of
transportation corridors that
support the natural landscape
• North of I-80, provide a
common Northwest Quadrant
design theme for the public
infrastructure, such as native
landscaping, lighting, bridge
design, signs, etc.
• Use appropriate but minimal levels
of lighting to keep sites darker near
Natural Areas
- Direct lights down and away from
natural habitats.
- Avoid tall street lights that may
negatively impact wildlife habitat.
- Use the minimum number of street
lights necessary for safety.
- Along trails, use lights that only light
the trail and not wildlife habitat.
• Street lighting should use poles and
fixtures that are compatible with the
natural environment.
24
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONIt’s clear from Salt Lake City’s adopted policy statements and implementation priorities in both
citywide and community-level plans that pedestrian level street lighting is an important element for
creating a sense of safety and community.
LIGHTING LEVELS & GAPS
Implementation of Salt Lake City’s current lighting policy, standards, and approach is illustrated in the
streetlight density map in Figure 3.
Key
Lighting Strategies Heat Map
SLC Boundary
Streetlights
Dense
Sparse
Each streetlight in the City is represented as a white dot on the map. The density of lighting generated
is represented from gray and blue in the lowest light density areas to yellow in the highest light density
areas. Not surprisingly, the highest density lighting occurs in Salt Lake’s commercial areas including
downtown and the Sugar House business district and along arterials and other major highways.
Lowest light density occurs in residential neighborhoods, parks, and industrial areas. Non-Salt Lake
City Public Utilities lighting, including the interstate highways, at the University of Utah and at the Salt
Lake International Airport, is not represented.
Figure 3: Street Light Density Map
25
CURRENT SYSTEM EVALUATIONEVALUATION BY COMMUNITY / DISTRICT
The approach to recommended street lighting improvements in this plan is influenced and informed
by the street classification, adjacent land use, pedestrian levels, and specific situations found in each
area of the City.
Because past policies focused on street lighting for safety on the City’s roads, most areas of the
city have lighting in compliance with IES and APWA road safety standards. As seen in the summary
adopted master plan goals and implementation measures, many neighborhoods in the city would like
to see additional pedestrian level lighting. Figure 4 is a map of the existing character districts in the
City.
Sugar House
Wasatch
Hollow
Liberty Wells
Glendale
Central
City/Liberty
Wells
Yalecrest
Ballpark
Central City
DowntownPoplar Grove
Fairpark
Rose Park Capitol Hill
Westpointe
Greater
Avenues
SL International
Airport
East
Liberty
Wells
East
Central/Yalecrest
East Central
East
Central/East
Liberty Park
Downtown/
Central 9th
Ballpark/Central
9th
East
Central/University
Gardens
Federal
Heights/Greater
Avenues
Residents, developers, and other interested parties can identify existing lighting location and type
using the interactive map on the city’s website. The map provides the following information:
• Location
• Pole type
• Luminaire type
• Light source
Figure 4: Community Character Map
26
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
27
PLAN GUIDEPOSTS PLAN GUIDEPOSTThe Advisory and Technical Committees
developed a series of guideposts as a basis
of evaluating street and pedestrian lighting
characteristics.
The four guideposts:
• Safety
• Character
• Responsibility
• Equity
Lighting improvement strategies and
characteristics were evaluated based on
these guideposts. The safety, character and
responsibility guideposts depend on the district
in which the lighting is located and adjacent
land uses. The equity guidepost underpins
the entire plan and implementation strategy
to encourage lighting improvements based on
community need. The guideposts are intended
to result in design decisions that contribute to
safe and comfortable nighttime environments.
The application of the guideposts and the
design decisions they affect contribute to
identifying lighting designs and approaches
that best fit the needs of each project.
SAFETY
Appropriate street and pedestrian lighting
improves safety by improving visibility for
drivers, bikers, and pedestrians. Effective
visibility in the nighttime environment depends
more on the quality of light than the quantity.
Higher light levels do not always result in better
visibility. The qualities of light that achieve
excellent visibility and therefore improve safety
are:
• Appropriate Light Level
• Reduced Glare
• Uniformity vs. Contrast
• Adaptation
• Color
CHARACTER
Salt Lake City’s existing street and pedestrian
lighting is diverse with a variety of historic
and industrial cobra-head style lights. Special
Districts use street lighting to create distinct
character and enhance the unique identity
of the district. The characteristics of street
and pedestrian lighting that can support and
enhance the character of an area include:
• Scale: Street Scale, Pedestrian Scale
• Style: Luminaires, Mounting Brackets, Poles,
Pole Bases, Additional Amenities
• Appropriate Light Level
• Glare
• Color: Finish Color, and Color of Light Source
RESPONSIBILITY
Responsible implementation of street lighting
includes minimizing potential negative effects
of light intensity and spectrum on human and
ecological health balanced with the responsible
use of public funds. This is a complex challenge
that includes many issues that sometimes
require balancing opposing opinions and
perspectives. This Master Plan references the
28
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1EXISTING CONDITIONSlatest research in the effects of light intensity
and spectrum on visibility and human and
ecological health in exterior nighttime
environments. To implement the Responsibility
guidepost the following issues are considered
and balanced:
• Light Trespass
• Light Pollution
• Health & Wellbeing
• Impacts on Wildlife
• Energy Use
• Cost
• Maintenance
EQUITY
The implementation of this Street Lighting
Master Plan is intended to address issues
related to street lighting in the most equitable
way possible. The prioritization of street
lighting funding will be an ongoing process
within annual budget allocations. Recognizing
that there are differing opinions throughout the
City about the balance between the Guideposts
and how to implement the Lighting Strategies
in this master plan, particularly in residential
neighborhoods, it is important that there is
ongoing public engagement to determine the
appropriate lighting strategies within each
neighborhood. While some lighting strategies
will be optional, there are some minimum
requirements for lighting improvements to
address safety needs in a consistent way
throughout the Salt Lake City.
• Ongoing Public Engagement
• Prioritizing Areas Currently Underserved by
Street Lighting
29
STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWSTREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW
SYSTEMWIDE CONSIDERATIONS
HEALTH AND WELLBEING
The natural daily cycle of light and dark is
directly linked to the healthy sleep/wake cycles,
also known as circadian rhythm. Light is the
primary stimulus that triggers the suppression
of melatonin in humans. Darkness at night is
needed to allow the production of melatonin
for healthy and complete sleep. Exposure to
blue spectrum light after sunset can delay the
nighttime production of melatonin. Controlling
glare and light trespass and using light sources
with warmer color reduces the exposure to blue
spectrum content of LED for street, pedestrian,
and area lighting. Warmer colors encourage
healthy melatonin and sleep patterns for
residents. It is also important to note that
the current status of research related to light
exposure at night and human health is still
ongoing. According to the Lighting Research
Center1 at typical street lighting levels, per IES
RP-8-18, using LED light sources are “below the
threshold for suppressing nocturnal melatonin
(in humans) by light at night following a
30-minute exposure”.
WILDLIFE IMPACTS
Salt Lake City contains important wildlife
habitat, from the foothills in the east to the
open shore lands of the Great Salt Lake.
Additional wildlife habitat is found along the
north-south route of the Jordan River and
along the four urban creeks extending west
and south out of the foothills. Light at night
can disrupt these wildlife habitats. Migratory
species pass through the city itself, with
nocturnally migratory birds attracted to the
city lights. Controlling light pollution and light
trespass, using only necessary lighting levels,
and choosing an appropriate spectrum (color)
of light for each area can protect these natural
resources. Dimming lights during seasonal bird
migrations is another wildlife-friendly approach.
LIGHTING CHARACTERISTICS
Each of the following characteristics represent
considerations and decisions to be made in
implementing street lighting in the various
areas and neighborhoods of the city. Each
characteristic is evaluated based on each of
the guideposts. When one or more of the
guideposts converge and coalesce around the
characteristic, synergy is created. When the
guideposts diverge decisions must be made to
balance competing needs.
Each characteristic is identified and described
then evaluated based on four Guideposts. A
comparative example of the characteristic is
also included to enhance understanding of the
concept.
APPROPRIATE LIGHT LEVELS
Appropriate light levels vary based on roadway
classification, adjacent land use, pedestrian
activity, and proximity to open space and wildlife
habitat. The recommendations in the plan apply
adaptive lighting criteria to the Illuminating
Engineering Society’s Recommended Practice
for Street and Roadway Lighting (IES RP-8-18)
to allow for dimming during reduced pedestrian
activity and the use of broad spectrum, white
light sources, such as LED.
Character, Safety and Equity converge around moderate
light levels.
• Using appropriate amounts of light increases
nighttime visibility creating a safer and more
comfortable environment.
Figure 5: Appropriate Light Level
1 Rea MS, Smith A, Bierman A, Figueiro MG. 2012. The potential of outdoor lighting for stimulating the
human circadian system. Alliance for Solid-State Illumination Systems and Technologies (ASSIST)
30
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW • The City is working to upgrade lighting to appropriate light levels based on locations with the
greatest need.
Appropriate light levels are balanced with environmental responsibility.
• In environmentally sensitive areas, lower light levels are desired. The City will be installing more
environmentally friendly luminaires with a lower CCT and better glare control
Appropriate Light Levels: This photo demonstrates appropriate light levels for a commercial area with medi-
um to high pedestrian usage, where moderate light levels provide excellent visibility through out the public
streets and sidewalks.
31
STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWGLARE REDUCTION
Glare is caused by excessive or undesirable
light entering the eye from a bright light source.
Glare can result in discomfort, annoyance, and
decreased visibility. There is the potential for
direct glare when a light source is in direct view.
The presence of direct glare depends on the
intensity of the light source and contrast with
the surrounding environment. With direct glare,
the eye has a harder time seeing contrast and
details. A lighting system designed solely on
lighting levels aim more light at higher viewing
angles, thus producing more potential for glare.
Direct glare can be minimized with careful
equipment selection as well as placement.
Character, Safety, Equity, and Responsibility converge
around reducing glare levels as it leads to more effective
lighting and safer, more comfortable environments.
Reducing glare:
• Improves visibility on the roadways
• Creates a more enjoyable nighttime
environment
• Reduces sky glow and light trespass,
minimizing the obtrusive effects of light.
Figure 6: Glare Reduction
Lights that create glare can result in a range
of negative effects for drivers, pedestrians
and residents. From annoyance to reduced
visibility, and may generate complaints from
residents.
Lights with low glare provide more comfortable
streets and public spaces, providing lights,
where it is needed without annoying nearby
residents.
32
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWUNIFORMITY VS. CONTRAST
Lighting uniformity refers to the evenness
of light. Our eyes are continually adapting to
the brightest object in our field of view. Any
object lighted to 1/10 the level of the immediate
surroundings appears noticeably darker. For
roadway lighting, good uniformity indicates
evenly lighted pavement. However, good
visibility requires the contrast of an object
against the background. An environment
with perfectly uniform lighting provides
low contrast, which can reduce visibility. To
create enough contrast for good visibility,
there should be a balance between uniform
perception and having enough contrast to
improve visual detection of objects on the road.
Uniformity criteria are typically described as
ratios of maximum to minimum and average to
minimum luminance or Illuminance. Contrast is
the difference between two adjacent luminance
values. High contrast is necessary for good
visibility. Differences in color also produce a
visible contrast, even when both objects have
similar luminance values, which support the
benefits of using higher color rendering sources,
as discussed below in the Color Rendering and
Nighttime Visibility section.
Character, Safety, Equity, and Responsibility converge
around semi-uniform medium contrast lighting. This
provides the proper balance of uniformity and contrast
and is essential to quality lighting design.
• Safety on the roadway is improved when
street lighting properly strikes this balance,
and subtle contrast can add character to an
area with a unique lighting design.
• When the proper balance of uniformity and
contrast is achieved, the lighting is more
effective at lower light levels reducing over
lighting and light pollution.
Figure 7: Uniformity Vs. Glare
Color Contrast: In the photos above, the black-
and-white image shows that the luminance of
the flower and background are very similar. Only
when the color is rendered does the color con-
trast of the yellow flower make it highly visible
next to its background. This demonstrates why
street lighting with good color rendering can im-
prove visibility of objects in a street, even at the
same, or lower light levels. Further study on the
effects of color contrast in street lighting appli-
cations is needed to understand the improved
visibility of broad spectrum light sources at light
levels below current IES RP-8-18 recommenda-
tions.2
2 Clanton N, Gibbons R, Garcia J, Mutmansky M. 2014. Seattle LED Adaptive Lighting Study. Northwest
Energy Efficiency Alliance Report #E14-286
33
STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWADAPTATION
Adaptation refers to the eye’s ability to adjust
between changes in luminance. Our eye will
automatically adjust to the brightest object in
our field of view. Glare from headlights or fixed
lighting can affect one’s ability to adapt to lower
surface luminance. This is especially true as one
ages. Another form of adaptation occurs when
driving from a brightly lighted area to a non-
lighted section of roadway. Here, the lighted
area should slowly transition to darker to allow
adaptation time. Off roadway brightness, such
as driving past a brightly lighted gas station
or LED sign, can also cause adaptation issues.
While this Master Plan does not directly address
lighting on private property, it is intended to
set an example for future lighting guidelines
that could apply these lighting strategies to all
exterior lighting in Salt Lake City.
Character, Safety, Equity, and Responsibility converge
around low to medium levels of visual adaptation to
improve visibility when transitioning from private parking
lots and property into public streets.
• When street lighting and adjacent private
lighting is designed to appropriate light
levels, the eye can maintain a proper degree
of adaptation. When the eye is adapted
to the existing light, it is more effective at
detecting and identifying objects, increasing
safety.
Figure 8: Adaptation
The privately owned lighting at this auto dealership
are too bright and lack proper shielding creating
high adaptation issues transitioning from the sales
lot to the street.
When roadways are illuminated to appropriate
light levels with good control of light, the eye is
able to adapt, increasing visibility and safety on the
streets.
34
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWCOLOR RENDERING AND NIGHTTIME VISIBILITY
The Color Rendering Index (CRI) is the
standard metric used to evaluate how well a
light source renders the true color of an object.
CRI is measured on a scale of 0 to 100, with
100 representing how an object would look
under a reference incandescent light source.
The higher the number, the better the color
rendering capacity. Traditional High-Pressure
Sodium (“HPS”) streetlights have a very low CRI
of approximately 30, making color detection
difficult. Today’s standard LED streetlights are
not only significantly more energy efficient,
they also have a much higher CRI, typically 65 or
higher, increasing color detection, visual acuity,
and overall effectiveness of the streetlights.
LED lighting technology advancements
allow streetlights to be tuned to a specific
correlated color temperature (“CCT”) without
drastically reducing the CRI. This technology
can be used to reduce the color temperature
in environmentally sensitive areas without
significantly reducing the CRI, preserving the
effectiveness of the lighting system.
LED’s emit light across the visual spectrum,
considered white light, which appears brighter
at night. When traditional HPS lights are
replaced with LED’s similar light levels often
appear to be much brighter with LED lights.
Residents may find the light to be obtrusive.
When upgrading to LEDs in residential areas,
it is essential to have a dimming system to
respond to complaints from residents.
Safety and character converge around using higher CRI
of 65 or higher. Eliminating blue spectrum light with
lower CRI is responsible in areas with critical wildlife
habitat.
• Using a higher CRI improves safety by
increasing visual acuity and object detection,
making the roads safer or vehicles and
pedestrians.
• Higher CRI improves character in the area by
enhancing colors of landscaping and objects
within the streetscape.
• Within or adjacent to critical wildlife areas a
luminaire with a lower CRI and CCT should
be used to responsibly illuminate the area
while also minimizing impacts on wildlife.
This car is illuminated by two different light sources.
On the left, an LED light, with high color rendering,
clearly reveals the color and details of the car. On
the right, a low pressure sodium light, with low color
rendering, distorts the color of the car and details of
the vehicle are not clear.
Figure 9: Color Rendering
35
STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWCOLOR TEMPERATURE AND NIGHTTIME
VISIBILITY
Appropriate Correlated Color Temperature
(CCT) of streetlights is largely depends on the
location of the lights within the city. Salt Lake
City consists of diverse land uses, ranging from
high density urban areas to environmentally
sensitive lowlands and foothills. Street type and
adjacent land use determine the appropriate
color of light.
There are opposing effects on how the
spectrum of light at night affects visibility for
Safety and human and environmental health for
Responsibility. Limiting the CCT of light sources
for the City to a maximum of 3000K, and then
adjusting to warmer CCT in residential and
wildlife habitats provides a balance between
the guideposts. CCT should vary throughout
the City to achieve comfortable, safe and
responsible street and pedestrian lighting
throughout the City.
• High Density Urban Areas – 3000K CCT (max).
Lighting in higher density urban areas should
prioritize color rendering for color contrast
and object detection on the roadway. This
increases visibility for drivers and pedestrians.
In urban areas light should have a CCT of
3000K. This CCT is considered a warm white
light source, which improves visibility at night,
but also minimizes the amount of light in the
spectrum that can cause disruptions to the
surrounding environment as well as human
health. The American Medical Association
and International Dark Sky Association both
recommend a maximum CCT of 3000K.
• Residential Areas – 2700K CCT (max).
Visual acuity from white light sources is
needed for pedestrian safety, but residents
typically prefer a warmer color temperature
in their neighborhood. The recommended
color temperature for residential local and
collector streets is 2700K. On arterial streets
in residential areas, 3000K CCT should be
used due to increased speeds. This range
will provide the appropriate amount of white
light to preserve object detection but will also
allow a warmer, more comfortable color of
light in neighborhoods.
• Environmentally Sensitive Areas – 2200K
CCT (max). There are varying types of
environmentally sensitive areas within and
along the perimeter of the city. Where streets
pass through or adjacent to environmentally
sensitive areas, very warm, phosphor-
converted amber light sources with CCT of
2200K or lower, should minimize impacts
of light on plants and animals in the area.
Additional shielding of both back light and
front light may also be required to further
reduce light trespass into these sensitive
areas.
Figure 10: Color Temperature
In the distance, the warm amber glow of low CCT
(1800K) high pressure sodium street lights is shown
in comparison to higher CCT (4000K) LED street
lights in the foreground.
36
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWLIGHT TRESPASS
Light trespass is defined as a stray light that
crosses a property boundary. The most obtrusive
form of light trespass is often caused by an
excessively bright luminaire that is unshielded
and distributes light into adjacent property.
Uncontrolled, non-shielded light sources are
usually the cause of light trespass. However,
even a controlled, fully shielded luminaire may
cause light trespass if not properly located
or oriented. In cases where the location of a
light standard cannot be changed, additional
shielding may be necessary to prevent light
trespass. Although designers should always
strive to minimize light trespass, sometimes
higher levels may be acceptable in downtown,
commercial, and area adjacent to civic land
uses.
The following strategies will identify acceptable levels
of light trespass to balance the design guideposts.
• When designing in residential areas and
environmentally sensitive areas, minimizing
light trespass should be the highest priority.
• When designing in downtown commercial
or retail environments, pedestrian safety
should prioritize increasing vertical light
levels in crosswalks.
• The character of a certain light may result in
high levels of light trespass, but designers
should strive to find luminaires that meet the
character of the area while still maintaining
zero uplight and minimizing light at angles
known to be obtrusive.
A pedestrian light with inappropriate light
distribution and poor shielding creates a
significant amount of light trespass on a nearby
residence.
Figure 11: Light Trespass
A well shielded street light with appropriate
light distribution provides adequate light for
the street and sidewalk with minimal light spill
beyond the sidewalk.
37
STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWLIGHT POLLUTION
Light pollution and sky glow are caused by
light aimed directly up into the sky and by
light reflected from the ground or objects.
Any additional light will add to light pollution.
However, it is the direct uplight component
that does not contribute to useful street level
visibility, and is the most objectionable form
of pollution. Unshielded luminaires are major
contributors to sky glow. Over lighting, even
with fully shielded or U0 luminaires, reflects
unnecessary light into the atmosphere and
adds to sky glow. To minimize light pollution,
first minimize the overall amount of light.
Exterior lighting should be used only where
and when it is needed. Define the lighting
requirements of each street or public area and
provide only the necessary lighting. Street and
pedestrian lighting in residential areas should
be dimmable and have house side shielding
options to allow the City to proactively address
specific complaints about light pollution or
light trespass.
All lighting in the city should be designed
based on the criteria in this plan to reduce over
lighting. In addition, lighting should be shielded
and dimmable.
The strategies to limit light pollution are similar to those
identified for Light Trespass.
• Lighting in environmentally sensitive areas
should always prioritize minimizing light
pollution by not over lighting and using
luminaires with zero uplight and minimal
light at high angles.
• In areas of heavy pedestrian traffic, light at
higher angles may be necessary to provide
the vertical illuminance and positive contrast
to safely light crosswalks with more light at
higher angles.
• Decorative luminaires can contribute more
to sky glow, but designers can still install
decorative luminaires with minimal uplight
component that maintain the historic
character of the area.
The historic acorn style lights currently used
on the Downtown “Cactus” pole distribute a
significant amount of light upward, contributing
to increased light pollution and sky glow.
Figure 12: Light Pollution
38
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWCOSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION
The implementation of this Street Lighting
Master Plan will require additional investment
in the lighting and electrical infrastructure
throughout Salt Lake City and multiple years
to install. To ensure the equitable distribution
of street lighting improvement projects,
this Master Plan recommends how the City
prioritizes these projects and some changes
in the funding mechanisms. The current
funding strategy provides a base level of street
lighting under the standard Public Utility Street
Lighting Fee. To apply for additional pedestrian
scale lighting under the Special Improvement
Districts program, an additional fee is required
to install pedestrian scale lighting in a specific
neighborhood. This results in more affluent
neighborhoods with more lighting than less
affluent neighborhoods. The City should
develop an alternative funding mechanism
that provides more equitable distribution and
access to pedestrian scale lights throughout
the City, not just in areas that can afford the
additional fees.
INITIAL COSTS
The initial investment in street and pedestrian
lighting improvements will vary based on the
strategy chosen to bring the current system
into compliance with this plan. Comprehensive
improvements, such as lighting redesign,
will have the highest initial costs, whereas
1-for-1 replacements of existing luminaires
will have lower initial costs. In many areas
the 1-for-1 replacement strategy will achieve
plan purposes. Other areas require more
comprehensive improvements, such as
relocation of poles or installation of new
lighting. Costs included design and engineering
costs (Design & Construction Documents,
Utility Surveying), lighting equipment costs
(Luminaires, Poles, Lighting Controls), and
infrastructure costs (Foundations, Conduit &
Wire, Surface Replacement).
The public engagement process identified that increasing
the use of pedestrian scale lighting is a community-wide
high priority. Prioritization of pedestrian scale lighting
upgrades include:
• Lighting upgrades and additional pedestrian
lighting in currently underlit areas.
• Strategic placement and appropriate light
levels will minimize power consumption and
eliminate unnecessary equipment.
• Lighting upgrades and new projects in areas
identified as critical wildlife habitats using
proper equipment and lighting levels.
LONG TERM LIFE CYCLE COSTS
• Changing to LED lighting will drastically
reduce the life cycle and operating costs
of the street lighting system. LED lighting
requires significantly less power than legacy
sources, such as high-pressure sodium,
reducing the life cycle energy costs of the
system. With a lifespan of up to 100,000
hours, LEDs need to be replaced significantly
less often than legacy luminaires, reducing
maintenance costs.
• Energy Costs (Luminaire Watts, Dimming,
Part-Night Lighting, Annual kWh baseline,
Annual kWh projected)
• Maintenance Costs (Minimizing Lighting
Equipment SKUs, Equipment Life)
Figure 13: Initial Costs: Guidepost Synergy &
Balance
39
STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWMAINTENANCE
• Proper maintenance is critical for the
effectiveness of the lighting design. LEDs
are known for their durability, longevity,
and consistency in lighting, but quality
components are essential to ensure this.
The LED electronic driver will fail first if a
low-quality luminaire is purchased. Planning
and budgeting for high-quality luminaires
ensures a longer lifespan with much less
required maintenance.
• Another aspect of maintenance involves the
dirt and dust that can accumulate inside or
on the outside lenses of luminaires. Because
street lighting will rarely, if ever, be cleaned,
luminaires must have adequate ingress
protection (IP) against dust and water.
Requiring the use of street and pedestrian
luminaires with a minimum rating of IP65
means that the luminaire is dust-tight and
watertight.
ENERGY
Reducing energy use in Salt Lake City can be
achieved by using energy efficient LED light
sources, providing appropriate light levels
without over-lighting, and reducing light levels
after a curfew by dimming or turning off non-
essential lighting.
Reduction in Energy use for street and pedestrian lighting
is consistent with the guideposts as transitioning all
lighting to LED significantly reducing the amount of
energy that will be used.
• The City is striving to reduce over lighting
by installing a control system to allow for
dimming and further reduction of lighting,
adding to the energy savings.
• In more environmentally sensitive areas, this
master plan requires phosphor converted
amber LEDs with additional shielding.
Although these do not use as much energy
as legacy light sources, they are still not as
efficient as broad spectrum white LEDs.
These lights will be used to reduce the
adverse effects of lighting on the wildlife in
ecologically sensitive areas.
STANDARDIZATION
Salt Lake City has a very diverse street and
pedestrian lighting system that utilizes historic
decorative lights of various types and provides
distinct character to different districts within
the City. Providing variety of character requires
Public Utilities to stock more components to
service and maintain the lighting system. While
this Street Lighting Master Plan establishes
Character as one of its Guideposts, this must
also consider the balance with Responsibility
to minimize costs and inventory for Public
Utilities to manage and maintain the street and
pedestrian lighting system within their budget.
To strike this balance between Character and
Responsibility, this Street Lighting Master Plan
intends to provide some variety of options
within a set of Standardized Components.
• Luminaire Styles
• Pole Styles
• Armature Styles
• Base Styles
• Color Options
Figure 14: Energy
40
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
STREET LIGHTING PLAN
LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES
PURPOSE
There are several strategies the city can use
to implement this Street Lighting Master
Plan and improve the quality of street and
pedestrian lighting. Each of the strategies
will result in a safe environment for drivers
and pedestrians while using equipment that
minimizes light pollution and light trespass.
The plan recommends that the city utilize
each of the strategies as appropriate for the
specific current streetlighting configuration,
road classification, pedestrian volume adjacent
land use, neighborhood or districts character
and the presence of environmentally sensitive
wildlife areas. In addition, each strategy
should be discussed through a neighborhood
engagement process and reviewed to ensure
an optimal balance of the four guideposts is
achieved.
LIGHTING LAYOUT STRATEGIES
Volume II – Technical Lighting Development
Guide of this Master Plan provides a matrix
by which the appropriate strategy should be
identified using street types and warrants. The
matrix is applied on a block by block basis to
ensure the most appropriate lighting for each
area. Figure 15 is a snapshot of the Salt Lake
City Lighting Warrants matrix described in
more detail in Volume II.STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW
41
STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWPEDExisting ConditionsStreet Lighting Ped LightingPEDExisting ConditionsStreet Lighting Ped LightingPEDExisting ConditionsStreet Lighting Ped LightingSidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousOptional Non-cont.Sidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousORContinuousSidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousORContinuousSidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightContinuous&ContinuousSidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightContinuous&ContinuousSidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightNon-cont.&ContinuousSidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousOptional Non-cont.Sidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousORContinuousSidewalk Lit By StreetlightNon-Cont. ORContinuousSidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightContinuous&Non-cont.Sidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightContinuous&Non-cont.Sidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightNon-cont.ORContinuousSidewalk Lit By StreetlightNon-Cont.NASidewalk Lit By StreetlightNon-Cont.NASidewalk Lit By StreetlightInt. OnlyORNon-cont.Sidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightNon-cont.NASidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightNon-cont.NASidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightInt. OnlyORNon-cont.Sidewalk Lit By StreetlightNon-Cont.NASidewalk Lit By StreetlightNon-Cont.NASidewalk Lit By StreetlightInt. OnlyORNon-cont.Sidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightNon-cont.NASidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightNon-cont.NASidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightInt. OnlyORNon-cont.Cactus PolesCactus PolesCactus PolesSidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousOptional Non-cont.Sidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousORContinuousSidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousORContinuousSidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightContinuous&ContinuousSidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightContinuous&ContinuousSidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightNon-cont.&ContinuousCactus PolesCactus PolesCactus PolesSidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousOptional Non-cont.Sidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousORContinuousSidewalk Lit By StreetlightNon-Cont. ORContinuousSidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightContinuous&Non-cont.Sidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightContinuous&Non-cont.Sidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightNon-cont.ORContinuousSidewalk Lit By StreetlightInt. OnlyNASidewalk Lit By StreetlightInt. OnlyNASidewalk Lit By StreetlightInt. OnlyNASidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightInt. OnlyNASidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightInt. OnlyNASidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightInt. OnlyNASidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousOptional Non-cont.Sidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousOptional Non-cont.Sidewalk Lit By StreetlightInt. Only&ContinuousSidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightContinuous&Non-cont.Sidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightContinuous&Non-cont.Sidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightInt. Only&ContinuousSidewalk Lit By StreetlightContinuousOptional Non-cont.Sidewalk Lit By StreetlightNon-Cont.ORNon-cont.Sidewalk Lit By StreetlightInt. OnlyOptionalNon-Cont.Sidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightContinuousOptional Non-cont.Sidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightInt. Only&Non-cont.Sidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightInt. OnlyOptionalNon-cont.Sidewalk Lit By StreetlightNon-Cont.NASidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightNon-cont.NASidewalk Lit By StreetlightInt. OnlyNASidewalk Lit By StreetlightInt. OnlyNASidewalk Lit By StreetlightInt. OnlyNASidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightInt. OnlyNASidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightInt. OnlyNASidewalk NOT Lit by StreetlightInt. OnlyNAOffice ParkOffice ParkOffice ParkLowLowLowLowLowCommercialHigh CommercialHigh CommercialHigh MedMedMedSLC Lighting WarrantsArterial StreetCollectorLocalLowMedMedMultifamily ResidentialLowHigh DowntownMedLowLowMedMedMedLowLowLowSingle Family ResidentialOpen SpaceNANAMultifamily ResidentialSingle Family ResidentialOpen SpaceMultifamily ResidentialSingle Family ResidentialOpen SpaceMedLowIndustrialIndustrialIndustrialHigh High MedMedContinuous Cactus Pole LightingContinuous Cactus Pole LightingLowLowDowntownContinuous Cactus Pole LightingContinuous Cactus Pole LightingContinuous Cactus Pole LightingContinuous Cactus Pole LightingDowntownFigure 15 - Street Lighting Warrants Matrix
42
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWThis section summarizes the strategies identified in the matrix.
STREET LIGHTING ONLY
PURPOSE
• Quality street lighting must consider the entire context of the streetscape environment,
extending beyond the street itself to provide quality light for sidewalks while controlling
obtrusive light trespass, glare and light pollution.
• Street trees with large canopies and thick foliage are integral to the character of Salt Lake
City’s streets and public realm. Street Lighting Only can be a successful strategy in areas that
have smaller and fewer trees but may result shadowing sidewalks on streets with large trees.
• The wide streets and right-of-way in Salt Lake City provide opportunities on many streets to
have a very wide Park Strip that separates the sidewalk from the street. The width of the Park
Strip also affects the ability of Street Lighting Only to effectively illuminate the sidewalks.
Figure 16: Street Lighting Only Cross Section
43
STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWSTREET AND PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
• A combination of Street and Pedestrian Lighting is used in areas of high pedestrian activity,
and on streets with street trees that create shadowing, or with wide Park Strips where Street
Light Only is ineffective at illuminating the sidewalks. This will support a safer and more visually
comfortable pedestrian environment.
Figure 17: Street & Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section
44
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWPEDESTRIAN LIGHTING ONLY
• Pedestrian lighting helps differentiate an area as pedestrian centric and is a visual cue for
drivers to be more aware of people in the public right of way.
• Pedestrian lighting in residential areas reduces light trespass into homes, and the character of
the lights can differentiate neighborhoods throughout the city.
• In downtown environments, pedestrian lighting identifies restaurants, retail and other pedestrian
centric areas, creating a more inviting and safer place for people walking the city.
• When using this Pedestrian Lighting Only strategy, street lights should still be located at
intersections.
Figure 18: Pedestrian Only Lighting Cross Section
45
STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWSPECIAL LIGHTING DISTRICTS
• There is a rich history of street lighting in Salt Lake City that has established Special Lighting
Districts with unique street lighting character. Areas like Downtown and Sugarhouse District
have unique historic street lighting that with a combination of both street and pedestrian lights
mounted on the same light pole. As Salt Lake City evolves, new Special Lighting Districts
may be desired to create and enhance a unique sense of place. Any new Special Lighting
Districts must be coordinated with Salt Lake City to determine the ownership and maintenance
agreements, and must follow the lighting strategies and lighting criteria established in this
Street Lighting Master Plan.
Figure 19: Cactus Lights Cross Section
46
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWINTERSECTION LIGHTING
• Proper lighting at intersections is critical for vehicle and pedestrian safety throughout the
entire city.
• Intersection lighting is the minimum standard throughout the city.
• Intersection lighting encompasses the roadway after the stop bar as well as any painted
crosswalks.
• See Intersection & Crosswalk Lighting for layout and spacing criteria.
Figure 20: Intersection Lighting Plan
47
STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWVERTICAL ILLUMINATION IN CROSSWALKS
• Proper crosswalk lighting in high traffic areas, commercial corridors, will support a safer and
more pedestrian friendly city.
• Lighting in the vertical plane will increase visibility in crosswalks and help to reduce vehicle-
pedestrian accidents.
• See Intersection & Crosswalk Lighting for layout and spacing criteria.
Figure 21: Crosswalk Lighting
48
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
BUS STOP
• Uncovered bus stops should be lit by a
street luminaire positioned 1/2 to 1 mounting
height from the bus stop in the direction of
oncoming traffic.
• Bus shelters with integrated lights should
provide vertical illumination to aid in facial
recognition. Street lights in close proximity
increase ambient light and visual comfort.
• See Volume 2 for additional information.
ENVIRONMENTALLY PROTECTED AREAS
The Salt Lake Valley is not only home to a
bustling urban city but is also home to diverse
and vulnerable wildlife populations and sensitive
Dark Sky Areas. Salt Lake City recognizes
the impacts that street lighting can have on
these sensitive areas and wants to minimize
the negative effects of street lighting at night.
The map below highlights environmentally
sensitive areas where the following lighting
characteristics should be used:
• Color Temperature (CCT) no higher than
2200K,
• All lights should have increase backlight
control to reduce the amount of spill light
• All lights should have zero uplight.
To read more on the impacts of light at night
within the Salt Lake Valley, reference Appendix
D: Nocturnal Infrastructure for Ecological
Health.
IMPLEMENTATION OF UPGRADED LIGHTING
When deciding which Lighting Layout Strategy
to use at various locations throughout the
city, the adjacent land use is a critical factor
in determining nighttime pedestrian activity.
Although there are many different zoning
designations in Salt Lake City, this master
plan consolidates land uses into seven
different categories: Commercial, Office Park,
Downtown, Industrial, Multi-Family Residential,
Single Family Residential, and Open Space. The
different adjacent land uses throughout the city
and more information on determining adjacent
land use can be found in Volume 2.
Each adjacent land use has different primary
considerations that determine lighting
strategy and criteria. The most critical of these
considerations is pedestrian and vehicle volume
during nighttime hours. Areas of higher volume
at night, such as Downtown and Commercial,
require additional lighting, whereas industrial
areas do not see the same traffic volumes
during dark hours. This Master Plan also
strives to be environmentally responsible, and
balances vehicle and pedestrian safety with
environmentally protective actions based
on adjacent land use. The table below shows
the main considerations, environmentally
protective actions, max CCT, and lighting
strategies for each adjacent land use. STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW
49
STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWTABLE 5: LIGHTING LAYOUT STRATEGY BY LAND USE
ADJACENT LAND USE MAIN CONSIDERATIONS
ENVIRONMENTALLY
PROTECTIVE ACTIONS MAX CCT*LIGHTING STRATEGIES
Commercial • Diverse Land Use with
High, Medium, and
Low Pedestrian and
Vehicle Activity During
Night Hours
• Adaptive
Dimming
• 3000K • All Lighting
Strategies
Possible to Safely
and Appropriately
Light the Streets
and Sidewalks.
Office Park • Low Pedestrian
Conflict at Night
• Overlap with
Environmentally
Protected Areas
• Lower CCT
• Adaptive
Dimming
• 3000K • Non-Continuous
Street Lighting
• Possible Non-
Continuous
Pedestrian
Lighting
Downtown • High and Medium
Pedestrian and Vehicle
Activity During Night
Hours
• Historic Character
using Cactus Pole
Lights
• Adaptive
Dimming
• 3000K • Continuous Street
and Pedestrian
Lighting
Industrial • Low Pedestrian
Conflict at Night
• Environmental
Concerns
• Lower CCT
• Adaptive
Dimming
• 2200K • Street Lighting at
Intersections Only
Multifamily
Residential
• Pedestrian Safety
• Representing the
Character of the Area
• Minimizing Light
Trespass
• Controlling
Spectrum
• Adaptive
Dimming
• 3000K
(Arterial)
• 2700K
(Collector/
Local)
• Continuous and
Non-Continuous
Street Lighting
• Continuous and
Non-Continuous
Pedestrian
Lighting
Single Family • Pedestrian Safety
• Representing the
Character of the Area
• Minimizing Light
Trespass
• Controlling
Spectrum
• Adaptive
Dimming
• 3000K
(Arterial)
• 2700K
(Collector
Local)
• Continuous and
Non-Continuous
Street Lighting
• Continuous and
Non-Continuous
Pedestrian
Lighting
Open Space • Environmental
Concerns
• Minimizing Light
Trespass
• Controlling
Spectrum
• Adaptive
Dimming
• 2200K • Non-Continuous
Street Lighting
• Street Lighting at
Intersections Only
*Max CCT to be 2000K in Environmentally Sensitive Areas.
50
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWSTREET LIGHTING EQUIPMENT
AND TECHNOLOGY
When future improvements are made to the
lighting throughout Salt Lake City, the lighting
equipment selected should reflect the principles
established by the Guideposts of Safety,
Character and Responsibility. New equipment
should match or enhance the character of the
area, while also safely and responsible lighting
the area.
This Street Lighting Master Plan places an
increased priority on responsible lighting by
using luminaires that reduce wasted light to sky
glow and light trespass, and have the highest
levels of energy efficiency. Future luminaires
installed in the city will all be fully shielded
LED lights with no light directed upward from
the light source, understanding that there is a
minimal allowance for reflected uplight from
post-top style luminaires. As existing luminaires
are upgraded to LED and new projects are
constructed, the City will become a safer place
for pedestrians and commuters. New pedestrian
lighting will better illuminate sidewalks and
crosswalks, while all new lights will reduce glare
and improve nighttime visibility.
As these upgrades are being made to safer and
more responsible luminaires, the character of
the new lights should also match the character
of the area. The lighting equipment installed at
a particular site will depend on the character of
the site and the adjacent land use. Precedent
character, such as Downtown Cactus Poles
or Sugarhouse Teardrop luminaires, will be
upgraded to similar style of luminaire that
reduces uplight and light trespass onto adjacent
private property.
51
STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWLuminaires (Style, Finish Color, Lumens, Distribution, CCT, CRI, BUG Rating, Shielding, Dimming
Driver (0-10V, DALI), ANSI 7-Pin Receptacle, Integral Wireless Dimming Node)
Light Standards (Pole, Arms, Base, Finish Color, Banner Arms, Holiday Receptacles, Planter Arms,
Traffic Signs, ANSI 7-Pin Receptacle (alt location))
Lighting Controls (Adaptive Dimming, Maintenance Reporting, Asset Management)
Smart City Devices (4G/5G Small Cell, Security Cameras, Air Quality Sensors, Smart Parking,
Speakers, Gun Shot Detection, EV Charging Stations, Traffic Monitoring, Noise Monitoring
TABLE 6: RECOMMENDED LUMINARIES BY LAND USE
CACTUS POLE TEAR DROP COBRA HEAD PEDESTRIAN ACORN PEDESTRIAN ARM
MOUNT
ADJACENT LAND USE
Commercial N/A
S. Temple
State Street
Sugarhouse BD
Base Level N/A Non-Continuous
or N/A
Office Park N/A N/A Base Level N/A Non-Continuous
Downtown Downtown
Historic
S. Temple
State Street
Sugarhouse BD
Base Level N/A Continuous or
Non-Continuous
Industrial N/A N/A Base Level N/A N/A
Multi-Family
Residential N/A N/A
Intersection & Mid-
Block or Intersection
Only
Rose Park Continuous or
Non-Continuous
Single Family
Residential N/A N/A
Intersection & Mid-
Block or Intersection
Only
Rose Park Continuous or
Non-Continuous
Open Space N/A N/A
Intersection & Mid-
Block or Intersection
Only
N/A N/A
52
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS COMPLEXITY & COST
Throughout Salt Lake City, there are various
existing lighting conditions, which results in
lighting improvement projects with different
levels of complexity and cost that range
from minimal improvements, such as 1-for-1
replacements, to comprehensive improvements,
such as complete lighting redesign. The
complexity and cost to improve the lighting
in certain areas will depend on the existing
lighting conditions, location within the city, and
the need for improved lighting. The City should
evaluate each site and determine which level of
improvements need to be made.
MINIMAL: 1-FOR-1 REPLACEMENTS
The most cost effective and quickest way to
improve the lighting is 1-for-1 replacements.
Salt Lake City has already begun the process
for upgrading old HPS lights to new LEDs. This
should be and has been implemented in areas
that already have acceptable existing lighting
layouts and where street lighting sufficiently
illuminates the roadway and adjacent sidewalks.
1-for-1 replacements from HPS to LED will
lead to lower life cycle costs through reduced
energy and maintenance. When upgrading
to LED luminaires, adjacent land use must be
considered. 1-for-1 replacement luminaires
should reflect the character of the area, while
also maintaining consistent light levels and
color temperature appropriate to the site.
SUPPLEMENTAL:
Additional street and pedestrian lighting
may be required where the existing lighting
layout does not sufficiently light the street or
sidewalk. Additional street lighting may be
needed if existing lights are spaced too far
apart to uniformly light the roadway, or if there
is no street lighting at all. Additional pedestrian
lights may be needed when there is a large park
strip between the sidewalk and the streetlights,
where there is excessive shadowing from
trees, or in areas where pedestrian lights are
desired. See Volume 2 on recommendations on
additional pedestrian lighting.
COMPREHENSIVE:
Comprehensive improvements to the current
conditions call for complete lighting redesign.
This should be considered in areas of the City
where lighting redesign is required to meet
requirements in the Lighting Warrants Table.
Comprehensive improvements will need to
be done on streets where new continuous or
non-continuous street or pedestrian lighting
is required. Streets without any lighting will
also require comprehensive improvements and
should comply with the lighting requirements
in the lighting warrants table.
PRIORITIZING LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS
Evaluating where lighting improvements
should be made, and which projects should
be prioritized can be a difficult process. The
purpose of this section is to help provide
guidance when deciding where and when
lighting improvements should be made.
Areas that are currently underserved by the
existing lighting and are adjacent to “High
Priority Conflict Zones” should be the first to
be upgraded. The more “High Priority Conflict
Zones” that an underserved area is adjacent to,
the higher priority it should be to improve the
lighting. If an underserved area is not adjacent
to any “High Priority Conflict Zones” the City
should get public opinion from residents in the
neighborhood to determine is upgraded or
additional lighting is desired. STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW
53
AREAS UNDERSERVED BY STREET LIGHTING
As seen in the lighting density map in Figure 3 on page 24, there are neighborhoods and areas
of the city currently underserved by street lighting. Public outreach is required in these areas to
identify neighborhood interest in upgrading lighting in these areas, particularly for pedestrians.
Neighborhood outreach will allow interested residents to review the options identified in the
lighting matrix and make an informed decision for their area.
HIGH PRIORITY CONFLICT AREAS
High Priority Conflict Areas are locations throughout the city where there is typically increased
pedestrian or bicycle activity. If a location underserved by the existing lighting and is near a
High Priority Conflict Area(s), that site should be prioritized. Maps showing these areas are
shown below. A site with more High Priority Conflict Areas should become a priority area for
implementation.
School Zones
Streets within a one-block radius of all schools within the Salt Lake Valley should be lighted
according to the appropriate adjacent land use and increased pedestrian conflict level as a result
of being close to a school. If a school falls within a neighborhood where minimum lighting is
desired by residents, additional lighting for pedestrian safety should be installed. Lighting near
school zones should ensure that crosswalks are sufficiently lighted as well as all entrances and
exits to the campus.
0 1 20.5
MilesSchool Overlay
Key
Lighting Strategies Heat Map
SLC Boundary
Schools
Streetlights
Dense
Sparse STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWFigure 22: School Locations
54
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Bus Stops
Lighting near bus stops should also be prioritized within the city. If a bus stop is not already
sufficiently lighted, placing one light on the approach side of an uncovered bus stop one half to
one mounting height is required. See Volume 2 for more information on covered and uncovered
bus stops.
1 Mile
I-215
I-15
I-80
I-80
700 E.STATE ST.FOOTHILL
SOUTH
TEMPLE
REDWOODRD.5600 W.2100 S.
400 S.
¯STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWFigure 23: Bus Stops
55
STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWTransit Stations
Transit stations within the Salt Lake Valley are lighted by UTA and are not within the jurisdiction on
Salt Lake City. However, these transit stations result in higher pedestrian and vehicle traffic volume
on adjacent streets. Adjacent streets should be lighted according to the appropriate adjacent land
use and the increased pedestrian volume as a result of being close to a transit station.
¯1 Mile
I-15
I-80
I-80
Transit Stops
Commuter Rail Stations
Commuter Rail
Light Rail Stations
Light Rail
I-215
I-80 700 E.STATE ST.FOOTHILL
SOUTH
TEMPLE
REDWOODRD.5600 W.2100 S.
400 S.
Figure 24: Transit Station Locations
56
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWNeighborhood Byways
Salt Lake City is working on encouraging more biking and walking in the City by creating
pedestrian centric streets called neighborhood byways. The streets should be continuous lighting
with pedestrian lights to help encourage more pedestrian travel.
¯1 Miles
I-215
I-15
I-80
I-80
700 E.STATE ST.FOOTHILL
SOUTH
TEMPLE
REDWOODRD.5600 W.2100 S.
400 S.
Figure 25: Neighborhood Byways Locations
57
STREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEWPRIORITIZING 1-FOR-1 LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS
For areas where current street lighting is adequate in terms of pole type and head placement
and type, one-for-one replacements from HPS to LEDs is the appropriate response to improve
light quality and achieve energy savings. The City is currently working toward upgrading all street
lights to LED, but should prioritize locations with existing HPS lights, are well as locations where
LED lights are glaring or obtrusive.
Streets with Existing High-Pressure Sodium
Street Lights
The City should prioritize upgrading existing HPS
lights to new LEDs with increased glare control
and dimming capabilities. More information on
selecting the proper replacement luminaire can
be found in Volume 2.
Reduce Glare and Light Trespass
Some LED lights within Salt Lake City are too
bright and can cause glare and light trespass.
These lights should be replaced with new
LEDs that have better glare control and are
compatible with the City’s lighting control
system. Additionally, some LEDs within the city
have a higher color temperature than 3000K
and should be replaced by a luminaire with
appropriate CCT based on adjacent land use.
Reduce Light Pollution from Existing Decorative
Lights
Converting the existing Cactus Pole lights
to LED lights with “U0” uplight rating will
significantly reduce the amount of sky glow
and light pollution around Salt Lake City.
EXISTING CACTUS POLE LIGHTS UPGRADED CACTUS POLE LIGHTS
58
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
DESCRIPTION OF VOLUME 2: TECHNICAL LIGHTING DEVELOPMENT GUIDESTREET LIGHTING BASICS OVERVIEW
59
LLiigghhtt TTeerrmmss aanndd DDeeffiinniittiioonn
The following terms are used throughout this Master Plan and in the lighting industry. Understanding
these terms is essential to properly understanding and implementing this Lighting Master Plan.
LLiigghhttiinngg TTeerrmm UUnniitt DDeeffiinniittiioonn
Backlight, Uplight,
and Glare (BUG)
Ratings
B0 – B5
U0 – U5
G0 – G5
Luminaire Classification System for Outdoor Luminaires per IES TM-15
describing the amount of uplight, backlight and glare. Lower numbers in
each classification are associated with lower impacts.
• BB == bbaacckklliigghhtt, or the light directed behind the luminaire.
• UU == uupplliigghhtt, or the light directed above the horizontal plane of
the luminaire.
• GG == ggllaarree, or the amount of light emitted from the luminaire at
angles known to cause glare.
Color Rendering
Index (CRI)
0 - 100 The color rendering index (CRI) is a developed metric on a scale of 0 to
100, to communicate the ability of the light to render an object’s natural
color
Continuous
Lighting
A street lighting system made up of regularly spaced luminaires along
the street. Criteria typically defines minimum and maximum illuminance
or luminance values and overall uniformity along the lighted area.
Correlated Color
Temperature (CCT)
Kelvin (K) The color appearance of the light emitted by a lamp. The CCT rating for
a lamp is a general "warmth" or "coolness" measure of its appearance.
Fire has a CCT of 1850K and daylight is 6000K.
Glare The visual sensation created by luminance (or brightness) that is
significantly higher than the surrounding luminance that the eyes are
adapted to, causing annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual performance
and visibility (disability glare).
Illuminance Footcandle
(Fc)
The density of light (lumens per square foot) falling onto a surface.
Commonly measured in the horizontal and vertical planes.
Illuminating
Engineering
Society (IES)
The IES strives to improve the lighted environment by publishing
recommended practices to guide lighting designers, architects,
engineers, sales professionals, and researchers. The IES’s The Lighting
Handbook and Recommended Practices are the recognized authoritative
reference on the science and application of lighting.
Legacy Light
Source
All non-LED light sources: incandescent, halogen, high pressure sodium,
low pressure sodium, induction, and fluorescent.
Life Cycle Cost An economic analysis of an investment that covers all the costs and
benefits over the expected life of the equipment or system. Unlike a
simple payback analysis, it accounts for maintenance and energy even
after the system is paid for with projected savings. APPENDIX A
60
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
61
DRAFT SURVEY
9/5/2018
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SURVEY QUESTIONS:
1. Place pin on map in general location of where you live or work.
o Provide map with pin location ability
2. Does the street lighting around this location allow you to feel safe while walking outside during
dark hours of the day? (Mark One)
o Yes
o No
3. If the pin located reflects where you live, does the current street lighting interfere with your
sleeping habits? (Mark One)
o Yes
o No
o N/A (Pin does not reflect location of my home)
4. What is your impression of the light level on the street you live on? (the response will change
the color of the pin)
o Comfortable (pin color: green)
o Too Dark (pin color: blue)
o Too Bright (pin color: red)
5. Do you like the color of the light source?
o Yes
o No
6. Does the light source create too much glare?
o Yes
o No
7. Please provide any additional comments:
o Write in additional comments APPENDIX B
62
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1APPENDIX B
AGENDA
PROJECT #: 2018.075 MEETING #: 2
PROJECT: SLC Street Lighting Master Plan
NEXT MEETING: Tentative: Sept 19, 2018
MEETING DATE: September 5, 2018
ISSUED BY: L. Smith | GSBS Architects
Revised post meeting
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTENDEES:
X Jesse Allen X Brad Stewart
X Lauren Smith Jesse Stewart
Christine Richmond
X Dane Sanders
X Riley Rose
X Jason Brown
X David Pearson
AGENDA ITEMS:
1. Review Public Outreach Strategy
o Advisory Committee Members
▪ District 1 Citizen Representative (identified by District Representative)
▪ District 2 Citizen Representative (identified by District Representative)
▪ District 3 Citizen Representative (identified by District Representative)
▪ District 4 Citizen Representative (identified by District Representative)
▪ District 5 Citizen Representative (identified by District Representative)
▪ District 6 Citizen Representative (identified by District Representative)
▪ District 7 Citizen Representative (identified by District Representative)
▪ Mayor’s Office Representative
▪ Public Utilities Representative
o Technical Committee Members
▪ SLC Engineering, Sean Fyfe
▪ SLC Transportation, Jon Larsen
▪ SLC Planning, Doug Dansie
▪ SLC Planning, Molly Robinson
▪ SLC Parks + Public Lands, Nancy Monteith
▪ SLC Fire
▪ SLC Police
o Stakeholder Groups (Individual Groups + representatives representing each group)
Draft List
▪ Downtown Alliance + Business Districts (9th and 9th, Sugarhouse)
▪ Environmental (Dark Sky, Tracy Aviary, Audubon)
▪ Multi-modal (UTA, Bicycle Transit)
▪ School District
▪ Inland Port, NW Quadrant
o Draft Public Survey
▪ See Attachment ‘DRAFT SURVEY’
63
2. Review Proposed Project Schedule
o See Attachment
3. Status of Contract
o Updates
4. Next Steps
o SLC Public Utilities to review pass along revised Draft Survey for review
o GSBS and Clanton to review and revise scope and fee – get to Public Utilities early next
week
o Brad to send GSBS and Clanton contact for Open City Hall to work together on upload
process and capabilities of public survey
OTHER INFORMATION:
APPENDIX B
64
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1APPENDIX B
MEETING NOTES
PROJECT #: 2018.075 MEETING #: 9
PROJECT: SLC Street Lighting Master Plan
NEXT MEETING: TBD
MEETING DATE: April 26, 2019
ISSUED BY: L. Smith | GSBS Architects
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These notes represent the general understanding of the author concerning the topics covered. If there
are errors or misrepresentations, please inform the author in writing and adjustments will be made with
the next issuance of notes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATTENDEES:
X Jesse Allen, GSBS Architects Laura Briefer, Public Utilities
X Lauren Smith, GSBS Architects Holley Mullen, Public Utilities
X Dane Sanders, Clanton and Associates X Katie, Clanton and Associates
X Riley Rose, Clanton and Associates X Technical Committee
X David Pearson, Public Utilities X Annette, Planning
X Jesse Stewart, Public Utilities X Cooper, Police
Brad Stewart, Public Utilities X Ron Fife, Fire Department
X Jack, SLC Engineering X Peter, Sustainability
NEW BUSINESS:
1. Goal:
o How to spend the budget within
▪ The next 5-10 years
▪ What is needed to budget and how to prioritize
2. Planning (Annette filling in for Mayara)
o Design and color of the streetlights fit within the neighborhood
• Historic Districts
• Rose Park
• Poplar Grove
o Color meaning: the LED color temperature and the color of the poles/luminaries
o Day time aesthetics
▪ No planning master plans include streetlights currently
▪ Need to double check to make sure if there is any overlap
o Conflict between districts if they do not get the same thing?
▪ Historic districts are treated completely differently than others
▪ Guidelines for street lighting in historic districts
o Have the street lighting master plan acknowledge the design guidelines
o Review the historic districts and guidelines
o Other districts:
▪ Downtown district
o Districts vs. neighborhoods
▪ Rose park and poplar grove are known for their street trees
▪ These should be on the website
▪ Maybe already in GIS
o Make sure to get those layers in GIS
3. Engineering
o What existing programmatic controls does the city have that protect the existing streetlight
utility/ power supply?
o As more lights get installed, what can be done to make sure that the power supply is
protected?
o Subsurface in the right of way is getting really crowded
65
APPENDIX Bo Currently the lines are not in Blue Stake
o Is it practical/room for improvement on location of lines?
o As time/budget allows, possibility to move the lines into blue stake
▪ This would keep survey crews busy for about 2 years
▪ This would lie more in implementation vs. master plan
▪ Important to note in recommendations of how to move forward
4. Sustainability
o Energy 2040
▪ 80% reduction in our Green House Gases by 2040 (community wide for the whole city)
▪ 50% renewable energy goal by 2020
▪ Baseline is 2009
o Updating Climate response plans
o Solar Street Light just received
▪ On a cul-de-sac off 2700 S testing
o Solar Roadways
▪ Lot of progress in Europe and a company in Idaho
o Slowed wholesale replacements until this master plan is complete
▪ Replacing as needed but not overhaul now
o What % of the City’s energy does Street light make up?
o Strategies:
▪ LED obvious
▪ Dimming
▪ Lumens/watt
o Technology, part of our perception
o Dimmable LED’s at 17th and 17th
▪ Maybe run a test program and dim the lights down to 50% for a week then possibly dim
down to 25%
o Dark Sky
5. Police
o Evidence Preservation
o Preventing Crime
o Controlling Crime
o Smart Lighting
▪ Help a lot with tactical teams to go into a standoff – control the lighting on that block
would be immensely important and helpful
▪ Dimming down and making brighter both could be helpful
▪ Dave can give Police and Fire log in to Smart Lights to be able to control on their own
when needed
▪ Gunshot detection
▪ Lead the fire truck
▪ Citizens are asking for it too
o Opportunities
▪ Brighten up when Jazz game lets out
▪ Lower the lights during snowstorm
▪ Over design for brighter level and dim?
▪ Or overdrive the LEDs for short period of time during when you want them up
• What are those cost implications?
o Lighting for the sidewalks in different neighborhoods
o Support LED because of the color rendering for victims and witnesses to identify colors of
cars and suspects
o Trees block a lot of the light in different neighborhoods
o Even/consistent lighting throughout neighborhoods
o Lots of midblock lights are blocked by the trees
o Acorn lights - because of the way they light
▪ A lot of glare
▪ The way it glares it creates a blind spot especially right at the pole
o Stop the light right at the back of the sidewalk
▪ Glare makes it nearly impossible to see anything from a camera
o Distribution of light
6. Fire
o Inclusive with police
o Uneven light when responding can lead to inability to see pedestrians and cars
66
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
▪ Even light help the drivers see vehicle and pedestrians
▪ Evening lighting on the street and approach at a minimum to get where they need to be
without obstruction
o On seen
▪ Visualizing the addresses
▪ Ongoing issue
▪ Maybe hard to address with street lighting
▪ Able to illuminate the seen if needed see obstacles
▪ People step in holes because they cannot see where they are going,
▪ Focused on the issue they are there to solve
End of meeting notes.
APPENDIX B
67
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 1
Existing Street Lighting Conditions
Salt Lake City, Utah
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Salt Lake City requested an evaluation of the existing street lighting conditions and a Master Plan to aid in transitioning
the remainder of the street lighting from a high pressure sodium system to an LED system and implement a lighting
control system,with the intent to improve visibility and aesthetics while reducing energy and maintenance. The Master
Plan develops new street lighting standards for retrofit and new construction.To obtain a comprehensive understanding
of the existing lighting, Clanton & Associates surveyed seventeen locations within the city,conducted nighttime surveys,
and calculated the light levels along primary arterial,minor arterial, collector and local streets.From these evaluations,
existing condition templates were created to aid the city in prioritizing improvement areas which will influence street
lighting retrofits.By enhancing the street lighting, the city will promote a higher standard of well being as well as a more
comfortable place for residents and commuters.
Evaluation of Existing Lighting Conditions
In November 2018,Clanton & Associates evaluated the current lighting conditions at seventeen sites around the city that
provided an understanding of the diversity of lighting conditions. The selected sites included arterial, collector and local
streets with industrial, commercial,and residential areas.Both horizontal and vertical illuminance
1measurements were
taken along the sidewalks at each site. Luminance
2 measurements were also taken to provide an understanding of
surrounding surface brightness. These measured light levels were used to compare the existing light levels to the light
level recommendations by the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES). Clanton & Associates also took high-dynamic-
range (HDR)images as a visual representation of the perceived nighttime experience.Along with the lighting
measurements, the Advisory and Technical Committees completed a subjective survey assessing the lighted
environment at each site. The survey evaluated how each participant felt about the lighting strategies and overall light
levels at each site as well as how comfortable participants were at the sites. The survey results will be compared to
existing light levels and lighting criteria to guide the development of the Street Lighting Master Plan and the lighting
standards included in it. The site evaluations,and lighting measurements can be found in this report.
Street Lighting Levels
To understand the street lighting throughout the entire city,Clanton & Associates will calculate light levels on arterial,
collector and residential streets. These calculations will be compared to existing street lighting GIS data to determine
how well roadways were lighted.Street blocks will be categorized into three levels of acceptability based on the
calculations, lamp wattage, street type,luminaire spacing,and by comparing measure lighting levels to IES standards.
Acceptable:Streets that met the lighting standards based on street classification with existing luminaire spacing.
These areas would not require any lighting improvements beyond the LED retrofit assuming all current luminaires
are operating properly.
Moderately Acceptable:Streets that do not meet lighting standards based on street classification with existing
luminaire spacing.Typically,these are blocks that have relatively small dark spaces between poles and would
require minor improvements in order to meet lighting standards.
Poor:Streets that have very low,or no,street lighting. These are blocks that typically do not have enough existing
street lights and will most likely require significant investment in new lighting and electrical infrastructure to meet
lighting standards.
Lighting Improvements
Lighting improvements in Salt Lake City will enhance lighting on arterial,collector and residential streets by classifying
each street,setting standards and guidelines for street lighting retrofit and new construction projects.Well lit streets will
help to reduce vehicle accidents as well as pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. Various character districts will be designated
throughout the city in order to provide cohesive and quality lighting based on the surrounding environment. Vertical light
levels will also be increased to enhance pedestrian and object visibility.LED luminaires consume significantly less
energy and require far less maintenance than traditional lighting systems resulting in a quick return on investment.
Executive Summary Existing Conditions Example
3.5
0.1
0.9
cd/m2
The following High Dynamic Range images (HDR)and measured illuminance levels were taken during the
November 2018 site visit.An analysis of the seventeen sites surveyed can be found in this report.
1000E 2100S–Acceptable (1.76 average luminance)
1900E & Sunnyside –Unacceptable (0.41 average luminance)
Measured Illuminance Levels
Criteria Acceptance Level Luminance Type (cd/m^2)Street Luminance
Arterial Street Criteria Acceptable Average 0.9
1000E. 2100S.Acceptable Average 1.76
1900S. Sunnyside Unacceptable Average 0.41
3.5
0.1
0.9
cd/m2
1 Illuminance: the amount of light reaching a surface, expressed in units of footcandles [fc]
2 Luminance: the amount of light reflected from a surface that the eye perceives, expressed in units of candela per
square meter [cd/m2]APPENDIX C
68
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 3
Street Classifications
Street Classifications Map
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 6
SITE EVALUATIONS
Surveys Conducted 04-01-2019APPENDIX C
69
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 7
INTRODUCTION
Four “Levels of Acceptability”were determined from an analysis of the site observations and survey
results: Excellent, Good, Moderate and Poor.
Excellent acceptability is obtained by providing sufficient and appropriate lighting on the roadway,while
also providing adequate vertical illumination to allow for object detection and facial recognition. The
lighting in this location will be relatively uniform,free of direct glare and properly illuminates the roadway
and sidewalk.
Good acceptability indicates that the lighting in the area feels comfortable.In some cases, such as
residential areas,the light level might be lower than the IES Recommended Practice but the lack of glare
and shadowing from surrounding landscaping, along with some surrounding surface brightness, creates a
comfortable nighttime environment without light trespass.
Moderate acceptability is often seen in locations that do not provide enough light on the roadway or on
the sidewalk. The color of the light may be inconsistent and sources may be glary resulting in a
uncomfortable space.Some of these sites were shadowed due to trees and lighting was not appropriately
spaced.
Poor acceptability occurs when the luminaires are spaced too far apart to provide adequate light levels
and uniformity or there are no luminaires on the street at all. These sites included residential areas
without sufficient light,industrial sites and an arterial road where lights were malfunctioning.
These levels of acceptability provide an understanding of the nighttime environments found throughout
the city.This allows a variety of lighting improvement options to be developed. These future lighting
options will enhance the nighttime safety and security around the city.Each option will focus on improving
light levels, uniformity,and wayfinding while reducing glare.700E. Harrison Daytime Environment700E. Harrison Nighttime Environment700E. Harrison High-Dynamic RangeThis Salt Lake City Street Lighting Study provides an understanding of the current
street lighting in seventeen different locations throughout the city. The sites were
surveyed by representatives from each of the seven council districts,as well as Salt
Lake City representatives from the Police,Fire,Engineering,City Planning,
Sustainability, Transportation,and Urban Forestry departments.
The sites were selected based on street type,arterial, collector,or residential,and on
their surrounding environments in the city,industrial, commercial, transit or residential.
The selected sites will help provide a collective understanding of the lighting and
environmental conditions found throughout the city.This study and the Street Lighting
Masterplan are limited to streets,sidewalks and pedestrian paths in the Public Right of
Way and do not include any privately owned lighting. The seventeen sites surveyed
asked about the street and sidewalk lighting conditions. Those sites included:
Establishing Levels of AcceptabilitySite Observations
Example of Good Residential Lighting Example of Poor Residential Lighting
Each site was photographed using High Dynamic Range photography techniques and
lighting measurements were recorded for the streets and sidewalks. Both horizontal and
vertical illuminance (the amount of light reaching a surface) measurements were taken
along the sidewalk. Luminance (the amount of light on a surface that the eye perceives)
measurements were taken along the roadway to provide an understanding of roadway
brightness at each site. These measured light levels were used to compare the existing
light levels to the light level recommendation from the IES Recommended Practice for
Roadway Lighting (RP-8-18).Clanton & Associates also took high-dynamic-range (HDR)
images as a visual representation of the perceived nighttime experience.An example,of
the images taken,is shown to the left.
After measurements were taken,the Advisory and Technical Committee were broken
into two groups and taken on a nighttime tour of the selected sites and asked to
complete a survey assessing the lighted environment. The survey was comprised of
several subjective questions regarding the safety and aesthetics of each site. The survey
includes,but was not limited to, the following questions:
•It would be safe to walk here, alone, during daylight hours.
•It would be safe to walk here, alone, during darkness hours.
•The light is uneven (patchy).
•The light sources are glaring.
•The lighting is poorly matched to the neighborhood.
Participants answered each question with a ranking between Strongly Agree and
Strongly Disagree. The answers to each question were combined to provide an
understanding of each site. Participants surveyed 11 different sites featuring arterial,
collector and residential streets in industrial, commercial and residential areas.
1.Sterling & American Beauty Dr.
2.600N & Riverside Park
3.Redwood Road & South Temple
4.700S & Post Street
5.900W & Dalton Ave
6.Glendale Dr. & Navajo St
7.Jay St & 1st Ave
8.800E & South Temple
9.200S & Floral St
10.650S & Main Street
11.700E & Harrison Ave
12.9th & 9th
13.Layton Ave & West Temple
14.1500S & Yale
15. 19
th E & Sunnyside
16.1400E & Redondo
17.1000E & 2100S
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 9
LIGHTING MEASUREMENTS AND SUBJECTIVE SURVEY SUMMARY
Site # Site Name Street Classification Existing
Lighting
Sterling & American
Beauty Dr.
Local / Residential Excellent
Riverside Park &
600N
Arterial / Park Acceptable
Redwood Rd &
South Temple
Collector / Industrial Poor
700S & Post Street Local / Residential Poor
900W & Dalton Ave Arterial / Residential Acceptable
Glendale Dr. &
Navajo St
Collector / Residential /
Commercial Moderate
J St & 2nd Ave Local / Residential Poor
800E & South
Temple
Arterial / Commercial Excellent
200S & Floral St Arterial / Commercial Excellent
650S & Main St Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
700E & Harrison
Ave
Arterial / Residential Poor
9th & 9th Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
Layton Ave & West
Temple
Local / Residential Moderate
1500S & Yale Collector / Residential Acceptable
19th E & Sunnyside Arterial / Residential /
Commercial Moderate
1400E & Redondo Local / Residential Moderate
1000E & 2100S Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
1
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
4
17
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
SLC Public Utilities
Excellent Site
Acceptable Site
Moderate Site
Poor Site
1000 North
I-80
Redwood RoadSouth Temple
400 South
900 South
1300 South
1700 South
Sunnyside Avenue
Footh
i
l
l
D
r
i
ve
1300 East700 EastState StreetI-15900 West1
2 APPENDIX CSite # Site Name Street
Classification
Existing
Lighting
Sterling & American
Beauty Dr. Local / Residential Excellent
Riverside Park
& 600 North Arterial / Park Acceptable
Redwood Rd.
& South Temple Collector / Industrial Poor
700 South
& Post Street Local / Residential Poor
500 West & Dalton
Ave.Arterial / Residential Acceptable
Glendale Dr. &
Navajo St.
Collector / Residential
/ Commercial Moderate
J St. & 2nd Ave.Local / Residential Poor
800 East & South
Temple Arterial / Commercial Excellent
200 South & Floral St.Arterial / Commercial Excellent
650 South & Main St.Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
700 East & Harrison
Ave.Arterial / Residential Poor
900 East & 900 South Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
Layton Ave. & West
Temple Local / Residential Moderate
1500 South & Yale Collector / Residential Acceptable
19th East & Sunnyside Arterial / Residential /
Commercial Moderate
1400 East & Redando Local / Residential Moderate
1000 East & 2100
South Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
70
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
-4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19.0
Site 17
Site 15
Site 13
Site 11
Site 09
Site 07
Site 05
Site 03
Site 01
Summary of Surveys
-100%
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
-10.0-8.0-6.0-4.0-2.00.02.04.06.08.010.012.014.016.018.020.0
Site 17Site 16Site 15Site 14Site 13Site 12Site 11Site 10Site 09Site 08Site 07Site 06Site 05Site 04Site 03Site 02Site 01Survey Evaluations w/ Percent of Critiera Site Score
% From Criteria
Site # Site Name Street Classification Existing
Lighting
Sterling & American
Beauty Dr.
Local / Residential Excellent
Riverside Park &
600N
Arterial / Park Acceptable
Redwood Rd &
South Temple
Collector / Industrial Poor
700S & Post Street Local / Residential Poor
900W & Dalton Ave Arterial / Residential Acceptable
Glendale Dr. &
Navajo St
Collector / Residential /
Commercial Moderate
J St & 2nd Ave Local / Residential Poor
800E & South
Temple
Arterial / Commercial Excellent
200S & Floral St Arterial / Commercial Excellent
650S & Main St Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
700E & Harrison
Ave
Arterial / Residential Poor
9th & 9th Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
Layton Ave & West
Temple
Local / Residential Moderate
1500S & Yale Collector / Residential Acceptable
19th E & Sunnyside Arterial / Residential /
Commercial Moderate
1400E & Redondo Local / Residential Moderate
1000E & 2100S Arterial / Commercial Acceptable
1
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
4
17APPENDIX C
71
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 1
Site : Sterling & American Beauty Dr
Local / Residential
1
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Sterling & American Beauty Dr
13
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Local Criteria
Low Conflict
Average 0.4 0.1 0.3
Ave/Min 4 -6
Site 1 Average 0.2 0.0 0.1
Ave/Min 5.9 -1.9
Surveyed by: Group 1
1
1
Level of Acceptability: Excellent (Lighting Score = 17.5)
Sterling Dr is in Tier 1 of the Enhanced Lighting Program with acorn lights spaced at intersections and mid block.
Initial Site Observations
•Local Residential street in Rose Park neighborhood.
•Part of Enhanced Lighting Program Tier 1.
•Adjacent to Rose Park Elementary School
Lighting Measurements
•Street lighting does not meet criteria for a local road with a low pedestrian conflict.
•Low vertical light levels make it difficult for cars to identify pedestrians and objects in the roadway.
Participant Survey
•Participants said:
•“Great lighting for a residential area.”
•“This is nice lighting. A model for rest of city “
% From Criteria:
-36% Below
Site : Sterling & American Beauty Dr
Local / Residential APPENDIX C
72
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 1
Site : Riverside Park @ 600N
Arterial / Park
2
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Riverside Park @ 600N
15
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Arterial Criteria
Medium Conflict
Average 0.5 0.2 0.9
Ave/Min 4 -3
Site 2 Average 0.5 0.0 1.0
Ave/Min 15.8 -1.9
Surveyed by: Group 1
2
2
Level of Acceptability: Acceptable (Lighting Score = 9.8)
600N is lit with LED luminaires in a staggered arrangement and meets roadway lighting criteria.
Initial Site Observations
•This is a wide arterial road with heavy traffic from commuters and shipping.
•This site is located between Riverside Park and Backman Elementary School.
•Street lights are LED and arranged in a staggered arrangement.
Lighting Measurements
•This street meets the roadway luminance criteria for an arterial street with a medium pedestrian conflict.
•Horizontal illuminance on the sidewalks meets criteria, but vertical illuminance does not.
Participant Survey
•Participants felt the amount of light was good, however the style and color does not match the neighborhood.
•Participants found the light the be slightly glaring
% From Criteria:
14% Above
Site : Riverside Park @ 600N
Arterial / Park
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative ResponsesAPPENDIX C
73
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 1
Site : Redwood Rd & S Temple
Collector / Industrial
3
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Poor (Lighting Score = -2.9)
S. Temple is lit with HPS luminaires in a staggered arrangement and does not meet roadway criteria.
Initial Site Observations
•This site is an industrial part of town next to a ABF Freight.
•There is no sidewalk on either side of the road and very minimal pedestrian traffic.
•S. Temple dead ends at private property to the east.
Lighting Measurements
•The street is under lighted and does not meet roadway criteria.
•The are currently no sidewalks, and light does not meet the edge of roadway where pedestrians would be
walking.
Participant Survey
•Participants were very uncomfortable with this site.
•Participants did not feel safe on this site during the day or night, due to the industrial location.
•Participants felt that there was not enough light at this site.
17
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Collector Criteria
Low Conflict
Average 0.3 0.08 0.4
Ave/Min 6 -4
Site 3 Average 0.1 0.0 0.2
Ave/Min 1.3 -2.3
Surveyed by: Group 1
3
3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Redwood Rd & S Temple
% From Criteria:
-54% Below
Site : Redwood Rd & S Temple
Collector / Industrial
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses APPENDIX C
74
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 2
Site : 700S Post Street
Local / Residential
4
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019 19
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Local Criteria
Low Conflict
Average 0.3 0.08 0.3
Ave/Min 6 -6
Site 4 Average 0.0 0.0 0.0
Ave/Min ---
Surveyed by: Group 2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
700S Post Street
4
4
Level of Acceptability: Poor (Lighting Score = -1.8)
700S is an extremely wide residential street with cobrahead style luminaires at intersections.
Initial Site Observations
•700S is an extremely wide residential street and was described by one resident as an “air strip.”
•The streets in this area are lit by HPS luminaires located at intersections. Current luminaires are not capable
of providing light across the wide intersections.
Lighting Measurements
•This street is dark and only lit by passing cars.
•There is no light on sidewalks except directly below luminaires.
Participant Survey
•Participants felt uncomfortable in this location at night, but very safe during the day, which indicates additional
lighting could be helpful.
•They felt strongly that there was not enough light on the roadway or sidewalk and were not able to identify
faces and colors.
% From Criteria:
-97% Below
Site : 700S Post Street
Local / Residential
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative ResponsesAPPENDIX C
75
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 2
Site : 900W & Dalton Ave
Arterial / Residential
5
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Acceptable (Lighting Score = 5.2)
900W is an arterial street lit by HPS luminaires in a staggered arrangement.
Initial Site Observations
•This is a 5 lane arterial road next to Jordan Park.
•Luminaires are LED and are in a staggered arrangement.
•Sidewalks are separated from roadway by landscaping, but have sufficient horizontal illuminance.
Lighting Measurements
•Heavy traffic while measurements were being taken contributed to light levels.
•Roadway luminance measurements meet criteria, but street feels slightly underlit.
•Sidewalk horizontal criteria is met, but vertical illuminance is low.
Participant Survey
•Participants felt that the lighting was patchy and that trees obstructed light from hitting the sidewalks.
•Overall they felt that this wide street had good coverage, however light sources appeared glaring.
•Participants were split over if the sidewalks were sufficiently lit or not.
21
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Arterial Criteria
Low Conflict
Average 0.3 0.08 0.6
Ave/Min 6 -3.5
Site 5 Average 0.3 0.0 1.4
Ave/Min 2.9 -5.1
Surveyed by: Group 2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
900W & Dalton Ave
5
5
% From Criteria:
137% Above
Site : 900W & Dalton Ave
Arterial / Residential
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses APPENDIX C
76
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 2
Site : Glendale Dr. & Navajo St
Collector / Residential / Commercial
6
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Moderate (Lighting Score = 2.7)
Glendale Dr. is lit by HPS lights and also sees major contribution from nearby private lighting.
Initial Site Observations
•This is a residential/commercial area near the US Dream Academy and a Church.
•The street lighting is located midblock and at intersections, but private lighting from parking lots contribute to
light on the street and sidewalk.
•Building mounted lights are glaring and shine into residences across the street.
Lighting Measurements
•The roadway is under lighted, even with contribution from private lighting.
•The horizontal and vertical illuminance on the sidewalk does not meet criteria.
Participant Survey
•Participants felt that the lighting was patchy with different types and colors and several dark areas.
•Overall they were split over the nighttime conditions.
23
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Collector Criteria
Medium Conflict
Average 0.5 0.2 0.6
Ave/Min 4 -3.5
Site 6 Average 0.2 0.0 0.2
Ave/Min 1.5 -1.7
Surveyed by: Group 2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Glendale Dr. & Navajo St
6
6
% From Criteria:
-60% Below
Site : Glendale Dr. & Navajo St
Collector / Residential / Commercial
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative ResponsesAPPENDIX C
77
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Both Groups
Site : Jay St & 1st Ave
Local / Residential
7
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Poor (Lighting Score = -0.3)
2nd Ave is residential street lit by a single HPS luminaire at each intersection.
Initial Site Observations
•This site is located in a residential neighborhood adjacent to a Church.
•Sidewalks are separated from the road by landscaping and feel dark. Large trees shadow the sidewalks.
•Sidewalk adjacent to the Church has light contribution from parking lot lighting.
Lighting Measurements
•The luminance on 2nd Ave does not meet criteria for a local street, but the lighting layout is in accordance with
the current SLC Street Lighting Masterplan.
•Sidewalks are dark and do not have any light, except directly below luminaire.
Participant Survey
•Participants felt that the street light only sufficiently illuminates the intersection. The remaining roadway and the
sidewalks are dark.
•Participants were split on nighttime safety and comfort levels.
25
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Local Criteria
Low Conflict
Average 0.3 0.08 0.3
Ave/Min 6 -6
Site 7 Average 0.1 0.0 0.1
Ave/Min 9.9 -3.3
Surveyed by: Both Groups
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Jay St & 1st Ave
7
7
% From Criteria:
-67% Below
Site : Jay St & 1st Ave
Local / Residential
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses APPENDIX C
78
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Both Groups
Site : 800E & S. Temple
Arterial / Commercial
8
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Excellent (Lighting Score = 13.9)
S. Temple is lit using LED Acorn style luminaires arranged in an opposite arrangement.
Initial Site Observations
•S. Temple is a 4 lane arterial road connecting downtown, the avenues and the University.
•This is a commercial area with a restaurants, condominiums and businesses nearby.
•Sidewalks are separated from the street by landscaping and are shadowed by large trees. Additional pedestrian
lights are placed at crosswalks.
Lighting Measurements
•Heavy traffic while measurements were being taken contributed to light levels.
•Roadway luminance far exceeds criteria, but light levels felt appropriate for this street.
•Sidewalks are slightly below criteria, and there is some light contribution from nearby businesses.
Participant Survey
•Participants felt that the lighting at this sight was better than other similar site throughout the city.
•Participants were split on light levels. Some felt it was too bright, while others desired slightly more light.
27
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Arterial Criteria
Medium Conflict
Average 0.5 0.2 0.9
Ave/Min 4 -3
Site 8 Average 0.4 0.1 1.5
Ave/Min 3.0 -1.8
Surveyed by: Both Groups
8
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
800E & S. Temple
8
% From Criteria:
65% Above
Site : 800E & S. Temple
Arterial / Commercial
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative ResponsesAPPENDIX C
79
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Both Groups
Site : 200S Floral St
Arterial / Commercial
9
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Excellent (Lighting Score = 13.8)
200S is an arterial road running through the heart of downtown with cactus style poles.
Initial Site Observations
•This site is in the heart of downtown SLC nearby multiple bars and restaurants.
•Cactus style poles are closely spaced on both sides of the road.
•There is a large, non signalized, mid block crosswalk across 200S.
Lighting Measurements
•The roadway essentially meets criteria at this site and feels comfortable.
•The cactus poles use acorn style luminaires that provide good vertical illuminance on pedestrians.
•This site is essentially meets all criteria.
Participant Survey
•Participants felt that the lighting at this site was better then similar areas throughout the city.
•Participants felt that the light sources were glaring and light could be better directed toward the street.
•Participants also felt that the light fixtures meet the character of the area, but there are too many of them.
29
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Arterial Criteria
Medium Conflict
Average 0.5 0.2 0.9
Ave/Min 4 -3
Site 9 Average 0.8 0.5 0.8
Ave/Min 4.2 -1.7
Surveyed by: Both Groups
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
200S Floral St
9
9
% From Criteria:
-8% Below
Site : 200S Floral St
Arterial / Commercial
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses APPENDIX C
80
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Both Groups
Site : 650S Main Street
Arterial / Commercial
10
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Acceptable (Lighting Score = 6.3)
Main St. is a collector street with a shared transit line, lit with LED luminaires in a staggered arrangement.
Initial Site Observations
•Main St. is shared by both vehicles and the TRAX line.
•North and Southbound lanes are separated by a large landscape median that supplies power for TRAX.
•Sidewalks are separated from the road by landscaping and are shaded by large trees.
Lighting Measurements
•The roadway exceeds criteria. Luminaires used are glaring.
•Sidewalk essentially meets criteria, but have significant contribution from private lighting.
•Overall, this site is well lit.
Participant Survey
•Participants felt that the trees blocked a lot of light to the sidewalks which caused the light to be uneven.
•Overall, participants felt that the roadway was sufficiently lighted.
31
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Collector Criteria
Medium Conflict
Average 0.5 0.2 0.6
Ave/Min 4 -3.5
Site 10 Average 0.4 0.1 1.3
Ave/Min 2.5 -1.6
Surveyed by: Both Groups
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
650S Main Street
10
10
% From Criteria:
116% Above
Site : 650S Main Street
Arterial / Commercial
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative ResponsesAPPENDIX C
81
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 2
Site : 700E Harrison Ave
Arterial / Residential
11
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Poor** (Lighting Score = -2.1)
700E is a large arterial road spanning the whole Salt Lake valley with heavy traffic.
Initial Site Observations
•700E is a 7 lane arterial road with heavy commuter and shipping traffic, along with bike lanes that runs
throughout the whole valley.
•The site is adjacent to Herman Franks Park and Liberty Park.
•The roadway is lit using LED luminaires in a staggered arrangement.
Lighting Measurements
•The roadway exceeds lighting criteria, but luminance levels feel appropriate for this size of street.
•Light on the sidewalk does not meet horizontal or vertical illuminance criteria, but heavy traffic provides
additional light.
Participant Survey
•**Lights on the west side of the roadway were not operational during surveys.**
•Overall, participants felt this site was dark and was worse than similar sites throughout the city.
33
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Arterial Criteria
Medium Conflict
Average 0.5 0.2 0.9
Ave/Min 4 -3
Site 11 Average 0.2 0.0 1.6
Ave/Min 1.7 -4.6
Surveyed by: Group 2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
700E Harrison Ave
11
11
** % From Criteria:
78% Above
Site : 700E Harrison Ave
Arterial / Residential
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses APPENDIX C
82
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 1
Site : 9th & 9th
Arterial / Commercial
12
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Acceptable (Lighting Score = 10.1)
900S is a collector street in a commercial area with by pedestrian style luminaires
Initial Site Observations
•9th & 9th is a bustling commercial area and a destination in Salt Lake.
•The streets and sidewalks are lit mostly by pedestrian style luminaires along with cobra heads mounted on
signal poles.
•Landscaping and on street parking separate the sidewalk from the roadway.
Lighting Measurements
•Overall, this site meets or exceeds the lighting criteria.
•The roadway luminance exceeds the target criteria, but luminance levels feel appropriate on the street.
•Sidewalk horizontal and vertical illuminance criteria is met.
Participant Survey
•Participants felt that this site was appropriately lit and was better than similar sites throughout the city.
•Participants noted that lighting could be better controlled and less glaring.
•Participants liked the style of lighting for the neighborhood character.
35
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Collector Criteria
Medium Conflict
Average 0.5 0.2 0.6
Ave/Min 4 -3.5
Site 12 Average 0.5 0.3 1.2
Ave/Min 5.6 -2.0
Surveyed by: Group 1
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
9th & 9th
12
% From Criteria:
101% Above
Site : 9th & 9th
Arterial / Commercial12
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative ResponsesAPPENDIX C
83
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Both Groups
Site : Layton Ave & W Temple
Local / Residential
13
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Moderate (Lighting Score = 3.6)
West Temple is a collector road passing through residential area lit with HPS Luminaires along one side of the road.
Initial Site Observations
•West Temple is a 2 lane collector road passing through a residential area lit with HPS lights along the east side
of the road.
•Large, dense trees block most of the light from hitting the roadway or sidewalk.
Lighting Measurements
•Due to the large trees, most of the light does not reach to ground, causing the roadway and sidewalks to be
under lighted.
•Sidewalks feel dark is dramatic shadowing from trees.
Participant Survey
•Participants were split on how appropriate the roadway and sidewalk lighting was.
•Participants were also split on nighttime safety and comfort levels at this site.
•Overall, this is a very polarizing site.
37
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Collector Criteria
Low Conflict
Average 0.3 0.08 0.4
Ave/Min 6 -4
Site 13 Average 0.1 0.0 0.2
Ave/Min 6.5 -10.1
Surveyed by: Both Groups
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Layton Ave & W Temple
13
13
% From Criteria:
-50% Below
Site : Layton Ave & W Temple
Local / Residential
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses APPENDIX C
84
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 1
Site : 1500S Yale Ave
Collector / Residential
14
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Acceptable (Lighting Score = 6.0)
1500S is a collector road bordering neighborhoods with Enhanced and base level lighting.
Initial Site Observations
•This site has both cobrahead HPS lights as well as acorn style lights that are part of the Enhanced Lighting
Program.
•1500S is a collector street connecting multiple residential areas with private and enhanced street lighting.
Lighting Measurements
•The street is slightly below criteria, but feels appropriate in this area.
•Sidewalk lighting does not meet horizontal or vertical criteria.
•Overall the site does not meet criteria, but feels lighting feels appropriate to the area.
Participant Survey
•Participants were divided on if the lighting was better or worse compared to similar areas, however they did
generally agree that this street might need additional lighting.
•Overall, participants felt that this site could use additional light.
•Survey was taken in a different location than the measurements were.
39
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Collector Criteria
Low Conflict
Average 0.3 0.08 0.4
Ave/Min 6 -4
Site 14 Average 0.2 0.0 0.3
Ave/Min 5.5 -8.4
Surveyed by: Group 1
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
1500S Yale Ave
14
14
% From Criteria:
-37% Below
Site : 1500S Yale Ave
Collector / Residential
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative ResponsesAPPENDIX C
85
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 1
Site : 19th E & Sunnyside Ave
Arterial / Residential / Commercial
15
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Moderate (Lighting Score = 2.2)
Sunnyside Ave is an arterial street connecting the residential neighborhoods with the University and Foothills.
Initial Site Observations
•This 5 lane arterial street is lit with LED lights from the north side of the road at a large spacing.
•The side borders residential neighborhoods, Sunnyside Park, a church, University housing and is a major path
into the University of Utah campus and to downtown.
•Lights are glaring and cause light trespass at residences across the street.
Lighting Measurements
•Both the sidewalk and roadway are under lighted and do not meet criteria.
•Lights are spaced too far apart and overly bright and glaring luminaires are used to help get light across and
down the street.
Participant Survey
•Participants felt that the lighting was insufficient on the south side of the road, due to the single-side lighting
arrangement.
•Overall, participants felt that this lighting was worse than similar areas and could use additional light.
41
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Arterial Criteria
Medium Conflict
Average 0.5 0.2 0.9
Ave/Min 4 -3
Site 15 Average 0.1 0.0 0.4
Ave/Min 5.7 -2.3
Surveyed by: Group 1
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
19th E & Sunnyside Ave
15
15
% From Criteria:
-55% Below
Site : 19th E & Sunnyside Ave
Arterial / Residential / Commercial
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses APPENDIX C
86
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 2
Site : 1400E Redondo Ave
Local / Residential
16
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Moderate (Lighting Score = 3.2)
Redondo Ave is a residential street in the Sugarhouse area with private street lighting.
Initial Site Observations
•Redondo Ave is a residential street with private acorn style street lights.
•Multiple lights along the street were burnt out or malfunctioning.
•Large trees on the street shaded most of the lights.
Lighting Measurements
•This site does not meet roadway or sidewalk criteria.
•The infrastructure for decent street lighting is present, but multiple lights were not on resulting in a dark street.
Participant Survey
•Some participants felt that the light sources were glary, and provided patchy, insufficient light coverage.
•Participants liked the style of lights, but they did not feel comfortable, and would like to see more light on the
roadway and sidewalk.
43
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Local Criteria
Low Conflict
Average 0.3 0.08 0.3
Ave/Min 6 -6
Site 16 Average 0.1 0.0 0.0
Ave/Min 5.3 --
Surveyed by: Group 2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
1400E Redondo Ave
16
16
% From Criteria:
-48% Below
Site : 1400E Redondo Ave
Local / Residential
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative ResponsesAPPENDIX C
87
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Surveyed by: Group 2
Site : 1000E 2100S
Local / Commercial
17
Salt Lake City –Existing Street Lighting Conditions February 2019
Level of Acceptability: Acceptable (Lighting Score = 12.0)
2100S is in the heart of the Sugarhouse business district and is part of the Special Assessment Lighting program
Initial Site Observations
•The site is in the middle of the Sugarhouse business district and is surrounded by commercial properties.
•The luminaires used at this site have a street light as well as two pedestrian level light sources.
•2100S is a four lane arterial road and luminaires are in an opposite arrangement.
•Acorn style luminaires are bright and slightly glaring.
Lighting Measurements
•There is a lot of light at this site and all criteria is exceeded.
•Multi-head luminaires with street and pedestrian luminaires plenty of light on the sidewalk and street.
Participant Survey
•Most participants felt that there was too much light, and that the light sources were glaring.
•Overall, participants felt safe at this location.
45
3.5
0.0
cd/m2
Sidewalk Illuminance (fc)Roadway Luminance
(cd/m^2)Horizontal Vertical (min)
Collector Criteria
Medium Conflict
Average 0.5 0.2 0.6
Ave/Min 4 -3.5
Site 17 Average 2.5 0.3 1.8
Ave/Min 8.2 -2.6
Surveyed by: Group 2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
1000E 2100S
17
17
% From Criteria:
194% Above
Site : 1000E 2100S
Local / Commercial
Green Bars are Positive Responses
Blue Bars are Negative Responses APPENDIX C
88
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
89
APPENDIX D
Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan
Nocturnal Infrastructure for Ecological Health
Prepared by: Travis Longcore, Ph.D.
Prepared for: Clanton and Associates, Boulder, Colorado
May 2020
Lights of Salt Lake City wash out the Milky Way viewed from Antelope Island State Park.
Photograph: Ryan Andreasen.
90
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
2 Potential Impacts of Streetlights on Wildlife in Salt Lake City .............................................. 4
2.1 Physical Geography ........................................................................................................ 4
2.1.1 Great Salt Lake Shorelands ..................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Jordan River ............................................................................................................ 7
2.1.3 Urban Creeks .......................................................................................................... 7
2.1.4 Wasatch Mountains ................................................................................................. 8
2.2 Sensitive Species ............................................................................................................. 8
2.3 Effects of Lighting on Key Wildlife Groups ................................................................ 10
2.3.1 Attraction and Disorientation ................................................................................ 10
2.3.2 Loss of Connectivity ............................................................................................. 12
2.3.3 Foraging ................................................................................................................ 13
2.3.4 Interference with Visual Communication ............................................................. 14
2.3.5 Physiological Responses ....................................................................................... 14
3 Consideration of Spectrum in Municipal Street Lighting Systems ...................................... 16
3.1 Effects on Wildlife ........................................................................................................ 16
3.2 Effects on Dark Skies .................................................................................................... 19
3.3 Human Circadian Rhythms ........................................................................................... 22
4 Design Strategies for a Healthy Nocturnal Infrastructure ..................................................... 27
4.1 Systemwide Approaches ............................................................................................... 27
4.1.1 Need-based Lighting ............................................................................................. 27
4.1.2 Shielding and Directionality ................................................................................. 27
4.1.3 Intensity, Dimming, and Controls ......................................................................... 27
4.1.4 Spectrum ............................................................................................................... 28
4.2 Ecological Overlay Strategies ....................................................................................... 30
4.2.1 Bird Collision Zone............................................................................................... 32
4.2.2 Critical Wildlife Habitat Zone .............................................................................. 32
4.2.3 Jordan River and Urban Creeks ............................................................................ 33
4.2.4 Community Parks and Natural Lands ................................................................... 33
5 References ............................................................................................................................. 34 APPENDIX D
91
1
1 Introduction
Salt Lake City is located in a region connected to its night sky. The awe and wonder inspired by
a view of the Milky Way and sky overflowing with stars attracts visitors to Utah and contributes
to the identity of the region for residents. Salt Lake City itself is brightly illuminated, with its
cultural and institutional centers, commercial zones, and unique urban design. But just north of
the city, Antelope Island State Park has sought and received recognition as a Dark Sky Park by
the International Dark-Sky Association,
joining eight other Dark Sky Parks, a Dark
Sky Community, and a Dark Sky Heritage
Place in Utah (Figure 1). The future of
Antelope Island’s long-term status as a
Dark Sky Park depends on the decisions of
the cities along the Wasatch Front in
protecting the night sky (see cover).
Cities set the tone for night lighting in a
region. They are the most brightly lit, and
their size influences the markets, practices,
and professionals in a region. Commercial
zones of cities and towns tend to
contribute the most light escaping upward
(and therefore wasted), along with lighted
sports fields when they are illuminated
(Luginbuhl et al. 2009). Historically,
street lights contributed a significant and
constant amount to both useful and wasted
light through the night, while residential
lights and lighting from vehicles declines
substantially through course of the night
(Bará et al. 2017). Within residential
zones, most of the light is from the
streetlighting system, especially later in the evening when traffic rates are low and ornamental
lighting is switched off (Bará et al. 2017). Decisions made at municipal level about its street
lighting system therefore have a large contribution to the overall amount of useful and wasted
light in a city. Because perception of lighting is based on contrasts (the same light appears dim
next to a brighter source and bright next to a dimmer source), the decisions made in terms of
municipal street lighting systems have ramifications to the nocturnal environment that extend
beyond the system itself. As a metropolitan area, compared with the 125 largest metropolitan
areas in the United States, Salt Lake City is well above average in terms of the average amount
of light escaping upward that can be measured by satellites (Figure 2). It does not waste as much
light as other larger cities with their greater areas, but on a per area basis it contributes more to
regional light pollution than the average city, although not so much as New Orleans, which is a
similar size.
Figure 1. Distribution of recognized dark sky
places in and near Utah. Circles are Dark Sky
Parks, triangles are Dark Sky Communities, and
diamonds are Dark Sky Heritage Sites. Source:
List of Dark Sky Places maintained by Dark Skies
Advisory Group, IUCN. APPENDIX D
92
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
2
Figure 2. Light escaping upwards from Salt Lake City 2012–2017 within the 125 largest
metropolitan regions in the United States. Top: radiance normalized for area. Bottom: total
radiance from entire city extent. Data from VIIRS DNB as analyzed by Horton et al. (2019).
Large-scale transformations of municipal street lighting systems have occurred over the past
decade as older lighting technologies have been replaced by light emitting diode (LED) systems.
Because of the history of the technology, where the early high-efficiency LEDs had a high
content of blue light, residents of many jurisdictions objected to the new lights. The bluish-white
light of LEDs in those installations was perceived as brighter because of the visual sensitivity of
the human eye to the greater proportion of shorter (blue) wavelengths in the light produced. In
addition, when lights are more efficient and less expensive to operate, there is a tendency to use
more light (Kyba et al. 2014). Not only does the color of light affect how humans perceive the
lights; the color of lights is recognized as influencing the contributions lights have to light
pollution (Aubé et al. 2013, Kinzey et al. 2017), wildlife (Longcore et al. 2015b, Donners et al.
2018, Longcore 2018), and human health (Garcia-Saenz et al. 2018).
Researchers and engaged lighting designers are developing techniques to minimize undesirable
effects of outdoor lighting on both astronomical and ecological light pollution. These include
guidance for protected lands (Longcore and Rich 2017), recommendations for specific groups of
species (Voigt et al. 2018), and recommendations balancing human vision and wildlife impacts
(Longcore et al. 2018a). As Salt Lake City prepares a new Street Lighting Master Plan, this
research can be synthesized and applied to inform decisions about the design of the future street
lighting system that is consistent with the values embodied in the plan. Mean RadianceSummed Radiance0
10
20
30
40
50
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
New York
Chicago
Los Angeles
Las Vegas
Salt Lake City
New Orleans
New York
Chicago
Los Angeles
Las Vegas
Salt Lake City New Orleans
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Area RankAPPENDIX D
93
3
This report provides guidance for minimizing the adverse impacts of unnecessary light at night
on species, habitats, and ecosystems in the development of a Street Lighting Master Plan for Salt
Lake City. The organization of the report is as follows. In the next chapter, the potential
impacts of street lighting on wildlife in Salt Lake City are reviewed, based on the published
scientific research. The following chapter explores the role of spectrum in determining the level
of impact on dark skies, circadian rhythms, and wildlife. Then, this information is synthesized in
a chapter outlining spatially explicit design strategies to reduce adverse impacts of street lighting
on sensitive biological resources within the context of the further development of Salt Lake
City’s municipal lighting system. With these strategies, Salt Lake City can build a nocturnal
infrastructure that supports ecological health by providing high-quality lighting for human safety
and well-being while protecting the night sky and nighttime environment within the city and
across the region, setting an example for others to follow. APPENDIX D
94
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
4
2 Potential Impacts of Streetlights on Wildlife in Salt Lake City
Street lighting has a large spatial footprint within the area of a city. For a medium-sized city like
Salt Lake City, street lighting is provided throughout its residential, commercial, and industrial
districts to different extents. In this chapter, the potential effects of this system on wildlife are
considered, which requires assessment of the geographic extent of the city.
To describe the environment potentially affected by lighting in Salt Lake City, the physical
geography and habitats of the city were described and lists of sensitive species were compiled.
Together, these natural features and species distributions can provide the background to devise
spatially explicit schemes to minimize potentially adverse effects.
Figure 3. Location of Salt Lake City within the physical geography of the region (USGS
topographic maps, 1885, from http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/).
2.1 Physical Geography
Salt Lake City is located on lacustrine terraces between the Wasatch Mountains and the Great
Salt Lake. It grew up as a central location for travel, commerce, and mining, supported by a
swath of irrigated lands extending north-south along the Wasatch Mountains. Although other
regional cities were established first (e.g., Ogden), Salt Lake City arose as the most significant
city through a confluence of its irrigation resources and its importance as a religious center. APPENDIX D
95
5
The growth of Salt Lake City depended in part on the array of some 35 streams that flowed
downward from the Wasatch Mountains to the rich soils of the terraces above the Great Salt
Lake (Harris 1941). These streams were not deeply incised and therefore they could be diverted
for irrigation, compared with the rivers of the region, which although larger, are incised into
canyons and consequently could not be used easily be irrigation by the white settlers in the
1840s. The climate is mild, with a long growing season extended by proximity to the Great Salt
Lake. Snow accumulation in the mountains and a long melt season made agriculture attractive
and productive within the region. The creeks flowing out of the Wasatch Mountains, City Creek,
Red Butte Creek, Emigration Creek, Parley’s Cañon Creek (now Parley’s Creek), Big
Cottonwood Creek, in turn flowed into the Jordan River, which flowed northward to debouche
through a small distributary delta into the Great Salt Lake (Figure 3). The Jordan River has a
winding, low-gradient pathway that remains to this day, dividing the territory of the city into
eastern and western halves. The eastern half is characterized by the rising terraces climbing up
toward the mountains with the remaining extents of the westward-flowing creeks, while the
western portion of the city is an almost entirely flat open plain extending toward the shore of the
Great Salt Lake (Figure 3).
These features of the physical geography of Salt Lake City are a useful organizing framework to
discuss zones that remain important to the ecology and sensitive species of the City today: 1) the
Salt Lake shorelands, 2) the Jordan River, 3) the urban creeks, and 4) the Wasatch Mountains.
Figure 4. Example of the open landscape of the Great Salt Lake shorelands. Photo from Google
Local Guide Neil Martin, looking due east toward Salt Lake City.
2.1.1 Great Salt Lake Shorelands
The shorelands surrounding the Great Salt Lake extend far into the City limits of Salt Lake City.
The airport and western commercial and industrial areas extend into this zone. These flat, open
areas are made up of deep lacustrine sediments of clay and loam (Flowers 1934). Although the
vegetation changes by zones extending away from the lake, the plains and ponds within them
tend to be saline, which leads to a flora free from trees and dominated by low succulent herbs
and low shrubs, such as pickleweed, salt bush, salt grass, and seepweed (Flowers 1934). Open
habitats such as these (Figure 4) are vulnerable to disruption by light pollution because light
encounters no barriers and even a single unshielded streetlight can be seen from a great distance APPENDIX D
96
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
6
(De Molenaar et al. 2006, Longcore and Rich 2017). Birds in landscapes like this can be
influenced by the direct glare from streetlights and will locate nests farther from lights when
such sites are available (De Molenaar et al. 2006).
These shoreland ecosystems are extremely important to shorebirds for foraging and breeding.
The brine shrimp and salt flies that feed on algae in and around the lake provide food and the
undisturbed open areas are used by Snowy Plovers, American Avocets, Black-necked Stilts,
Long-billed Curlew, and dozens of other shorebird and waterbird species (Jones 2008). A
portion of this area with Salt Lake City has been established and managed as the Inland Sea
Shorebird Reserve by Rio Tinto/Kennecott as mitigation for impacts from its nearby mining
operations. They took advantage of existing shallow depressions with soils high in clay that
naturally held water and managed the drainage system to extend inundation times and provide
high-quality bird habitat. The 3,670-acre reserve provides habitat for around 120,000 birds
annually.
The Great Salt Lake as a whole has been recognized as a site of “hemispheric importance” within
the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Network (Andres et al. 20016). Nearly all the western
shorelands with Salt Lake City have been designated as Very Important Bird Areas (IBAs) by
Birdlife International. They are the Gilbert Bay/South Arm IBA and the Farmington Bay IBA,
which each extend into and cover the undeveloped reaches of the shorelands. These IBAs are of
global importance (the highest possible ranking).
Figure 5. Extent of globally significant Important Bird Areas (blue) in Salt Lake City with City
Council districts (red) for reference. APPENDIX D
97
7
Figure 6. Example of the vegetation of the Jordan River as it winds through Salt Lake City.
Image from Google Local Guide Ross Pincock.
2.1.2 Jordan River
The Jordan River is a low-gradient, meandering river that
flows north to south through Salt Lake City. Considerable
development has affected the banks and floodplain, but
recent years have brought attention and restoration efforts to
enhance the river, its habitats, and its water quality.
The Jordan River supports riparian (streamside) habitats that
are used for nesting by neotropical migratory bird such as
Bullock’s Oriole, Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-breasted
Chat, all of which nest along the Jordan River and then
migrate to Central America for the winter.
The Tracey Aviary conducts surveys and nest monitoring
along the Jordan River and birding hotspots along the river
include Glendale Golf Course, Jordan River Parkway (200 S
to 2100 S), Fife Wetlands Preserve, and Rose Park Golf
Course.
2.1.3 Urban Creeks
Salt Lake City has a series of creeks that flow down from the
Wasatch Mountains and cut east to west across the city
toward the Jordan River (Figure 7). Over time, the lower
extents of these creeks have been undergrounded, cutting off
the surface flows and diverting them to underground pipes.
For example, City Creek, was undergrounded along North
Temple Street in 1909 (Love 2005). These creeks have been
the focus of daylighting and restoration activities that may
Figure 7. Footprint of the
Jordan River running south to
north through the center of Salt
Lake City. APPENDIX D
98
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
8
extend into the future (Love 2005). Because of the water flows and support of riparian
vegetation, the remaining aboveground creeks remain important habitats for wildlife. They are
now surrounded by neighborhoods and receive heavy recreational use and provide valuable
access to nature within the urban fabric (Figure 8).
Figure 8. Image of Emigration Creek as it flows through the Wasatch Hollow Open Space. Photo
by Google Local Guide Joseph Muhlestein.
2.1.4 Wasatch Mountains
The foothills of the Wasatch Mountains to the
west of the Salt Lake City are contiguous with a
large block of contiguous open space and
wilderness area and therefore are easily
recognized as being environmentally sensitive.
One of the vulnerabilities of mountainous habitats
to light pollution is that their slopes are directly in
the light of sight for any light that is emitted
upward from nearby sources (Longcore and Rich
2017). Any light from Salt Lake City that is
emitted above the horizontal plane and directed
toward the east has the potential to degrade the
habitats of the Wasatch Mountains.
2.2 Sensitive Species
Important wildlife species of Salt Lake City were
reviewed in a 2010 program for the acquisition of
natural lands. The program identified and mapped
the distribution of critical habitat for wildlife. A
list of species for which potential habitat is found
in the City was also provided. This map identified
all parcels within the city that intersected with
areas that had potential habitat for Black Bear, Band-
Figure 9. Four urban creeks (purple)
extending out of the Wasatch Mountains
into Salt Lake City. APPENDIX D
99
9
tailed Pigeon, Blue Grouse, Chukar Partridge, Moose, Mule Deer, Ring-necked Pheasant, Rocky
Mountain Elk, Ruffed Grouse, or Snowshoe Hare. The resulting map forms a ring around the
core of Salt Lake City, with critical wildlife habitat extending down the slopes of the Wasatch
range to the urban edge on the east and also enveloping the shorelands and extending from the
west to and around the north of the airport (Figure 10).
The city also has potential habitat for a range of sensitive plant and wildlife species. These
species include birds of the open shorelands (Bobolink, Burrowing Owl, Long-billed Curlew,
Northern Goshawk, Short-eared Owl) those associated with the foothills and creeks (Lewis’s
Woodpecker, Three-toed Woodpecker, Greater Sage Grouse, and some found throughout (e.g.,
Ferruginous Hawk, Grasshopper Sparrow). Other sensitive wildlife species include the Smooth
Greensnake, found in the mountains, spotted bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat.
Figure 10. Distribution of parcels (green) that intersect with critical wildlife habitat, with City
Council districts for reference.
Other wildlife species, although not recognized formally as sensitive, deserve attention in a street
lighting plan intended to reduce and avoid impacts. Fireflies are known to be sensitive to light
pollution and have popular appeal as wondrous symbols of the dusk and nighttime environment
(Lloyd 2006). The Natural History Museum of Utah is collecting firefly sightings from around
the state and has reports from both north and south of Salt Lake City and a few records have
been reported from within Salt Lake City. APPENDIX D
100
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
10
Bats are also significantly influenced by lighting conditions. Mexican free-tailed bats (Tadarida
brasiliensis) are well-known to residents because they roost at West High School near downtown
during migration. Other documented species include hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus;
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/3742269). It is likely that more species and locations
for bat foraging and roosting would be documented if acoustic surveys were conducted
(O’Farrell et al. 1999).
2.3 Effects of Lighting on Key Wildlife Groups
Artificial light at night can have a range of lethal and sub-lethal effects on wildlife (Longcore
and Rich 2004, Rich and Longcore 2006, Gaston et al. 2012, Gaston et al. 2013, Meyer and
Sullivan 2013). Some wildlife species will avoid areas with additional lighting (Beier 1995,
2006, Stone et al. 2009, Stone et al. 2012) or otherwise be adversely impacted (Hölker et al.
2010a, Hölker et al. 2010b, Longcore 2010, Gaston et al. 2013).
The formally recognized sensitive species in Salt Lake City, or at least potentially present,
include large and small mammals, migratory and resident birds, bats, one reptile, and at least one
plant species. The types of disruption from lighting that could occur for these groups include
attraction and disorientation leading to injury or death, disruption of connectivity between habitat
patches, interference with predator-prey relations and circadian rhythms that influence foraging
decisions, and disruption of pollination.
2.3.1 Attraction and Disorientation
Attraction/repulsion and disorientation are possible outcomes of encounters
between wildlife and artificial light at night (Longcore and Rich 2004).
The most well-known situation is the attraction and disorientation of
hatchling sea turtles on ocean beaches, which results in the death of the
juvenile turtles that do not reach the ocean (McFarlane 1963). The two
most relevant instances of attraction and disorientation for Salt Lake City
are the impacts on migratory birds and on insects.
Migratory Birds. Research with weather radar over the past five years has dramatically improved
understanding of the influence of city lights on migrating birds. Most songbird species migrate
at night and they can be detected and mapped on weather radar. A massive trove of radar data
has been accumulated over the past 25 years and so researchers can now use those data and
powerful new computing approaches to understand the influence of lights on the migratory paths
of birds.
Light at night escaping upwards so that it can be measured by a satellite is associated with
greater numbers of birds present during the day, especially in the fall when juveniles are
migrating south (La Sorte et al. 2017). As the birds are migrating southward they are attracted to
the lights of the city and then end up disproportionately using habitats in and around cities as
compared with potentially better habitats farther from cities (McLaren et al. 2018). Lights can
rapidly increase the density of migratory birds in an area at night. A study of the Tribute in Light
installation in New York documented an increase from 500 birds within 0.5 km of the vertical APPENDIX D
101
11
light beams before they were turned on to 15,700 birds within 0.5 km 15 minutes after
illumination (Van Doren et al. 2017).
Attraction at night is only the first hazard. Urban habitats and especially business districts are
quite hazardous to these birds because once they are on the ground, they are susceptible to
collisions with glass, which they do not perceive as a barrier (Klem 1990, Sheppard and Phillips
2015). The combination of night-time lights followed by daytime glass exposure is a significant
threat to songbirds during the already strenuous migratory period (Cabrera-Cruz et al. 2018).
Radar data have been used to track the relative exposure of migratory birds to lights within U.S.
metropolitan areas ranked by area. The Salt Lake City–West Valley City urban area ranks 74th in
area among cities in the continental US by area. When evaluated for the number of migrating
birds based on radar tracking (average for 1995–2017) and the intensity to light as measured by
the VIIRS DNB satellite (average for 2012–2017), the city ranks 120th in exposure for the spring
and 112th in exposure for the fall (Horton et al. 2019) (Figure 11). Other cities have far more
migratory birds flying overhead per unit area. For example, New Orleans has many more birds
flying overhead because of its location on the Gulf Coast, where all of the birds heading to the
northern forests and back again to Central and South America funnel overhead.
Figure 11. Relative exposure of migrating birds to light in Salt Lake City within the 125 largest
metropolitan regions in the United States (Horton et al. 2019). Salt Lake City has relatively
fewer migratory bird species overhead during migration than other similarly sized metropolitan
regions.
Even though the relative exposure is low compared with other similar-sized cities, birds are
attracted to and die at the buildings of Salt Lake City. The city can take a leadership position by
reducing the amount of light escaping upward from lighting throughout the city and especially
downtown to reduce this unfortunate outcome.
Insects. Many families of insects are attracted to lights, including moths, lacewings, beetles,
bugs, caddisflies, crane flies, midges, hoverflies, wasps, and bush crickets (Sustek 1999, Kolligs
2000, Eisenbeis 2006, Frank 2006, Longcore et al. 2015a). Any lamp with significant emissions
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Fall Exposure RankSalt Lake City
New Orleans
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Area Rank APPENDIX D
102
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
12
in the ultraviolet or blue wavelengths is highly attractive to insects (Eisenbeis 2006, Frank 2006,
van Langevelde et al. 2011, Barghini and de Medeiros 2012). Insects attracted to lights are
subject to increased predation from a variety of predators, including bats, birds, skunks, toads,
and spiders (Blake et al. 1994, Frank 2006).
Moths are especially attracted to lights and they play a special role in the ecosystem as
pollinators. Moths are killed in collisions with the lights or by becoming trapped in housings
(Frank 1988, 2006). Short of death, this attraction removes native insects from their natural
environments (Meyer and Sullivan 2013) in what Eisenbeis (2006) calls the “vacuum cleaner
effect.” Attraction of insects by light results in significant reduction in pollination (Macgregor et
al. 2015, Macgregor et al. 2017) and this effect spills over into daytime insect communities
because of the decreased seed set and reproduction of plants (Knop et al. 2017).
Bats. The responses of different bat species to lighting are complex (Rydell 2006). Some faster-
flying and more maneuverable species will be attracted to lights, where they forage on insects
also attracted to the lights. Slower and less maneuverable species will avoid lights, essentially
being repulsed by their presence (Stone et al. 2009, Stone et al. 2012, Stone et al. 2015). Light at
the entrance of a roost can keep bats from emerging for their nightly foraging (Boldogh et al.
2007).
2.3.2 Loss of Connectivity
As is implied by the repulsion of some bat species by
nighttime lighting, the presence of permanent outdoor
lighting can severe landscape connectivity for wildlife
species (Stone et al. 2009). The existence of the lights
themselves, shielded or not, is sufficient to influence
wildlife movement (Beier 1995, 2006). This phenomenon
was illustrated by a radio telemetry study of young
mountain lions in Orange County, California (Beier 1995):
All travel in corridors and habitat peninsulas occurred at night. During overnight
monitoring, the disperser usually avoided artificial lights when in the corridor or
peninsula. For example, M12 [a juvenile mountain lion] consistently used dark areas as
he rapidly (<4 hr) traveled the grassy ridge (6.0 X 1.5 km) separating San Juan
Capistrano from San Clemente (Fig. 1). Also M12 seemed to use light cues when he
negotiated the tightest part of the Pechanga Corridor; his consistent movements in the
direction of the darkest horizon caused him to miss the only bridged undercrossing of I-
15.
Overnight monitoring showed that dispersers especially avoided night-lights in
conjunction with open terrain. On M12’s initial encounter with a well-lit sand factory and
adjacent sand pits, he took 2 hours and 4 attempts to select a route that skirted the facility,
after which he rested on a ridgetop for 2 hours. During 2 nights in the Arroyo Trabuco,
M8 explored several small side canyons lacking woody vegetation. He followed each
canyon to the ridgetop, where city lights were visible 300–800 m west. He stopped at
each canyon ridgetop for 15–60 minutes before returning to the arroyo, without moving
>100 m into the grasslands west of the ridgeline in view of the city lights. APPENDIX D
103
13
Further data on the use of underpasses and the influence of lighting on landscape connectivity
have been reported. An experimental evaluation of underpass use by wildlife found that for mule
deer, even nearby lights affected movement compared with a reference period (Bliss-Ketchum et
al. 2016). Research conclusively shows that artificial night lighting can have an adverse impact
on the foraging behavior of bat species, and exclude certain species from foraging routes or areas
(Stone et al. 2009, Polak et al. 2011).
2.3.3 Foraging
Small mammals respond to illumination in their foraging
activities. For example, artificial light of 0.3 and 0.1 lux reduced
the activity, movement, or food consumption of a cross-section
of rodent species (Clarke 1983, Brillhart and Kaufman 1991,
Vasquez 1994, Falkenberg and Clarke 1998, Kramer and Birney
2001). This phenomenon also has been shown in natural (in
addition to laboratory) conditions (Kotler 1984a, Bliss-Ketchum et al. 2016, Wang and Shier
2017, Wang and Shier 2018).
The driving force behind patterns of activity and foraging by animals influenced by artificial
lights is presumably predation. Additional (artificial) light might increase success of visually
foraging predators, thereby increasing risk to their prey, with one critical exception: prey species
with a communal predator defence, such as schooling or flocking, have decreased risk of
predation with additional light. Evidence for this general pattern continues to accrue. Partridge
are documented to roost closer to each other on darker nights and can see predators farther away
on lighter nights (Tillmann 2009). Some species of bats avoid artificial lights to reduce predation
risk (Stone et al. 2009, Polak et al. 2011). A general review of nocturnal foraging suggests that
night is a refuge with decreased overall predation on birds and mammals, and that foraging
groups are larger at night, especially for clades that are not strictly nocturnal (Beauchamp 2007).
Songbirds that were experimentally relocated moved back to their home ranges at night, a result
that is most consistent with predator avoidance (Mukhin et al. 2009). Pollination is determined
by foraging activities and the distribution of insect foragers, which in turn are susceptible to
attraction, disorientation, and other behavioral disruptions from artificial lights (Knop et al.
2017).
Predator-prey systems are tightly tied into lunar cycles, with many relationships affected by lunar
phase (Williams 1936, Sutherland and Predavec 1999, Topping et al. 1999, Riou and Hamer
2008, Upham and Hafner 2013). Even within species, variation in color interacts with lunar
cycle to affect foraging success. White-morph Barn Owls have an advantage foraging during the
full moon because the light reflecting off their white feathers triggers their rodent prey to freeze
in place, while Barn Owls with darker colored feathers do not have this advantage (San-Jose et
al. 2019). Light pollution can be expected to interfere with such patterns (San-Jose et al. 2019).
Predator-prey relations probably also drive the influence of artificial lighting on bird nest
location. The one experimental study of the effect of streetlights on breeding bird density shows
a negative impact (De Molenaar et al. 2006). The streetlights in De Molnenaar et al.’s study
created a maximum illumination of 20 lux (1.8 footcandles). The adverse effects of these lights
(decreased density of Black-tailed Godwit nests) were experienced up to 300 m (984 ft) from APPENDIX D
104
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
14
these lights, extending into areas with negligible increased illumination, which means that the
adverse impact results from the light being visible, rather than the amount of light incident on the
sensitive receptor.
2.3.4 Interference with Visual Communication
Artificial light at night affects species such as fireflies that communicate visually at night with
light. Although the distribution of fireflies is limited within the city, their recovery could be a
laudable urban conservation goal. Artificial light washes out the signals that fireflies use for
communication and is potentially contributing to the decline of fireflies and other organisms that
rely on bioluminescent communication (Lloyd 2006, Hagen and Viviani 2009, Viviani et al.
2010, Bird and Parker 2014). A Brazilian study documented lower species richness of fireflies
in areas of 0.2 lux and greater (even from sodium vapour lamps, which are otherwise considered
to be more wildlife friendly), except for those few species that naturally fly at greater
illumination (Hagen and Viviani 2009).
2.3.5 Physiological Responses
Birds. The research on the effects of ambient and artificial
lighting on bird reproduction goes back to the 1920s (Rawson
1923, Rowan 1938). Birds can be extremely sensitive to
illumination, and extension of foraging by species under artificial lights is documented in the
literature (Goertz et al. 1980, Sick and Teixeira 1981, Frey 1993, Rohweder and Baverstock
1996). Research shows an earlier start to seasonal breeding of birds in urban (lighted)
environments than rural (dark) environments (Havlin 1964, Lack 1965). Many of the
physiological impacts of lighting on birds are reviewed by De Molenaar et al. (2006) and
Longcore (2010).
• Dawn song in American Robins (Turdus migratorius) is influenced by ambient
illumination (Miller 2006);
• Dawn song and lay date in a songbird have been shown to be associated with proximity
to streetlights, with evidence that this affected mate choice, which has implications for
fitness (Kempenaers et al. 2010);
• Light of 0.3 lux can move reproductive seasonality of songbirds by a month and cause
irregular molt progression (Dominoni et al. 2013a, Dominoni et al. 2013b);
• Light is a major driver of the daily activity patterns of songbirds (study animal European
Blackbird; Turdus merula), causing them to be active earlier in the morning (Dominoni et
al. 2014);
• A songbird (Tree Sparrow; Passer montanus) exposed to 6 lux in the laboratory secreted
luteinizing hormone earlier than controls, and urban birds exposed to 3–5 lux exhibited
this pattern in the field; both of these response were statistically associated with night
lighting (Zhang et al. 2014);
• Artificial light outside of nest boxes affects perceived photoperiod of Great Tits (Parus
major), which the authors interpret as creating an ecological trap (Titulaer et al. 2012);
• Artificial light rather than traffic noise affects dawn and dusk song timing in common
European songbirds (Da Silva et al. 2014). APPENDIX D
105
15
Artificial night lighting affects diurnal species substantially as well. As noted above, it affects
timing of dawn and dusk song, seasonality of reproduction, mate choices, and can extend
activities of diurnal species into the night (Stracey et al. 2014). Birds that sing earliest are
responding to increases in illumination so faint that they are undetectable by humans (Thomas et
al. 2002). This is true for impacts across species, where diurnal species are affected in numerous
ways by an altered nighttime environment (Miller 2006, Kempenaers et al. 2010, Titulaer et al.
2012, Dominoni et al. 2013a, Dominoni et al. 2013b, Da Silva et al. 2014, Dominoni et al. 2014,
Zhang et al. 2014, Da Silva et al. 2015).
Mammals. Similar impacts on both seasonality and daily rhythms are documented for mammals.
For example, lighting from a military base was shown to desynchronize the breeding time of
tammar wallabies in the field in Australia, as well as to suppress nightly melatonin production
(Robert et al. 2015). Studies on the physiological effects of light at night on mammals are
abundant, partly because of the implications for understanding human health (e.g., Zubidat et al.
2007, Zubidat et al. 2010). As a whole, they show that artificial light at levels far less intense
than previously assumed are able to entrain circadian rhythms and influence physiological
functions such as immune response (Bedrosian et al. 2011). For example, extremely dim light is
sufficient to entrain rhythms in mice, and can be done without phase shifting or reducing
production of melatonin (other physiological indicators of light influence) (Butler and Silver
2011). For shorter wavelengths (blue and green) entrainment takes place at 10–3 lux. Much
greater intensity, 0.4 lux, is needed for red light to entrain rhythms (Butler and Silver 2011).
This research is consistent with recently documented differences in mice behaviour for exposure
to 20 lux vs. 1 lux at night (Shuboni and Yan 2010). Mice that were exposed to dim (5 lux) light
at night consumed the same amount of food as those under dark controls, but gained weight as a
result of the shift in time of consumption (Fonken et al. 2010).
Plants. Plants “anticipate” the dawn with a synchronized circadian clock and increase immune
defence at the time of day when infection is most likely (Wang et al. 2011). The timing of
resistance (R)-gene mediated defences in Arabidopsis to downy mildew is tied to the circadian
system such that defences are greatest before dawn, when the mildew normally disperses its
spores (Wang et al. 2011). Preliminary experiments show that carbon assimilation is lower in
trees exposed to continuous night lighting, compared with controls in a “stereotypical urban
setting” (Skaf et al. 2010). Some plants might use light-triggered circadian rhythms to
synchronize expression of anti-herbivory compounds with periods of peak herbivory, leading to
increased loss from herbivory in out-of-phase plants (Goodspeed et al. 2012). The importance of
circadian rhythms in plants, for everything from disease response and flowering time to seed
germination, and the potential for disruption by night lighting, has not been explored widely
(Resco et al. 2009, Bennie et al. 2016).
Light at night also affects the perception of seasonal change by plants and their associated
physiological responses. Exposure to light at night is associated with earlier budburst in plants in
the United Kingdom, in a pattern that cannot be explained by the greater temperatures in cities
(ffrench-Constant et al. 2016). Trees exposed to nearby lights have long been observed to hold
on to their leaves later in the fall (Briggs 2006, Škvareninová et al. 2017, Massetti 2018) and
prevent seed set in plants cued to shorter daylengths (Palmer et al. 2017). APPENDIX D
106
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
16
3 Consideration of Spectrum in Municipal Street Lighting Systems
The LED revolution in outdoor lighting has created new possibilities to select the spectral
composition of lights. Unlike lighting technology of the past, such as high-pressure sodium or
metal halide lamps, the range of colors that can be deployed using LEDs is wide. As a result, it
is possible to select spectral profiles that can either reduce or increase the effects of a street
lighting system on the visibility of stars in the night sky, on human circadian rhythms, and on
wildlife (Longcore 2018).
3.1 Effects on Wildlife
This review of the effects of lighting spectrum on wildlife is drawn from my recent article
(Longcore 2018), which can be consulted for additional details.
The effects of lights of different spectral composition on wildlife depends on the responses of
different wildlife groups to those lights. A limited number of “response curves” are available
that track the response for a species or group of species to light throughout the entire visible
spectrum (and into the portion of the spectrum invisible to humans). These curves have been
developed for insects in general, bees, moths, juvenile salmon, seabirds, and sea turtles. My
colleagues and I have developed methods to compare different lamp types for their effects across
these groups (Longcore et al. 2018a).
Some patterns are clear. Insect attraction to LEDs is lower across the board when compared with
lamps that emit ultraviolet light. Both “warm” and “cold” LEDs have been compared with metal
halide and mercury vapor lamps and found to attract less than a tenth of the number of insects, a
finding that is attributable to the difference in ultraviolet emissions (Eisenbeis and Eick 2011).
Conversely, most broad-spectrum LEDs used in outdoor lighting do have a potential to adversely
impact the perception of daylength (and thus seasonality) in plants, because the peak sensitivity
of the phytochromes that detect daylength are in range of LED peak emissions for most full-
spectrum LEDs.
Several approaches are available to summarize the quality of light from different sources. One is
to use the Correlated Color Temperature (CCT). This metric, although imperfect, is widely used
in lighting design. Some jurisdictions that regulating lighting to protect species have a hard cut-
off (e.g., no light allowed < 540 nm) or measure the amount of light emitted below certain
thresholds. Another possible metric is the degree to which a light interferes with the non-image
forming photoreceptors that result in disruption in circadian rhythms in humans, because nearly
all vertebrates will have a similar response curve for suppression of melatonin production at
night. Drawing on data from Longcore et al. (2018a), the response of different wildlife groups
against these possible metrics describing spectrum were plotted (Figure 12). Across all groups,
less blue light (shorter wavelengths) resulted in lower effects. As for metrics to describe this
pattern, correlation with CCT was strong, but melanopic lux (the brightness of the light as sensed
by melanopsin) correlated the best. These results will only hold true for lamps without
ultraviolet or violet emissions, however. APPENDIX D
107
17
Figure 12: Relationship of modeled effect of lamps on different wildlife species or groups
(juvenile salmon, Newell’s shearwater, sea turtles, insects, and their average) with percent
emissions <530 m, % emissions < 500 nm, correlated color temperature (CCT), and melanopic
power of the lamps. Data from (Longcore et al. 2018b).
CCT is not a perfect predictor of effects on wildlife, but it is a reasonable rule of thumb that
lower CCT will be less disruptive to wildlife and we already know that it will be less disruptive
for circadian rhythms and astronomical observation (Aubé et al. 2013). The lamps with the
lowest projected influence on wildlife overall were low pressure sodium (which is being phased
out), high pressure sodium, PC amber LEDs, and filtered LEDs (Figure 13). APPENDIX D
108
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
18
Figure 13: Relationship of correlated color temperature to average wildlife sensitivity with
lamps and illuminants labelled. Data from (Longcore et al. 2018b).
These results represent the predicted effects of the lamps on wildlife. To account for preferences
in outdoor lighting, another ranking was created that incorporated a penalty for low color
rendering index (CRI). Any lamp with a CRI over 75 was assumed to have adequate color
rendering, while those with lower CRI were penalized in the overall index. The resulting ranking
of lamps is notable in that low pressure sodium ranks lower because of its extremely low CRI,
while PC Amber and filtered LEDs rank the highest, balancing both lower wildlife impacts with
reasonable if not high CRIs (Figure 14).
As a rule of thumb, CCT can be used as an indicator of wildlife effects, but this may not hold
true across all applications. Migrating birds cannot orient under red light and therefore solid red
lights are to be avoided on communication towers (Longcore et al. 2008). Green light has
support for minimizing attraction of nocturnal migrant birds (Poot et al. 2008). Many other
special cases exist and would require consultation with experts on a taxonomic group or species
at risk. For the species of concern in Salt Lake City, however, including insects as indicators of
riparian health, bats, and nesting birds, lower CCT will decrease ecological impacts when
combined with other good street lighting practices (low glare, no uplight, appropriate intensity,
and only lighting when warranted). APPENDIX D
109
19
Figure 14: Ranking of lighting sources that equally weights wildlife response, melanopic
response, astronomical light pollution (Star Light Index (Aubé et al. 2013)), and Color
Rendering Index. Reprinted from (Longcore et al. 2018b). Shorter bars represent a combination
of lower wildlife responses and higher CRI.
None of the effects measured with these metrics addresses the scattering of light in the
atmosphere, but tools to evaluate the effects of different spectra on astronomical light pollution
are available to do that.
3.2 Effects on Dark Skies
The introduction and widespread adoption of 4000K and greater LED streetlights poses a
significant threat to astronomical observation and the quality of the night sky as a recreational
amenity. It is well-established that the preponderance of light at shorter wavelengths found in
high color temperature LEDs scatters more in the atmosphere and if replacing high-pressure
sodium lamps with similar intensity and shielding, will result in degradation of the night sky
(Kinzey et al. 2017). The effects of the adoption of high color temperature LEDs were quickly
noticed and documented by night sky advocates, who could see the degree to which full-
spectrum white lights adversely impacted the aesthetics of the night sky when compared with
lower color temperature high-pressure sodium systems (Figure 15). APPENDIX D
110
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
20
Figure 15. View eastward from Antelope Island State Park, showing visible effect of spectrum on
night sky aesthetics. Photo from park’s application to become recognized as a Dark Sky Park by
the International Dark-Sky Association (2017).
Although the U.S. Department of Energy originally paid little attention to the adverse
environmental impacts of high-color temperature LEDs, focusing instead solely on energy
savings, it has recently returned to this question and issued a report (Kinzey et al. 2017)
investigating the role of lamp spectrum in degradation of the night sky, measured as sky glow.
Rather than focusing solely on spectrum, the report investigates the influence of associated
variables that are commonly adjusted in the process of converting from older lighting technology
to LEDs. For example, it is common for older lamps to have a drop lens below the lamp that
results in a portion of the light being reflected upward, above the horizontal plane from the lamp.
It has also become increasingly common for full-spectrum LEDs (e.g., at CCT 2700–4200 K) to
be reduced in measured intensity for daytime (photopic) vision when compared with the high-
pressure sodium lamp that the LED is replacing. Such reductions in intensity result from
complaints from residents that the new LEDs, although producing the same (photopic)
illumination (in lux) as the HPS, are perceived as far brighter because they intersect more with
the sensitivity of human dark-adapted (scotopic) vision. It is therefore often possible to reduce
the intensity of LEDs (measured in photopic lux) compared with HPS and still achieve equal or
greater visibility.
The study modeled the effects of different combinations of spectrum, uplight, and intensity under
different weather conditions, human vision adaptation levels, and distance from the lights. For
the purpose of illustration, the nearby viewer results are reproduced here (Figure 16). These
results compare high-pressure sodium as the baseline, with PC Amber LED (1872 K), and 2700–
6100 K LEDs. When compared on an equal basis for other factors (same uplight and intensity),
only the PC Amber produced roughly equivalent light pollution compared with HPS and all full-
spectrum LEDs produced significantly more light pollution, especially when considering human
night vision. When both HPS and LEDs were assumed to have 0% uplight and the LEDs were
set at half the intensity of the LEDs, then LEDs with CCT < 3000 K were comparable to or
produced less light pollution than HPS. Results were similar with HPS at 2% uplight and LEDs
at 0% uplight and 50% intensity.
The take-home message of this research for the Salt Lake City street lighting master plan is that
for LED lamps lights to reduce light pollution compared with the previously common HPS
lamps, they must be 0% uplight, 50% less bright, and with a CCT of no greater than 3000 K.
The minimum impact on light pollution could be achieved with PC Amber or comparable filtered
LEDs that produce a similar CCT as HPS (~ 1800 K). APPENDIX D
111
21
Figure 16. Comparison of light pollution from different LED spectral power distributions (SPDs)
with light pollution from a high-pressure sodium light (horizontal dotted red line). SPDs (see
right): SPD5: 1872 K (PC Amber), SPD6 = 2704 K, SPD7 = 2981 K, SPD8 = 3940 K, SPD9 =
4101 K, SPD10 = 5197 K, SPD11 = 6101 K. APPENDIX D
112
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
22
3.3 Human Circadian Rhythms
It is only in the last twenty years that the mechanism by which light affects human circadian
rhythms has been discovered (Berson et al. 2002). The human eye has non-image forming
retinal ganglion cells that detect light and perhaps contribute to perception of brightness but not
to discerning objects (Hattar et al. 2002). The pigment that detects the light is called melanopsin
and it differs in its sensitivity to light from the rods and cones that humans use for vision
(Brainard et al. 2001, Schmidt and Kofuji 2009). The peak sensitivity of melanopsin is around
480 nm, in the middle of the blue portion of the spectrum.
Evidence is strong that chronic exposure to light at night increases risk of cancer, diabetes,
obesity, and heart disease (Fonken and Nelson 2014, Bedrosian et al. 2016, Lunn et al. 2017).
The question for human circadian impacts from outdoor lighting is whether the exposures are
bright enough and whether time of exposure is sufficient to affect circadian rhythms.
Circadian rhythms can be affected by light in many pathways. The first pathway is suppression
of melatonin through exposure in the evening, especially after dusk. This exposure could be
indoors or outdoors, either in the sleeping habitat or not. Dose-response curves for light
exposure and melatonin suppression have been developed and it is the basis for the definition of
Circadian Light (Rea et al. 2010). The second pathway is through sleep disruption through
exposure to light in the sleeping habitat, even if the light levels are insufficient to suppress
melatonin. Lack of sleep and reduced long wave sleep, which is critical to recovery and repair
(Cho et al. 2016), can result from disturbance glare, as anyone ever awakened by moonlight can
attest.
It remains an open question whether indoor exposure to street lighting is of sufficient magnitude
to affect circadian rhythms directly, but recent research investigating light spectrum and cancer
risk suggests that the color of light outdoors in the vicinity of residences is an important risk
factor (Garcia-Saenz et al. 2018).
The influence of outdoor lighting on sleep has been investigated through epidemiological studies
that measure exposure using satellites, epidemiological studies using portable individual-level
measuring devices (comparing with satellite measures), and experimental studies in humans.
A set of studies from Haim, Kloog, Portnov, and colleagues provided correlational data
connecting satellite-measured light at night from the DMSP OLS system to breast and prostate
cancer, indicating a connection between outdoor lighting levels and rates of these cancers (Kloog
et al. 2008, Kloog et al. 2009a, Kloog et al. 2009b, Kloog et al. 2010, Kloog et al. 2011, Haim
and Portnov 2013). Similar studies have reinforced these findings in different populations
around the world (Bauer et al. 2013, Hurley et al. 2014, James et al. 2017).
Studies investigating sleep as the outcome also find an association with satellite-measured
outdoor lighting. For example, those in the higher exposure to light at night in South Korea as
measured by DMSP were 20% more likely to sleep less than 6 hours per night and on average
slept 30 minutes less than subjects in areas with lower outdoor lighting levels (Koo et al. 2016).
In a study in the United States, higher levels of outdoor lighting as measured by DMSP was
significantly associated with reporting < 6 hours of sleep per night, an effect that remained in APPENDIX D
113
23
place even after accounting for noise and population density (Ohayon and Milesi 2016). In this
study, people who lived in the brightest areas were more likely to go to bed later, get up later,
and sleep less. They also were more likely to report that they were dissatisfied with sleep quality
or quantity and to be sleepy during the day. DMSP-measured light at night was negatively
associated with restorative long wave sleep. Importantly, this study validated that brightness in
bedrooms correlated positively with satellite-measured outdoor light (Ohayon and Milesi 2016).
Satellite-measured light at night was also associated with the use of more drugs for insomnia in a
second South Korean study (Min and Min 2018). Residents living in the lowest two quartiles of
light at night as measured by DMSP used significantly less insomnia medication, even after
accounting for age, sex, population density, income, body mass index, smoking status, alcohol
consumption, exercise, and psychiatric disease. Mean use of insomnia medication increased
with each quartile of light exposure from lowest to highest for each of three insomnia
medications (Min and Min 2018).
Most recently, a study of the NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study cohort in the United States
investigated sleep and exposure to light at night as measured by the DMSP satellite (Xiao et al.
2020). The highest levels of light exposure associated with 16% (women) and 25% (men)
increased probability of reporting short or very short sleep duration. Probability of reporting
short or very short sleep increased from lowest to highest quintiles of light at night in models that
adjusted for age, race, marital status, state of residency, smoking, alcohol, vigorous physical
activity, TV viewing, and median home value, population density and poverty rate at census tract
level (Xiao et al. 2020). The authors concluded that, “Taken together, these findings suggest that
the prevalence of sleep deficiency is higher in places with higher levels of LAN [Light at Night]”
(Xiao et al. 2020).
While studies using remotely sensed data detect associations between sleep disturbance,
circadian disruption, and associated diseases and light at night, others question the relationship
between outdoor lighting and indoor exposure to light at night. Leaving aside the point that
outdoor exposure to lighting can also contribute to circadian disruption, these studies focus on
relationships between indoor and outdoor exposure. Recent work confirms the relationship
between ground-level irradiance outdoors and satellite-based proxies for light at night. Using a
dataset or 515 ground-based measurements of illumination from the upper hemisphere, Simons
et al. (2020) showed that ground-based light exposure correlates highly with remotely-sensed
light (VIIRS DNB annual composite) and even more with the New World Atlas of Artificial
Night Sky Brightness (Falchi et al. 2016). This work conclusively establishes that satellite-
measured light at night is a proxy for ambient light in the environment on the ground at night, as
one would expect.
With this relationship now established (Simons et al. 2020), in retrospect the individual-level
studies of correlation between indoor light levels and satellite-measurements of light at night are
testing whether increased outdoor light levels correlate with higher indoor light levels and
documenting what those indoor levels might be. Along these lines, Rea et al. (2011) used a
Daysimeter device with a resolution of 0.1 lux and found that DMSP measurements had “no
apparent relationship” with personal-level exposure. The study concluded that outdoor lighting
could have little effect on circadian rhythms in their study population of teachers in upstate New
York, basing this conclusion on the assumption that measurable melatonin suppression would be APPENDIX D
114
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
24
needed to cause sleep disruption. That is, they assume that light equivalent to a full moon
shining into a sleeping environment cannot affect sleep or circadian rhythms, which is a dubious
assumption. In a more recent Dutch study, individual-level light exposure for children was
measured indoors with a device that had a resolution of 0.1 lux (Huss et al. 2019). They found
an influence of outdoor light on indoor light during the darkest time period with a correlation of
0.31. It should be noted, however, that 94% of the children in the study had curtains that
controlled light entering the room. In a survey of lighting designers using their own light meters,
Miller and Kinzey (2018) reported measurements in a number of different contexts within
homes. At windows without drapes a maximum of 20 lux was reported, with a mean of 5 lux
and median of 0.5 lux. All of these dramatically elevated above natural conditions (a full moon
would produce 0.1–0.2 lux).
Experiments that involve exposures to light at night document illumination levels that affect
health and sleep outcomes. Sleeping under 5 lux of 5779 K light caused more frequent arousals,
more shallow sleep, and more REM sleep (at the expense of long wave deep sleep) (Cho et al.
2016). Light greater than 3 lux during the last hour of sleep was associated with weight gain in
an elderly population (Obayashi et al. 2016). In another study of an elderly population, increased
light at night and especially light at night > 5 lux was associated with 89% increased risk of
depression (Obayashi et al. 2013). Further studies indicate that elevated illumination is
associated with higher blood pressure as well, with associated excess deaths, at 3, 5, and 10 lux
exposures (Obayashi et al. 2014). Metrics of sleep quality (efficiency) were also consistently
lower with higher illumination at each category (3, 5, and 10 lux) (Obayashi et al. 2014).
Taken together, this research is consistent with a few different interpretations of the influence of
outdoor lighting on human circadian rhythms and health outcomes. It is possible that the
correlations between light at night and adverse health outcomes indicate instead variation in
another factor, such as air pollution, as suggested by Huss et al. (2019). The robustness of sleep
disruption correlations when controlling for population density, however, argues against that
interpretation (Ohayon and Milesi 2016). Xiao et al. consider this question and conclude: “[I]t
is also possible that the observed associations in our study population represent a true
relationship, but primarily driven by individuals whose ALAN exposure was more heavily
influenced by outdoor ALAN (e.g. individuals living in rooms facing bright streets and/or with
insufficient window treatments to block out light, or individuals with a high amount of nighttime
activities outside home).” Such an interpretation, that outdoor light can influence indoor
sleeping environments and associated sleep and health outcomes, is consistent with the literature
as it currently stands.
Accepting a plausible argument that outdoor lighting affects human sleep in at least some
contexts that depend on factors associated with socioeconomic status, the following areas of
concern follow for design of a street lighting system.
First, attention should be paid to minimize direct glare into windows of any habitable structure.
One cannot assume that people only sleep in bedrooms; residents challenged by housing costs
often use many rooms in apartments and houses for sleeping environments and the safest
assumption is that any room in a residence might be used for sleeping. The assumption should
also not be made that all residents have or can afford blackout shades or curtains. This becomes
an issue of environmental justice; circadian disruption is exacerbated in low income communities APPENDIX D
115
25
(Xiao et al. 2020), presumably because the same amount of light results in more impact because
of a lack of capacity to block light.
Second, circadian responses that result from melatonin suppression are heavily dependent on the
spectrum of light. As light is concentrated closer to the wavelengths of peak sensitivity for
melanopsin, the intensity of light (measured in lux) required to suppress melatonin decreases
(Grubisic et al. 2019). At 424 nm, the minimum illuminance for melatonin suppression is 0.1 lux
(Souman et al. 2018). The relative impact of different lighting sources can be predicted using the
melanopic response curve (Aubé et al. 2013, Longcore et al. 2018a). To illustrate this approach,
the melanopic power of lamp sources was standardized to compare with high pressure sodium
(HPS; Figure 17). All full-spectrum LED sources have a greater potential circadian impact than
HPS, including 2200 K (1.5 times HPS), 3200 K (2.5 times HPS), and 4300 K (3 times HPS).
Figure 17. Ranking of light sources by melanopic response (i.e. potential for circadian
disruption), compared with a typical High Pressure Sodium (HPS) lamp. Green colors have
equal or less melanopic response per lux, while purple colors have more melanopic response per
lux than HPS.
The sources that would have the lowest circadian impact are filtered LEDs that avoid the blue
portion of the spectrum almost entirely, or PC amber LEDs that do the same. Calculations have
not been done to compare LEDs at 50% intensity as has been done for astronomical light
pollution impacts. It is reasonable to assume that a similar result would be obtained, with a
reducing 50% in intensity for a ~3000K LED compared with HPS bringing it into parity with the
potential circadian disruption potential of HPS.
Anna's Light
LPS 18 W
AEL 75W
PC Amber Cree
74 WW CW10
74 WW CW7
150 W HPS
LLT Telescope Light
Kerosene Oil
Lumican 2251K
LSG Good Night 2016
CFL Greenlite 13 W
Iwasaki 60W
Philips AmbientLED
Cosmopolis 60W
Ceramic Metal Halide 70 W
3000K LED
A
OCTRON 32 W
Los Angeles LED
Yard Blaster
Full moon
LEDway Streetlight CW 54W
TL950
SORAA Vivid
D65
0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600%
Circadian Impact Relative to HPS APPENDIX D
116
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
26
Third, planning for a healthy circadian environment should recognize high variation between
individuals in their sensitivity to light, including a 50-fold variation between people in melatonin
response to light exposure (Phillips et al. 2019). Children are more sensitive to disruption from
light at night than adults (Nagare et al. 2019). Office workers exposed only to dim light during
the day are more sensitive to disruption from light at night than those who work outside. Men
are more sensitive to light at night, including decreased “long sleep” with increased exposure
(Xiao et al. 2020). Some individuals are debilitated by the visual glare from LEDs that are not
properly directed and diffused (Ticleanu and Littlefair 2015).
A fair and equitable lighting design approach would recognize a need to accommodate the most
sensitive individuals in society in a manner that still allows lighting to achieve its goal of
providing a safe environment for pedestrians, cyclists, and people in vehicles. Because some of
the medical conditions that are exacerbated by glare may be considered disabilities, it
furthermore might be a prudent risk management step to explicitly incorporate these concerns in
design to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Published studies thus far
have not shown a decrease in traffic accidents associated with conversion to full-spectrum white
LEDs (e.g., >2700 K) (Marchant et al. 2020). Total pedestrian and cyclist deaths in Los Angeles
have increased since conversion from HPS to 3000–4300 K LEDs in 2009.1 Whatever marginal
benefits might be associated with higher CCT street lighting, they have not been sufficient to
result in significant decreases in accidents that have been documented in published studies.
Although a full cost-benefit analysis is beyond the scope of this report and should be the subject
of future research, a prudent approach to balance these human health and safety issues is to: use
the lowest CCT deemed acceptable, specify high-quality optics to ensure delivery of light on
desired surfaces instead of as glare, and avoid light trespass onto windows of any residential
property.
1 See https://la.streetsblog.org/2019/10/29/vision-non-zero-the-human-and-financial-toll-of-los-angeles-dangerous-
roads/ APPENDIX D
117
27
4 Design Strategies for a Healthy Nocturnal Infrastructure
With the adoption of a Street Lighting Master Plan, an opportunity arises to reduce unwanted
outcomes from outdoor lighting that might include degradation of the experience of the night sky
in the region, disruption of human circadian rhythms, and interference with behavior of sensitive
wildlife species within the city. Strategies are available to reduce these impacts, some of which
can be implemented at all locations where street lighting is warranted, and others that could be
applied in zones with sensitive resources or known adverse impacts.
4.1 Systemwide Approaches
Reducing the adverse effects of artificial light at night is a matter of ensuring that the light is
away enough for the identified need, but not more.
4.1.1 Need-based Lighting
In defining the terms under which street lighting is warranted, consideration should be given in
all instances to the threshold for need to ensure that the installation is supported by verifiable
benefits. The need for lighting at night is in part a subjective judgment based on human feelings,
so equal consideration should be given to those who are more comfortable with less light as to
those who desire more light and final determinations made through a transparent and fair process
that evaluates the costs and benefits.
4.1.2 Shielding and Directionality
For all of the reasons discussed in this report, lights should be directed toward their intended
targets (mostly roads and sidewalks) and not upwards or into other locations where sensitive
receptors might be present (e.g., bedroom windows, habitats). This consideration will usually be
built into a modern street lighting plan through specification of luminaire performance in terms
of backlight, uplight, and glare. Uplight should be assiduously avoided throughout the system.
This step alone will significantly reduce the current contribution of Salt Lake City to light
pollution in the region as viewed from the surrounding open spaces and natural lands.
4.1.3 Intensity, Dimming, and Controls
Any time a natural environment is experiencing illumination greater than the full moon (>0.1
lux), or even greater than a quarter moon (0.01 lux), one can assume that species are being
affected. This is the case because many species show lunar cycles in behavior, often driven by
predator–prey relationships that can be interrupted by elevated illumination (Price et al. 1984,
Daly et al. 1992, Upham and Hafner 2013). For example, light as dim as 0.01 lux can inhibit
foraging by small rodent species (Kotler 1984b).
Strategies that could be deployed around light intensity across the street lighting system include
setting the maximum intensity of lights lower, dimming or extinguishing lights according to a
pre-set schedule, and use of programmable and flexible controls to adjust intensity in response to
need. APPENDIX D
118
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
28
1. If full-spectrum LEDs are to be used (e.g., 2700K, 3000K), then the intensity must be at
least half of that measured (in lux) for high pressure sodium to avoid increased light
pollution impacts. Lower color temperature LEDs (e.g., 1800K, 2000K, 2200K) would
require testing to set the maximum operational intensity to achieve system objectives.
2. Regularly programmed dimming or shut-off is a possibility for the system. Part-night
lighting, where lights are shut off after a curfew is an improvement over whole-night
lighting for bats but not adequate to reduce all impacts (Azam et al. 2015, Day et al.
2015). For the whole system in Salt Lake City, a dimming schedule, especially for
residential areas, that reduced output from (for example) midnight to 5 a.m. seems
feasible and would reduce overall contribution to regional light pollution, reduce human
circadian disruption, and save energy.
3. Controls can be used as a complement to a lower overall intensity setting. When
additional illumination is needed, in coordination with City officials, lighting levels can
be increased during the period of the need and then reduce to the “normal” level.
Controls can also be used on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis to find the
illumination level that is most consistent with and useful within the character of the
neighborhood.
4.1.4 Spectrum
The unwanted impacts of the street lighting system would be minimized by using the lowest
possible CCT for the most lights in the system. For wildlife, human health, and preserving dark
skies, the preferable choice would be lamps with CCT <2000K. Other considerations lead to the
use of higher color temperatures in some zones, but the lower the color temperature can be kept
on average, the greater the environmental benefit.
Low CCT lights are commercially available. For example, Signify makes 1800K cobra-head
street lights (StreetView, RoadView, EcoForm, RoadStar) and decorative models as well
(Domus, MetroScape, UrbanScape, LytePro). Cyclone produces a 1800K street light, as does
Ignia Light (Figure 18). SNOC provides a 2200K light that mixes white and amber diodes, as
does Ignia Light (Figure 19). Lumican also sells a range of street light luminaires that include
1700K through 2200K. RAB lighting sells a 2000K luminaire (Triboro) to match the color of
HPS (https://www.rablighting.com/feature/led-roadway-lighting-triboro; Figure 20). Siteco sells
1750K, 1900K and 2200K street lights. CWES builds luminaire systems that use a warm white
LED and a filter to avoid blue light emissions while keeping lumens per Watt high in comparison
with 2700K and 3000K LEDs (Figure 21). Some communities in Utah are even manufacturing
their own filters to protect the night sky and the tourism industry associated with it (Figure 22).
Where full-spectrum light is desired for aesthetic reasons or other considerations, it should in no
instance exceed 3000K and preferably not 2700K. Lower CCTs should be considered for
residential neighborhoods citywide as acceptable to City officials and residents. APPENDIX D
119
29
Figure 18. Application of PC Amber lights by Ignia Light.
Figure 19. Demonstration of mix of white and amber diodes to produce 2200K light for a
roadway application by Ignia Light.
Figure 20. RAB application of 2000K light to match color of High Pressure Sodium lamps. APPENDIX D
120
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
30
Figure 21. C+W Energy Solutions provides filtered LEDs that use with a warm white LED and
filter blue light, resulting in a greenish yellow color that contrasts with yellow light of stop
lights.
Figure 22. Ivins, Utah is using filtered LEDs to protect the night sky
(https://www.kuer.org/post/fast-growing-southwest-utah-one-city-organizes-protect-night-
sky#stream/).
4.2 Ecological Overlay Strategies
In addition to systemwide strategies, which would be implemented throughout all instances of
land uses and road segment conditions (e.g., roadway type and associated land use
combinations), several ecological overlay strategies would be appropriate that recognize the
sensitive natural resources of Salt Lake City. These strategies are tailored to geographic regions
where modifications to the light specifications could be used to reduce unwanted environmental
impacts. APPENDIX D
121
31
Each of these strategies is based on a geographic footprint. Spatial data to delineate these
regions were either obtained from custodians of those data or digitized by hand based on aerial
photograph interpretation. These data sources include:
• Important Bird Areas (from National Audubon Society spatial data webserver);
• Bird Collision Survey Zone (digitized from map provided by Tracy Aviary);
• Parcels that intersect with Critical Wildlife Habitat (digitized from Salt Lake City open
space acquisition plan);
• Jordan River Habitat Zone (digitized from aerial photograph interpretation of natural
habitat);
• Urban Creek Zone (digitized from aerial photograph interpretation of natural habitat);
and
• Community Parks and Neighborhood Parks (from Salt Lake City spatial data webserver).
The digitized habitat zones could be revised with field checks. The purpose of these layers is
only to classify roadway lengths for lighting strategies and should not be interpreted as a precise
mapping of habitat values.
Figure 23. Zones considered for ecological lighting strategies.
A set of additional guidance to reduce impacts that are targeted to the resources in each of these
zones is proposed (Table 1). APPENDIX D
122
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
32
Table 1. Strategy matrix for ecological overlay zones and major land uses.
Strategy Uplight Spectrum
(CCT K)
Dimming Part-night
lighting
Intensity
(of HPS
lumens)
Commercial /
Bird collision
zone
0.02 ≤3000 During
migration
No 50%
Critical Wildlife
Habitat
0 ≤2200K No No 50%
Community Parks
Natural Lands
0 ≤2200K No Yes 50%
Jordan River 0 ≤1900K No Yes 50%
Urban Creeks 0 ≤1900K No Yes 50%
4.2.1 Bird Collision Zone
The area which is currently monitored for bird collisions is found in the central business district.
It is also the brightest location when observing the region from space. Mortality of birds results
from the mixture of lights that attract nocturnally migrating birds with the presence of tall
buildings with large expanses of glass with which bird collide. The lights draw the birds in and
then the glass kills them (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). Current lighting in this zone includes
many decorative lights that are not yet shielded to direct light downward. The high lighting
levels provided in a commercial zone with the lack of shielding explains the brightness of this
area from above at night. Recognizing the need for lighting appropriate for a commercial
business district and its level of activities leads to a suggestion of compromise for lighting.
Rather than proposing no uplight, even reducing uplight to 2% would represent a dramatic
improvement over existing conditions. If no uplight is possible, it would be preferable. Color
temperature in this area, and other commercial zones, should be capped at 3000 K. Intensity of
lights should be set to 50% of that measured for previous high-pressure sodium lamps to account
for human sensitivity to 3000 K lights. With full controls available for the system, a dimming
program could be further implemented during peak migration periods (April/May and
September/October). If only one period is chosen, it should be fall because the fall migration
includes all of the young of the year, which are especially susceptible to collision. Such
additional dimming could be implemented either all night or after midnight or another set time.
For this area, actions on the part of the City might catalyze participation in mitigation approaches
by property managers (Light Out Salt Lake organized by the Tracy Aviary); turning lights out
inside buildings at night would further reduce attraction of birds and resulting mortality.
4.2.2 Critical Wildlife Habitat Zone
The region that intersects with parcels containing critical wildlife habitat is found in the foothills
to the east of downtown and then in the flat shorelands to the west. The western area also
includes the two globally significant Important Bird Areas. Because this zone contains a range
of land uses, including commercial, industrial, and residential areas, the proposal is to match the
low color temperature of previous lighting systems (e.g., 2000–2200 K) with full cut-off lighting APPENDIX D
123
33
to reduce impacts on nearby sensitive resources. This lower temperature is especially important
near the Great Salt Lake, which is a source of fog (Hill 1988). Fog is extremely efficient at
reflecting light and recent research has shown that foggy conditions result in a 6-fold increase in
night sky brightness (a measure of light pollution) (Ściężor et al. 2012). Fog also scatters light
down into habitats. Full cut-off lighting at a low enough color temperature to allow reasonable
color rendering should balance the needs of the land uses in these zones with the sensitive
resources found there.
4.2.3 Jordan River and Urban Creeks
The Jordan River and the urban creeks cut through the street grid such that they intersect with
only a few street lights along any given segment. It might therefore be possible to minimize
impacts to these riparian zones by using low color temperature lights as street segment intersect
these zones. Two major considerations in riparian zones are insect attraction and bat impacts,
since both groups will be found at higher density in these zones. Best practices for reducing
impacts to bats (Voigt et al. 2018) include a limit on light at the edge of habitat of 0.1 lux,
avoiding direct glare into habitats, and seeking to avoid light <540 nm. A low CCT light would
minimize insect attraction (Longcore et al. 2018a). Red lights are being used in Europe to
minimize impacts to bats (Spoelstra et al. 2017) but it is not clear if red light would be acceptable
within this context.
4.2.4 Community Parks and Natural Lands
Community parks and natural lands may contain sensitive species and often have areas that are
closed after dark. Lighting surrounding them could be limited in CCT to 2200 K and lights on
roads within parks might be shut off after a curfew. Darkness in these instances can serve to
reduce unwanted activity because any lights brought into a dark park would indicate unallowable
activity. Recommendations for community parks and natural lands will probably need to be
tailored by site to accommodate variations in use, park type, and surrounding land uses. Tracy
Aviary is located in a community park and has captive birds that are kept outdoors. Reducing or
eliminating street lighting around any outdoor exclosures with captive birds is recommended for
the health of the birds. APPENDIX E
124
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
34
5 References
Andres, B., R. Clay, and C. Duncan. 20016. Shorebird species of conservation concern in the
Western Hemisphere. Western Hemispher Shorebird Reserve Network.
Aubé, M., J. Roby, and M. Kocifaj. 2013. Evaluating potential spectral impacts of various
artificial lights on melatonin suppression, photosynthesis, and star visibility. PLoS ONE
8:e67798.
Azam, C., C. Kerbiriou, A. Vernet, J.-F. Julien, Y. Bas, L. Plichard, J. Maratrat, and I. Le Viol.
2015. Is part-night lighting an effective measure to limit the impacts of artificial lighting
on bats? Global Change Biology 21:4333–4341.
Bará, S., Á. Rodríguez-Arós, M. Pérez, B. Tosar, R. C. Lima, A. Sánchez de Miguel, and J.
Zamorano. 2017. Estimating the relative contribution of streetlights, vehicles, and
residential lighting to the urban night sky brightness. Lighting Research &
Technology:1477153518808337.
Barghini, A., and B. A. S. de Medeiros. 2012. UV radiation as an attractor for insects. Leukos
9:47–56.
Bauer, S. E., S. E. Wagner, J. Burch, R. Bayakly, and J. E. Vena. 2013. A case-referent study:
light at night and breast cancer risk in Georgia. International Journal of Health
Geographics 12:23.
Beauchamp, G. 2007. Exploring the role of vision in social foraging: what happens to group size,
vigilance, spacing, aggression and habitat use in birds and mammals that forage at night?
Biological Reviews 82:511–525.
Bedrosian, T. A., L. K. Fonken, and R. J. Nelson. 2016. Endocrine effects of circadian
disruption. Annual Review of Physiology 78:109–131.
Bedrosian, T. A., L. K. Fonken, J. C. Walton, and R. J. Nelson. 2011. Chronic exposure to dim
light at night suppresses immune response in Siberian hamsters. Biology Letters 7:468–
471.
Beier, P. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat. Journal of Wildlife
Management 59:228–237.
Beier, P. 2006. Effects of artificial night lighting on terrestrial mammals. Pages 19–42 in C. Rich
and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island
Press, Washington, D.C.
Bennie, J., T. W. Davies, D. Cruse, and K. J. Gaston. 2016. Ecological effects of artificial light at
night on wild plants. Journal of Ecology 104:611–620.
Berson, D. M., F. A. Dunn, and M. Takao. 2002. Phototransduction by retinal ganglion cells that
set the circadian clock. Science 295:1070–1073.
Bird, S., and J. Parker. 2014. Low levels of light pollution may block the ability of male glow-
worms (Lampyris noctiluca L.) to locate females. Journal of Insect Conservation 18:737–
743.
Blake, D., A. M. Hutson, P. A. Racey, J. Rydell, and J. R. Speakman. 1994. Use of lamplit roads
by foraging bats in southern England. Journal of Zoology (London) 234:453–462.
Bliss-Ketchum, L. L., C. E. de Rivera, B. C. Turner, and D. M. Weisbaum. 2016. The effect of
artificial light on wildlife use of a passage structure. Biological Conservation 199:25–28.
Boldogh, S., D. Dobrosi, and P. Samu. 2007. The effects of the illumination of buildings on
house-dwelling bats and its conservation consequences. Acta Chiropterologica 9:527–
534. APPENDIX D
125
35
Brainard, G. C., J. P. Hanifin, J. M. Greeson, B. Byrne, G. Glickman, E. Gerner, and M. D.
Rollag. 2001. Action spectrum for melatonin regulation in humans: evidence for a novel
circadian photoreceptor. Journal of Neuroscience 21:6405–6412.
Briggs, W. R. 2006. Physiology of plant responses to artificial lighting. Pages 389–411 in C.
Rich and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting.
Island Press, Washington, DC.
Brillhart, D. B., and D. W. Kaufman. 1991. Influence of illumination and surface structure on
space use by prairie deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus bairdii). Journal of Mammalogy
72:764–768.
Butler, M. P., and R. Silver. 2011. Divergent photic thresholds in the non-image-forming visual
system: entrainment, masking and pupillary light reflex. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 278:745–750.
Cabrera-Cruz, S. A., J. A. Smolinsky, and J. J. Buler. 2018. Light pollution is greatest within
migration passage areas for nocturnally-migrating birds around the world. Scientific
Reports 8:3261.
Cho, C.-H., H.-J. Lee, H.-K. Yoon, S.-G. Kang, K.-N. Bok, K.-Y. Jung, L. Kim, and E.-I. Lee.
2016. Exposure to dim artificial light at night increases REM sleep and awakenings in
humans. Chronobiology International 33:117–123.
Clarke, J. A. 1983. Moonlight's influence on predator/prey interactions between Short-eared
Owls (Asio flammeus) and deermice (Peromyscus maniculatus). Behavioral Ecology and
Sociobiology 13:205–209.
Da Silva, A., J. M. Samplonius, E. Schlicht, M. Valcu, and B. Kempenaers. 2014. Artificial night
lighting rather than traffic noise affects the daily timing of dawn and dusk singing in
common European songbirds. Behavioral Ecology 25:1037–1047.
Da Silva, A., M. Valcu, and B. Kempenaers. 2015. Light pollution alters the phenology of dawn
and dusk singing in common European songbirds. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 370:20140126.
Daly, M., P. R. Behrends, M. I. Wilson, and L. F. Jacobs. 1992. Behavioural modulation of
predation risk: moonlight avoidance and crespuscular compensation in a nocturnal desert
rodent, Dipodomys merriami. Animal Behaviour 44:1–9.
Day, J., J. Baker, H. Schofield, F. Mathews, and K. J. Gaston. 2015. Part-night lighting:
implications for bat conservation. Animal Conservation 18:512–516.
De Molenaar, J. G., M. E. Sanders, and D. A. Jonkers. 2006. Road lighting and grassland birds:
local influence of road lighting on a Black-tailed Godwit population. Pages 114–136 in
C. Rich and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting.
Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Dominoni, D., M. Quetting, and J. Partecke. 2013a. Artificial light at night advances avian
reproductive physiology. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
280:20123017.
Dominoni, D. M., E. O. Carmona-Wagner, M. Hofmann, B. Kranstauber, and J. Partecke. 2014.
Individual-based measurements of light intensity provide new insights into the effects of
artificial light at night on daily rhythms of urban-dwelling songbirds. Journal of Animal
Ecology 83:681–692.
Dominoni, D. M., M. Quetting, and J. Partecke. 2013b. Long-term effects of chronic light
pollution on seasonal functions of European Blackbirds (Turdus merula). PLoS ONE
8:e85069. APPENDIX E
126
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
36
Donners, M., R. H. A. van Grunsven, D. Groenendijk, F. van Langevelde, J. W. Bikker, T.
Longcore, and E. Veenendaal. 2018. Colors of attraction: modeling insect flight to light
behavior. Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological and Integrative Physiology
329:434–440.
Eisenbeis, G. 2006. Artificial night lighting and insects: attraction of insects to streetlamps in a
rural setting in Germany. Pages 281–304 in C. Rich and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological
Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Eisenbeis, G., and K. Eick. 2011. Studie zur Anziehung nachtaktiver Insekten an die
Straßenbeleuchtung unter Einbeziehung von LEDs [Attraction of nocturnal insects to
street lights — a study of lighting systems, with consideration of LEDs]. Natur und
Landschaft 86:298–306.
Eisesbeis, G. 2006. Artificial night lighting and insects: attraction of insects to streetlamps in a
rural setting in Germany. Pages 281–304 in C. Rich and T. Longcore, editors. Ecological
consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press, Washington, DC.
Falchi, F., P. Cinzano, D. Duriscoe, C. C. Kyba, C. D. Elvidge, K. Baugh, B. A. Portnov, N. A.
Rybnikova, and R. Furgoni. 2016. The new world atlas of artificial night sky brightness.
Science Advances 2:e1600377.
Falkenberg, J. C., and J. A. Clarke. 1998. Microhabitat use of deer mice: effects of interspecific
interaction risks. Journal of Mammalogy 79:558–565.
ffrench-Constant, R. H., R. Somers-Yeates, J. Bennie, T. Economou, D. Hodgson, A. Spalding,
and P. K. McGregor. 2016. Light pollution is associated with earlier tree budburst across
the United Kingdom. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
283:20160813.
Flowers, S. 1934. Vegetation of the Great Salt Lake region. Botanical Gazette 95:353–418.
Fonken, L. K., and R. J. Nelson. 2014. The effects of light at night on circadian clocks and
metabolism. Endocrine Reviews 35:648–670.
Fonken, L. K., J. L. Workman, J. C. Walton, Z. M. Weil, J. S. Morris, A. Haim, and R. J. Nelson.
2010. Light at night increases body mass by shifting the time of food intake. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 107:18664–18669.
Frank, K. D. 1988. Impact of outdoor lighting on moths: an assessment. Journal of the
Lepidopterists’ Society 42:63–93.
Frank, K. D. 2006. Effects of artificial night lighting on moths. Pages 305–344 in C. Rich and T.
Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press,
Washington, D.C.
Frey, J. K. 1993. Nocturnal foraging by Scissor-tailed Flycatchers under artificial light. Western
Birds 24:200.
Garcia-Saenz, A., A. Sánchez de Miguel, A. Espinosa, A. Valentin, N. Aragonés, J. Llorca, P.
Amiano, V. Martín Sánchez, M. Guevara, and R. Capelo. 2018. Evaluating the
association between artificial light-at-night exposure and breast and prostate cancer risk
in Spain (MCC-Spain study). Environmental Health Perspectives 126:047011.
Gaston, K. J., J. Bennie, T. W. Davies, and J. Hopkins. 2013. The ecological impacts of
nighttime light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal. Biological Reviews 88:912–927.
Gaston, K. J., T. W. Davies, J. Bennie, and J. Hopkins. 2012. Reducing the ecological
consequences of night-time light pollution: options and developments. Journal of Applied
Ecology 49:1256–1266. APPENDIX D
127
37
Goertz, J. W., A. S. Morris, and S. M. Morris. 1980. Ruby-throated Hummingbirds feed at night
with the aid of artificial light. Wilson Bulletin 92:398–399.
Goodspeed, D., E. W. Chehab, A. Min-Venditti, J. Braam, and M. F. Covington. 2012.
Arabidopsis synchronizes jasmonate-mediated defense with insect circadian behavior.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
109:4674–4677.
Grubisic, M., A. Haim, P. Bhusal, D. M. Dominoni, K. Gabriel, A. Jechow, F. Kupprat, A.
Lerner, P. Marchant, and W. Riley. 2019. Light Pollution, Circadian Photoreception, and
Melatonin in Vertebrates. Sustainability 11:6400.
Hagen, O., and V. R. Viviani. 2009. Investigation of the artificial night lighting influence in
firefly (Coleoptera: Lampyridae) occurrence in the urban areas of Campinas and
Sorocaba municipalities [extended abstract]. Pages 1–2 in Anais do IX Congresso de
Ecologia do Brasil, São Lourenço.
Haim, A., and B. A. Portnov. 2013. Light pollution as a new risk factor for human breast and
prostate cancers. Springer, Dordrecht.
Harris, C. D. 1941. Location of Salt Lake City. Economic Geography 17:204–212.
Hattar, S., H. W. Liao, M. Takao, D. M. Berson, and K. W. Yau. 2002. Melanopsin-containing
retinal ganglion cells: architecture, projections, and intrinsic photosensitivity. Science
295:1065–1070.
Havlin, J. 1964. Zur Lösung der Amselfrage [The solution to the blackbird question].
Angewandte Ornithologie 2:9–14.
Hill, G. E. 1988. Fog Effect of the Great Salt Lake. Journal of Applied Meteorology 27:778–783.
Hölker, F., T. Moss, B. Griefahn, W. Kloas, C. C. Voight, D. Henckel, A. Hänel, P. M. Kappeler,
S. Völker, A. Schwope, S. Franke, D. Uhrlandt, J. Fischer, R. Klenke, C. Wolter, and K.
Tockner. 2010a. The dark side of light: a transdisciplinary research agenda for light
pollution policy. Ecology and Society 15:article 13.
Hölker, F., C. Wolter, E. K. Perkin, and K. Tockner. 2010b. Light pollution as a biodiversity
threat. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:681–682.
Horton, K. G., C. Nilsson, B. M. Van Doren, F. A. La Sorte, A. M. Dokter, and A. Farnsworth.
2019. Bright lights in the big cities: migratory birds’ exposure to artificial light. Frontiers
in Ecology and the Environment 17:209–214.
Hurley, S., D. Goldberg, D. Nelson, A. Hertz, P. L. Horn-Ross, L. Bernstein, and P. Reynolds.
2014. Light at night and breast cancer risk among California teachers. Epidemiology
25:697–706.
Huss, A., L. van Wel, L. Bogaards, T. Vrijkotte, L. Wolf, G. Hoek, and R. Vermeulen. 2019.
Shedding some light in the dark—a comparison of personal measurements with satellite-
based estimates of exposure to light at night among children in the Netherlands.
Environmental Health Perspectives 127:067001.
James, P., K. A. Bertrand, J. E. Hart, E. S. Schernhammer, R. M. Tamimi, and F. Laden. 2017.
Outdoor light at night and breast cancer incidence in the Nurses’ Health Study II.
Environmental Health Perspectives 87010:1.
Jones, L. R. 2008. Ecological factors determining nesting habitat for American Avocets on the
Inland Sea Shorebird Preserve. Utah Birds 21:2–12.
Kempenaers, B., P. Borgström, P. Loës, E. Schlicht, and M. Valcu. 2010. Artificial night lighting
affects dawn song, extra-pair siring success, and lay date in songbirds. Current Biology
20:1735–1739. APPENDIX E
128
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
38
Kinzey, B., T. E. Perrin, N. J. Miller, M. Kocifaj, M. Aubé, and H. S. Lamphar. 2017. An
investigation of LED street lighting’s impact on sky glow. U.S. Department of Energy
(Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830), Richland, Washington.
Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention. Journal of
Field Ornithology 61:120–128.
Kloog, I., A. Haim, and B. A. Portnov. 2009a. Using kernel density function as an urban analysis
tool: investigating the association between nightlight exposure and the incidence of breast
cancer in Haifa, Israel. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 33:55–63.
Kloog, I., A. Haim, R. G. Stevens, M. Barchana, and B. A. Portnov. 2008. Light at night co-
distributes with incident breast but not lung cancer in the female population of Israel.
Chronobiology International 25:65–81.
Kloog, I., A. Haim, R. G. Stevens, and B. A. Portnov. 2009b. Global co-distribution of light at
night (LAN) and cancers of prostate, colon, and lung in men. Chronobiology
International 26:108–125.
Kloog, I., B. A. Portnov, H. S. Rennert, and A. Haim. 2011. Does the modern urbanized sleeping
habitat pose a breast cancer risk? Chronobiology International 28:76–80.
Kloog, I., R. G. Stevens, A. Haim, and B. A. Portnov. 2010. Nighttime light level co-distributes
with breast cancer incidence worldwide. Cancer Causes & Control 21:2059–2068.
Knop, E., L. Zoller, R. Ryser, C. Gerpe, M. Hörler, and C. Fontaine. 2017. Artificial light at
night as a new threat to pollination. Nature 548:206–209.
Kolligs, D. 2000. Ökologische Auswirkungen künstlicher Lichtquellen auf nachtaktive Insekten,
insbesondere Schmetterlinge (Lepidoptera) [Ecological effects of artificial light sources
on nocturnally active insects, in particular on moths (Lepidoptera)]. Faunistisch-
Oekologische Mitteilungen Supplement 28:1–136.
Koo, Y. S., J.-Y. Song, E.-Y. Joo, H.-J. Lee, E. Lee, S.-k. Lee, and K.-Y. Jung. 2016. Outdoor
artificial light at night, obesity, and sleep health: cross-sectional analysis in the KoGES
study. Chronobiology International 33:301–314.
Kotler, B. P. 1984a. Effects of illumination on the rate of resource harvesting in a community of
desert rodents. American Midland Naturalist 111:383–389.
Kotler, B. P. 1984b. Risk of predation and the structure of desert rodent communities. Ecology
65:689–701.
Kramer, K. M., and E. C. Birney. 2001. Effect of light intensity on activity patterns of
patagonian leaf-eared mice, Phyllotis xanthopygus. Journal of Mammalogy 82:535–544.
Kyba, C., A. Hänel, and F. Hölker. 2014. Redefining efficiency for outdoor lighting. Energy &
Environmental Science 7:1806–1809.
La Sorte, F. A., D. Fink, J. J. Buler, A. Farnsworth, and S. A. Cabrera‐Cruz. 2017. Seasonal
associations with urban light pollution for nocturnally migrating bird populations. Global
Change Biology 23:4609–4619.
Lack, D. 1965. The life of the robin. H. F. & G. Witherby, London.
Lloyd, J. E. 2006. Stray light, fireflies, and fireflyers. Pages 345–364 in C. Rich and T.
Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press,
Washington, D.C.
Longcore, T. 2010. Sensory ecology: night lights alter reproductive behavior of blue tits. Current
Biology 20:R893–R895.
Longcore, T. 2018. Hazard or hope? LEDs and wildlife. LED Professional Review 70:52–57. APPENDIX D
129
39
Longcore, T., H. Aldern, J. Eggers, S. Flores, L. Franco, E. Hirshfield-Yamanishi, L. Petrinec,
W. Yan, and A. Barroso. 2015a. Tuning the white light spectrum of light emitting diode
lamps to reduce attraction of nocturnal arthropods. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 370:20140125.
Longcore, T., H. L. Aldern, J. F. Eggers, S. Flores, L. Franco, E. Hirshfield-Yamanishi, L. N.
Petrinec, W. A. Yan, and A. M. Barroso. 2015b. Tuning the white light spectrum of light
emitting diode lamps to reduce attraction of nocturnal arthropods. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 370:20140125.
Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution. Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 2:191–198.
Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2017. Artificial Night Lighting and Protected Lands: Ecological
Effects and Management Approaches (Revised August 2017). Natural Resource Report
NPS/NRSS/NSNS/NRR—2017/1493. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Longcore, T., C. Rich, and S. A. Gauthreaux, Jr. 2008. Height, guy wires, and steady-burning
lights increase hazard of communication towers to nocturnal migrants: a review and
meta-analysis. Auk 125:485–492.
Longcore, T., A. Rodríguez, B. Witherington, J. F. Penniman, L. Herf, and M. Herf. 2018a.
Rapid assessment of lamp spectrum to quantify ecological effects of light at night.
Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological and Integrative Physiology 329:511–
521.
Longcore, T., A. Rodríguez, B. Witherington, J. F. Penniman, L. Herf, and M. Herf. 2018b.
Rapid assessment of lamp spectrum to quantify ecological effects of light at night.
Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Ecological and Integrative Physiology.
Love, R. 2005. Daylighting Salt Lake’s City Creek. Golden Gate University Law Review
35:343–376.
Luginbuhl, C. B., G. W. Lockwood, D. R. Davis, K. Pick, and J. Selders. 2009. From the ground
up I: light pollution sources in Flagstaff, Arizona. Publications of the Astronomical
Society of the Pacific 121:185–203.
Lunn, R. M., D. E. Blask, A. N. Coogan, M. G. Figueiro, M. R. Gorman, J. E. Hall, J. Hansen, R.
J. Nelson, S. Panda, and M. H. Smolensky. 2017. Health consequences of electric
lighting practices in the modern world: a report on the National Toxicology Program’s
workshop on shift work at night, artificial light at night, and circadian disruption. Science
of the Total Environment 607:1073–1084.
Macgregor, C. J., D. M. Evans, R. Fox, and M. J. O. Pocock. 2017. The dark side of street
lighting: impacts on moths and evidence for the disruption of nocturnal pollen transport.
Global Change Biology 23:697–707.
Macgregor, C. J., M. J. O. Pocock, R. Fox, and D. M. Evans. 2015. Pollination by nocturnal
Lepidoptera, and the effects of light pollution: a review. Ecological Entomology 40:187–
198.
Marchant, P., J. D. Hale, and J. P. Sadler. 2020. Does changing to brighter road lighting improve
road safety? Multilevel longitudinal analysis of road traffic collision frequency during the
relighting of a UK city. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
Massetti, L. 2018. Assessing the impact of street lighting on Platanus x acerifolia phenology.
Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 34:71–77.
McFarlane, R. W. 1963. Disorientation of loggerhead hatchlings by artificial road lighting.
Copeia 1963:153. APPENDIX E
130
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
40
McLaren, J. D., J. J. Buler, T. Schreckengost, J. A. Smolinsky, M. Boone, E. E. van Loon, D. K.
Dawson, and E. L. Walters. 2018. Artificial light at night confounds broad-scale habitat
use by migrating birds. Ecology Letters 21:356–364.
Meyer, L. A., and S. M. P. Sullivan. 2013. Bright lights, big city: influences of ecological light
pollution on reciprocal stream–riparian invertebrate fluxes. Ecological Applications
23:1322–1330.
Miller, M. W. 2006. Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behavior of American Robins.
Condor 108:130–139.
Miller, N. J., and B. R. Kinzey. 2018. Home nighttime light exposures: how much are we really
getting? IALD News. International Association of Lighting Designers.
Min, J.-y., and K.-b. Min. 2018. Outdoor artificial nighttime light and use of hypnotic
medications in older adults: A population-based cohort study. Journal of Clinical Sleep
Medicine 14:1903–1910.
Mukhin, A., V. Grinkevich, and B. Helm. 2009. Under cover of darkness: nocturnal life of
diurnal birds. Journal of Biological Rhythms 24:225–231.
Nagare, R., B. Plitnick, and M. Figueiro. 2019. Effect of exposure duration and light spectra on
nighttime melatonin suppression in adolescents and adults. Lighting Research &
Technology 51:530–543.
O’Farrell, M. J., B. W. Miller, and W. L. Gannon. 1999. Qualitative identification of free-flying
bats using the Anabat detector. Journal of Mammalogy 80:11–23.
Obayashi, K., K. Saeki, J. Iwamoto, Y. Ikada, and N. Kurumatani. 2013. Exposure to light at
night and risk of depression in the elderly. Journal of affective disorders 151:331–336.
Obayashi, K., K. Saeki, J. Iwamoto, Y. Ikada, and N. Kurumatani. 2014. Association between
light exposure at night and nighttime blood pressure in the elderly independent of
nocturnal urinary melatonin excretion. Chronobiology International 31:779–786.
Obayashi, K., K. Saeki, and N. Kurumatani. 2016. Ambient light exposure and changes in
obesity parameters: a longitudinal study of the HEIJO-KYO cohort. The Journal of
Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 101:3539–3547.
Ohayon, M. M., and C. Milesi. 2016. Artificial outdoor nighttime lights associate with altered
sleep behavior in the American general population. Sleep 39:1311–1320.
Palmer, M., R. Gibbons, R. Bhagavathula, D. Davidson, and D. Holshouser. 2017. Roadway
Lighting's Impact on Altering Soybean Growth: Volume 1. 0197-9191, Illinois Center for
Transportation/Illinois Department of Transportation.
Phillips, A. J., P. Vidafar, A. C. Burns, E. M. McGlashan, C. Anderson, S. M. Rajaratnam, S. W.
Lockley, and S. W. Cain. 2019. High sensitivity and interindividual variability in the
response of the human circadian system to evening light. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 116:12019–12024.
Polak, T., C. Korine, S. Yair, and M. W. Holderied. 2011. Differential effects of artificial
lighting on flight and foraging behaivour of two sympatric bat species in a desert. Journal
of Zoology 285:21–27.
Poot, H., B. J. Ens, H. de Vries, M. A. H. Donners, M. R. Wernand, and J. M. Marquenie. 2008.
Green light for nocturnally migrating birds. Ecology and Society 13:47.
Price, M. V., N. M. Waser, and T. A. Bass. 1984. Effects of moonlight on microhabitat use by
desert rodents. Journal of Mammalogy 65:353–356.
Rawson, H. E. 1923. A bird’s song in relation to light. Transactions of the Hertfordshire Natural
History Society and Field Club 17:363–365. APPENDIX D
131
41
Rea, M. S., J. A. Brons, and M. G. Figueiro. 2011. Measurements of light at night (LAN) for a
sample of female school teachers. Chronobiology International 28:673–680.
Rea, M. S., M. G. Figueiro, A. Bierman, and J. D. Bullough. 2010. Circadian light. Journal of
Circadian Rhythms 8:1–10.
Resco, V., J. Hartwell, and A. Hall. 2009. Ecological implications of plants’ ability to tell the
time. Ecology Letters 12:583–592.
Rich, C., and T. Longcore, editors. 2006. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting.
Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Riou, S., and K. Hamer. 2008. Predation risk and reproductive effort: impacts of moonlight on
food provisioning and chick growth in Manx Shearwaters. Animal Behaviour 76:1743–
1748.
Robert, K. A., J. A. Lesku, J. Partecke, and B. Chambers. 2015. Artificial light at night
desynchronizes strictly seasonal reproduction in a wild mammal. Proceedings of the
Royal Society B-Biological Sciences 282:20151745.
Rohweder, D. A., and P. R. Baverstock. 1996. Preliminary investigation of nocturnal habitat use
by migratory waders (Order Charadriiformes) in northern New South Wales. Wildlife
Research 23:169–183.
Rowan, W. 1938. London starlings and seasonal reproduction in birds. Proceedings of the
Zoological Society of London A108:51–78.
Rydell, J. 2006. Bats and their insect prey at streetlights. Pages 43–60 in C. Rich and T.
Longcore, editors. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting. Island Press,
Washington, D.C.
San-Jose, L. M., R. Séchaud, K. Schalcher, C. Judes, A. Questiaux, A. Oliveira-Xavier, C.
Gémard, B. Almasi, P. Béziers, A. Kelber, A. Amar, and A. Roulin. 2019. Differential
fitness effects of moonlight on plumage colour morphs in barn owls. Nature Ecology &
Evolution.
Schmidt, T. M., and P. Kofuji. 2009. Functional and morphological differences among
intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells. Journal of Neuroscience 29:476–482.
Ściężor, T., M. Kubala, and W. Kaszowski. 2012. Light pollution of the mountain areas in
Poland. Archives of Environmental Protection 38:59–69.
Sheppard, C., and G. Phillips. 2015. Bird-Friendly Building Design, 2nd Ed., American Bird
Conservancy, The Plains, Virginia.
Shuboni, D., and L. Yan. 2010. Nighttime dim light exposure alters the responses of the
circadian system. Neuroscience 170:1172–1178.
Sick, H., and D. M. Teixeira. 1981. Nocturnal activities of Brazilian hummingbirds and
flycatchers at artificial illumination. Auk 98:191–192.
Simons, A. L., X. Yin, and T. Longcore. 2020. High correlation but high scale-dependent
variance between satellite measured night lights and terrestrial exposure. Environmental
Research Communications 2:021006.
Skaf, J. R. G., E. T. Hamanishi, O. Wilkins, S. Raj, and M. M. Campbell. 2010. The impact of
artificial night lighting in an urban environment on plant photosynthesis and gene
expression. Plant Biology 2010. American Society of Plant Biologists and Canadian
Society of Plant Physiologists, Montréal, Canada.
Škvareninová, J., M. Tuhárska, J. Škvarenina, D. Babálová, L. Slobodníková, B. Slobodník, H.
Středová, and J. Minďaš. 2017. Effects of light pollution on tree phenology in the urban
environment. Moravian Geographical Reports 25:282–290. APPENDIX E
132
SALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 1
42
Souman, J. L., T. Borra, I. de Goijer, L. J. Schlangen, B. N. Vlaskamp, and M. P. Lucassen.
2018. Spectral tuning of white light allows for strong reduction in melatonin suppression
without changing illumination level or color temperature. Journal of Biological Rhythms
33:420–431.
Spoelstra, K., R. H. A. van Grunsven, J. J. C. Ramakers, K. B. Ferguson, T. Raap, M. Donners,
E. M. Veenendaal, and M. E. Visser. 2017. Response of bats to light with different
spectra: light-shy and agile bat presence is affected by white and green, but not red light.
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 284:20170075.
Stone, E. L., S. Harris, and G. Jones. 2015. Impacts of artificial lighting on bats: a review of
challenges and solutions. Mammalian Biology-Zeitschrift für Säugetierkunde 80:213–
219.
Stone, E. L., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 2009. Street lighting disturbs commuting bats. Current
Biology 19:1123–1127.
Stone, E. L., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 2012. Conserving energy at a cost to biodiversity? Impacts
of LED lighting on bats. Global Change Biology 18:2458–2465.
Stracey, C. M., B. Wynn, and S. K. Robinson. 2014. Light pollution allows the Northern
Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) to feed nestlings after dark. The Wilson Journal of
Ornithology 126:366–369.
Sustek, Z. 1999. Light attraction of carabid beetles and their survival in the city centre. Biologia
(Bratislava) 54:539–551.
Sutherland, D. R., and M. Predavec. 1999. The effects of moonlight on microhabitat use by
Antechinus agilis (Marsupialia: Dasyuridae). Australian Journal of Zoology 47:1–17.
Thomas, R. J., T. Székely, I. C. Cuthill, D. G. C. Harper, S. E. Newson, T. D. Frayling, and P. D.
Wallis. 2002. Eye size in birds and the timing of song at dawn. Proceedings of the Royal
Society of London B 269:831–837.
Ticleanu, C., and P. Littlefair. 2015. A summary of LED lighting impacts on health. International
Journal of Sustainable Lighting 17:5–11.
Tillmann, J. E. 2009. Fear of the dark: night-time roosting and anti-predation behaviour in the
grey partridge (Perdix perdix L.). Behaviour 146:999–1023.
Titulaer, M., K. Spoelstra, C. Y. M. J. G. Lange, and M. E. Visser. 2012. Activity patterns during
food provisioning are affected by artificial light in free living great tits (Parus major).
PLoS ONE 7:e37377.
Topping, M. G., J. S. Millar, and J. A. Goddard. 1999. The effects of moonlight on nocturnal
activity in bushy-tailed wood rats (Neotoma cinerea). Canadian Journal of Zoology
77:480–485.
Upham, N. S., and J. C. Hafner. 2013. Do nocturnal rodents in the Great Basin Desert avoid
moonlight? Journal of Mammalogy 94:59–72.
Van Doren, B. M., K. G. Horton, A. M. Dokter, H. Klinck, S. B. Elbin, and A. Farnsworth. 2017.
High-intensity urban light installation dramatically alters nocturnal bird migration.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114:11175–11180.
van Langevelde, F., J. A. Ettema, M. Donners, M. F. WallisDeVries, and D. Groenendijk. 2011.
Effect of spectral composition of artificial light on the attraction of moths. Biological
Conservation 144:2274–2281.
Vasquez, R. A. 1994. Assessment of predation risk via illumination level: facultative central
place foraging in the cricetid rodent Phyllotis darwini. Behavioral Ecology and
Sociobiology 34:375–381. APPENDIX D
133
43
Viviani, V. R., M. Y. Rocha, and O. Hagen. 2010. Fauna de besouros bioluminescentes
(Coleoptera: Elateroidea: Lampyridae; Phengodidae, Elateridae) nos municípios de
Campinas, Sorocaba-Votorantim e Rio Claro-Limeira (SP, Brasil): biodiversidade e
influência da urbanização. Biota Neotropica 10:103–116.
Voigt, C. C., C. Azam, J. Dekker, J. Ferguson, M. Fritze, S. Gazaryan, F. Hölker, G. Jones, N.
Leader, D. Lewanzik, H. J. G. A. Limpens, F. Mathews, J. Rydell, H. Schofield, K.
Spoelstra, and M. Zagmajster. 2018. Guidelines for Consideration of Bats in Lighting
Projects. EUROBATS Publication Series No. 8. UNEP/EUROBATS Secretariat, Bonn,
Germany.
Wang, T., and D. M. Shier. 2018. Effects of anthropogenic lighting on San Bernardino kangaroo
rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) foraging behavior, persistence and fitness. Revised
final report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation
Research, San Deigo, California.
Wang, T. B., and D. M. Shier. 2017. Effects of anthropogenic lighting on Pacific pocket mouse
(Perognathus longimembris pacificus) foraging bhevior, persistence and fitness. Final
Report prepared for Wildlife Management Branch Environmental Security Dept. Marine
Corps, Base Camp Pendleton. San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research, San
Diego.
Wang, W., J. Y. Barnaby, Y. Tada, H. Li, M. Tör, D. Caldelari, D.-u. Lee, X.-D. Fu, and X.
Dong. 2011. Timing of plant immune responses by a central circadian regulator. Nature
460:110–114.
Williams, C. B. 1936. The influence of moonlight on the activity of certain nocturnal insects,
particularly of the family Noctuidae, as indicated by a light trap. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences 266:357–
389.
Xiao, Q., G. Gee, R. R. Jones, P. Jia, P. James, and L. Hale. 2020. Cross-sectional association
between outdoor artificial light at night and sleep duration in middle-to-older aged adults:
The NIH-AARP Diet and Health Study. Environmental Research 180:108823.
Zhang, S., X. Chen, J. Zhang, and H. Li. 2014. Differences in the reproductive hormone rhythm
of tree sparrows (Passer montanus) from urban and rural sites in Beijing: the effect of
anthropogenic light sources. General and Comparative Endocrinology 206:24–29.
Zubidat, A. E., R. Ben-Shlomo, and A. Haim. 2007. Thermoregulatory and endocrine responses
to light pulses in short-day acclimated social voles (Microtus socialis). Chronobiology
International 24:269–288.
Zubidat, A. E., R. J. Nelson, and A. Haim. 2010. Differential effects of photophase irradiance on
metabolic and urinary stress hormone concentrations in blind and sighted rodents.
Chronobiology International 27:1–29.
APPENDIX E
SALT LAKE CITY, UT
Street Lighting Master Plan
VOLUME 2 - TECHNICAL GUIDANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION
JUNE 2020
3
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSHOW TO USE THIS GUIDE ..........................................1
LUMINAIRE SUBMITTAL FORMS .................................3
PROCESS FOR EVALUATING THE LIGHTED
ENVIRONMENT .........................................................3
Determine Lighting Strategy based on Site
Location .......................................................................3
Establish Lighting Warrants ..............................3
Determine Street Classifications .....................5
Determine Adjacent Land Use .........................5
Determine Pedestrian Activity Levels ...........7
COMPREHENSIVE IMPROVEMENTS ...........................8
Purpose ........................................................................8
Lighting Design Process ......................................8
Lighting Applications ............................................8
MINIMAL IMPROVEMENTS ......................................51
Confirm Existing Conditions .............................51
Supplemental Improvements ...........................51
One-For-One Replacement ..............................51
LIGHTING CONTROLS AND ADAPTIVE DIMMING
STRATEGIES ............................................................51
LIGHTING CALCULATIONS ......................................54
Purpose .....................................................................54
How To Set Up A Calculation .........................54
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
5
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSHOW TO USE THIS DESIGN GUIDE
This section outlines the street lighting design
process and the steps to developing quality
street and pedestrian lighting. The criteria used
is from the Illuminating Engineering Society
of North America’s (IES) American National
Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting (RP-
8-18).
Lighting designers should evaluate each
lighting installation on a block by block basis
and use the criteria to identify the appropriate
lighting strategy based on the information
provided in the following sections.
LUMINAIRE SUBMITTAL FORMS
Designers and engineers will use street and
pedestrian luminaire submittal forms found in
Appendix E to ensure that all luminaire criteria,
set forth in this chapter as well as in the Luminaire
Criteria Tables, are met. These forms should be
completed during the lighting design process
and most of the information on the forms can
be found in the luminaire specification sheet.
These forms will aid the City in approving
luminaire selection for construction.
PROCESS FOR EVALUATING THE LIGHTED
ENVIRONMENT
DETERMINE LIGHTING STRATEGY
BASED ON SITE LOCATION
The majority of lighting installations in Salt
Lake City are street and/or pedestrian lights for
which the City has adopted a standard. Using
the same equipment for most installations
reduces inventory and makes replacements
and repairs more efficient and cost effective.
However, this master plan and existing lighting
programs allow for areas within the city to
differentiate themselves with unique lighting
features. When designing street and pedestrian
lighting, the designer must be aware of the
area and if there are any unique influences. All
new lighting in a character area should match
and comply with luminaire style and criteria
established in this Master Plan. Some character
districts in the City, such as residential areas,
may require lighting redesign, regardless of
existing conditions to meet applicable criteria.
Areas not included in a character district will
be lighted with cobrahead style luminaires
and standard pedestrian scale luminaires that
meet the criteria and spacing based on road
classification established in the Master Plan.
ESTABLISH LIGHTING WARRANTS
The Lighting Warrants Table below considers all
factors and leads the designer to the appropriate
lighting strategy based on street classification,
adjacent land use, and pedestrian conflict. The
next sections provide the user with background
and guidance on the Lighting Warrants Chart
to identify appropriate attributes and select
the appropriate lighting strategy. The designer
must use the appropriate strategy and include
any character influences in their design. Not
all streets in the City will warrant continuous
lighting, but all streets with continuous lighting
must meet the lighting criteria set forth by IES
RP-8-18.
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESS
6
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
TABLE 1: LIGHTING WARRANTS - ARTERIAL
ARTERIAL STREET
PED EXISTING CONDITIONS STREET
LIGHTING PED LIGHTING PG. #
COMMERCIAL
HIGH Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.25, 31
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Continuous 29
MED Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.25
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Non-cont.31
LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-Cont. NA 27
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-cont. NA 27
OFFICE PARK LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-Cont. NA 27
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-cont. NA 27
DOWNTOWN
HIGH
Cactus Poles Continuous Cactus Pole Lighting 19
Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.25, 31
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Continuous 29
MED
Cactus Poles Continuous Cactus Pole Lighting 19
Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.25
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Non-cont.31
INDUSTRIAL LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only NA 33
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only NA 33
MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL MED Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.25, 31
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Non-cont.31
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.25, 31
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.25, 31
OPEN SPACE
MED Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-Cont. NA 27
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-cont. NA 27
LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only NA 33
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only NA 33
* High pedestrian conflict is only found in Downtown, Sugarhouse, Trolley Square, and within one
block of the University of Utah and Smith’s Ballpark
7
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTABLE 2: LIGHTING WARRANTS – COLLECTOR
* High pedestrian conflict is only found in Downtown, Sugarhouse, Trolley Square, and within one
block of the University of Utah and Smith’s Ballpark
COLLECTOR
PED EXISTING CONDITIONS STREET
LIGHTING PED LIGHTING PG. #
COMMERCIAL
HIGH Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous OR Continuous 34
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Continuous 38
MED Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous OR Continuous 34
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Non-cont.40
LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-cont. NA 36
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-Cont. NA 36
OFFICE PARK LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-cont. NA 36
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-cont. NA 36
DOWNTOWN
HIGH
Cactus Poles Continuous Cactus Pole Lighting 19
Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous OR Continuous 34
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Continuous 38
MED
Cactus Poles Continuous Cactus Pole Lighting 19
Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous OR Continuous 34
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Non-Cont.40
INDUSTRIAL LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only NA 44
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only NA 44
MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL MED Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous Optional Non-cont.42
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Continuous &Non-cont.40
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-Cont.OR Non-cont.36,42
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only &Non-cont.44,42
OPEN SPACE
MED N/A
LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only NA 44
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only NA 44
8
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
TABLE 3: LIGHTING WARRANTS – LOCAL
* High pedestrian conflict is only found in Downtown, Sugarhouse, Trolley Square, and within one
block of the University of Utah and Smith’s Ballpark
LOCAL
PED EXISTING CONDITIONS STREET
LIGHTING PED LIGHTING PG. #
COMMERCIAL
HIGH Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous OR Continuous 45,50
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-cont.&Continuous 48
MED Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-Cont. OR Continuous 47, 50
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-cont.OR Continuous 47, 50
LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only OR Non-cont.36
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only OR Non-cont.36
OFFICE PARK LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only OR Non-cont.53, 52
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only OR Non-cont.53, 52
DOWNTOWN
HIGH
Cactus Poles Continuous Cactus Pole Lighting 19
Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Continuous OR Continuous 45,50
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-cont.&Continuous 48
MED
Cactus Poles Continuous Cactus Pole Lighting 19
Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Non-Cont. OR Continuous 47, 50
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Non-Cont.OR Continuous 47, 50
INDUSTRIAL LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only NA 53
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only NA 53
MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL MED Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only &Continuous 53
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only &Continuous 53
SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only Optional Non-Cont.53, 52
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only Optional Non-cont.53, 52
OPEN SPACE
MED N/A
LOW Sidewalk Lit By Streetlight Int. Only NA 53
Sidewalk NOT Lit by Streetlight Int. Only NA 53
9
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSStreet classification is used to determine the
lighting warrants for a street, along with the
surrounding environment and pedestrian conflict.
Figure 1 shows all street classifications throughout
the city. The following street and roadway
definitions are from IES RP-8-18.
FREEWAY:
A divided highway with full control of access.
Oftentimes with great visual complexity and high
traffic volumes. This roadway is usually found in
major metropolitan areas in or near the central
core and will operate at or near design capacity
through some of the early morning or late evening
hours of darkness.
*Freeway, which are UDOT facilities, are not
included in the scope of this Masterplan.
MAJOR (ARTERIAL):
That part of the roadway system that serves as
the principle network for through-traffic flow.
The routes connect areas of principle traffic
generation and important rural roadways entering
and leaving the city. These routes are often known
as “arterials”. They are sometimes subdivided
into primary and secondary; however, such
distinctions are not necessary in roadway lighting.
These routes primarily serve through traffic and
secondarily provide access to abutting property.
COLLECTOR:
Roadways servicing traffic between major and
local streets. These are streets used mainly for
traffic movements within residential, commercial,
and industrial areas. They do not handle long,
through trips. Collector streets may be used for
truck or bus movements and give direct service
for abutting properties.
LOCAL:
Local streets are used primarily for direct access
to residential, commercial, industrial, or other
abutting property. They make up a sizable
percentage of the total street system but carry a
small proportion of vehicular traffic.
INTERSECTIONS:
A traffic conflict area in which two or more streets
join or cross at the same grade. The outside edge
of pedestrian crosswalks defines intersection
limits. If there are no pedestrian crosswalks, the
stop bars define the intersection. If there are
no stop bars, the intersection is defined by the
radius return of each intersection leg. Intersection
limits may also include the area encompassing
channelized areas in which traffic is directed into
definite paths by islands with raised curbing.
DETERMINE STREET CLASSIFICATIONS
0 1.5 30.75
Miles
STREET CLASSIFICATIONS KEY
LOCAL
ARTERIAL
COLLECTOR
FREEWAY
I-80
I-80
I-215I-215
I-15
HWY
154
400 S.
S. TEMPLE
FOOTHILL700 E.1700 S.1700 W.Figure 1: Street Classifications Map
10
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
Adjacent land use is a key factor in determining
lighting strategy as it directly correlates to the
number of pedestrians and vehicles in the area
during nighttime hours. Areas of increased
traffic volume at night warrant additional
lighting, whereas areas that typically do not
have much traffic after dark warrant base level
lighting. Figure 2 is the Land Use Map. Adjacent
land use should be evaluated according to the
consolidated zoning provided in this master
plan. For projects that are on the boundaries
between land uses, the designer should select
the lower criteria with more stringent light
trespass to protect residential and open space
uses. If the project includes areas that are
within, or adjacent to, a Critical Wildlife Area,
all luminaire installed should meet the luminaire
requirements of the protected area.
COMMERCIAL
Commercial land use is a diverse classification
encompassing high, medium and low pedestrian
and traffic volumes. Areas with concentrated
restaurant and retail establishments, such as
the Sugarhouse Business District and 9th &
9th, typically see medium to high pedestrian
and traffic volumes during nighttime hours and
should have increased light levels and possibly
additional pedestrian lighting. However, big
box stores and strip malls do not typically
see the same number of pedestrians during
nighttime hours and can have reduced light
levels. Designers must carefully evaluate the
pedestrian and traffic volume where lighting
improvements are being made and select
the proper lighting criteria to create a safe
and comfortable nighttime environment for
pedestrians and vehicles.
OFFICE PARK
Office Parks are defined as areas where people
tend to work during the day but are mostly
vacant during nighttime hours. Establishments
in this classification are generally open between
8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. but typically close in
the early evening and are not open into the
night.
DOWNTOWN
Downtown Salt Lake City is the heart of the
retail and restaurant business in the valley and
attracts people at all times of the day. This area
typically sees high and medium pedestrian and
traffic volumes and is lighted by the historic
Cactus Poles. Lighting in Downtown should
focus on pedestrian safety and properly
illuminating crosswalks and sidewalks. In most
cases luminaire spacing has already been
established so it is essential that designers
select the proper distribution and lumen output
INDUSTRIAL
Industrial land use is defined by manufacturing
and distribution within the City. This land use
includes, but is not limited to, the establishments
found south of the airport off of California Ave.
Industrial land use has very minimal pedestrian
usage, especially during nighttime hours and
requires minimal lighting. Additionally, most of
the industrial land use areas within Salt Lake
City are also within Critical Wildlife Habitats
and will require appropriate lighting to minimize
environmental impacts.
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DETERMINE ADJACENT LAND USE
11
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSMultifamily residential is characterized by multiple
separate housing units for residential inhabitants
are contained within on building or several
buildings within one complex. When designing
lighting on streets adjacent to multifamily
residential areas a medium pedestrian conflict
should be used as there are typically higher
pedestrian and vehicle volumes. Residential areas
are typically on streets with lower speed limits
and less traffic, however this is not always the
case. Salt Lake City has residential land use on all
street classifications, arterial, collector and local
creating multiple lighting strategies that may be
appropriate. Designers should consider the safety
of pedestrian and vehicles when selecting the
appropriate lighting strategy while respecting the
residents by minimizing light trespass.
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
Single family residential is characterized by a
stand-alone dwelling serving as the primary
residence for one family. Single family residential
areas typically have less pedestrian volume, and
when designing lighting in these areas, a low
pedestrian conflict should be used. Residential
areas are typically on streets with lower speed
limits and less traffic, however this is not always
the case. Salt Lake City has residential land use
on all street classifications, arterial, collector and
local, creating multiple lighting strategies that may
be appropriate. Designers should consider the
safety of pedestrian and vehicles when selecting
the appropriate lighting strategy while respecting
the residents by minimizing light trespass.
OPEN SPACE
The purpose of the OS Open Space District
is to preserve and enhance public and private
open space, natural areas, and improved park
and recreational areas. These areas provide
opportunities for active and passive outdoor
recreation, provide contrasts to the built
environment, preserve scenic qualities, and
protect sensitive or fragile environmental areas.
Examples of Open Space within the City include
City Creek Canyon, Salt Lake City Cemetery, and
along the Jordan River. Any Streets bordering
the foothills are considered to be along Open
Space as well. These streets typically see minimal
pedestrian usage and are within Critical Habitat
areas requiring additional measures to ensure
environmentally friendly street lights are used.
¯0 1 20.5 Miles
Zones
Low Density Residential
Multi Family Residential
Industrial
Commercial
Downtown
Office Park
Agriculture
Institutional
Airport
Transit Service Areas
Parks
Open Space
Public Land/Civic
Figure 2: Adjacent Land Use Map
12
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
IES pedestrian volumes represent the total
number of pedestrians walking in both
directions on a typical block or 660 foot
section. Pedestrian counts and traffic studies
take precedence over other references.
The following are pedestrian classification
definitions per IES RP-8-18. The pedestrian
counts should be taken during darkness hours
when the typical peak number of pedestrians
are present. This typically occurs during early
morning hours if a school or similar destinations
are nearby. The lighting designer should
determine what the typical peak hours are for
each street.
HIGH:
Areas with significant numbers (over 100
pedestrians an hour) of pedestrians expected
to be on the sidewalks or crossing the streets
during darkness. Examples are downtown retail
areas, near theaters, concert halls, stadiums,
and transit terminals.
MEDIUM:
Areas where fewer (10 to 100 pedestrians an
hour) pedestrians utilize the streets at night.
Typical are downtown office areas, blocks with
libraries, apartments, neighborhood shopping,
industrial, parks, and streets with transit lines.
LOW:
Areas with very low volumes (10 or fewer
pedestrians per hour) of night pedestrian usage.
A low pedestrian classification can occur in any
street classifications but may be typified by
suburban streets with single-family dwellings,
very low-density residential developments, and
rural or semi-rural areas.
DETERMINING PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY LEVELS
13
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSPURPOSE
This section applies to new installations of
public street and pedestrian lighting, either
standalone or on traffic signal installations,
and modifications to existing street lighting
installations that affect pole types or locations,
excluding minor maintenance work. Refer to
Volume 2: Minimal Improvements for projects
involving 1-for-1 luminaire replacement and
supplemental improvements.
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESS
Performing a lighting design for new installations
of streetlights is an iterative process. This
occurs because the lighting design is altered
(spacing, arrangement, mounting height) until
the target goal is met, per criteria set forth in
this document, for the specific street. The most
efficient method is to calculate luminance for
straight streets or illuminance for intersections
and non-straight streets, along with sidewalks
and other pedestrian areas with varying
luminaire parameters. The selected luminaire
must comply with the lumen output, efficacy,
BUG ratings, and other luminaire requirements
specified in Volume 2. Care should be taken,
when selecting a luminaire to illuminate the
surrounding sidewalks and public spaces
without causing light trespass, or unwanted
light spills onto surrounding properties and
through residential windows. Instructions on
setting up the lighting design calculations are
found later in this volume.
Lighting designers should use the Lighting
Warrants Table to determine the appropriate
strategy based on street classification, adjacent
land use, and pedestrian conflict. Once the
appropriate lighting strategy is determined,
designers can find lighting and luminaire criteria
and spacing guidance in the corresponding
sheets below. All lighting layouts for each street
classification are broken out below and should
be referenced during the design process.
LIGHTING APPLICATIONS
The following pages describe the luminaire
selection and lighting layout for each street
classification as defined by the Salt Lake City
Transportation Division. Designers should strive
to meet the luminaire spacing that will provide
the highest quality street lighting possible, but
this is not always feasible. It is necessary to
integrate lighting locations in correspondence
to other improvements:
• Clearance from driveways (10 feet
commercial and 5 feet residential).
• Clearance from fire hydrants (5 feet).
• Trees (centered in between trees or 20 feet
from the tree trunk).
• Streetlight offset should be a minimum of
3’-0” and a maximum of 8’-0” from back of
curb.
• Pedestrian lights should be a minimum
of 1’-0” and a maximum of 6’-0” from the
sidewalk.
• Light standards integrated into sidewalk
should maintain a minimum of 5’-0” clear
zone.
• Light standards should be located a
minimum distance of 10’-0” from trees.
Place poles and luminaires near property lines
wherever practical and avoid locations in front
of doorways, windows, and lines of egress.
COMPREHENSIVE IMPROVEMENTS
14
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
INTERSECTIONS & CROSSWALKS
The same luminaires are to be used throughout
the intersection. When an intersection is
between two different street classifications,
the higher street classification target criteria
is used throughout the entire intersection.
The recommended streetlight layout for an
intersection also depends on whether the
street classification calls for continuous or non-
continuous lighting.
The following requirements are recommended
to guide all traffic signal mounted streetlights.
The intersection design should ensure that the
crosswalks are sufficiently lighted to light the
vertical surface (body) of pedestrians in the
crosswalk. This may require that additional
streetlights be located before the intersection
as shown in the Figures 3 and 4 below.
Mid-block crossings and denoted crosswalks are
recommended to always be lighted. Crosswalks
can be denoted by striping, signage, flashing
beacons, etc. Crosswalks are important parts
of the streetscape and an appropriate lighting
design will improve the visibility of pedestrians
in the crosswalk. The lighting should be installed
between the vehicle and the crosswalk (ie: half to
one pole height before the crosswalk) to ensure
that the body of the pedestrian is adequately
lighted. If streetlights are installed above or
immediately adjacent to the crosswalk, only
the top of the pedestrian’s head will be lighted
making it difficult for motorists to see the
pedestrian. Crosswalks and mid-block crossings
are recommended to be lighted to the Vertical
Illuminance requirements in the table below.
Vertical illuminance measurements are taken
5ft. above the roadway surface in the direction
of oncoming traffic.
Figure 3: Streetlight Located Before Crosswalk Figure 4: Streetlight Placement with Respect to
Crosswalk
15
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTABLE 4: INTERSECTION & CROSSWALK TARGET HORIZONTAL CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
STREET
CLASS
PED
CONFLICT
AVERAGE
HORIZONTAL
ILLUMINANCE
(FC)
UNIFORMITY
RATIO
(FCAVG/
FCMIN)
AVERAGE
VERTICAL
ILLUMINANCE
(FC)
MOUNTING
HEIGHT
(FEET)
MAST ARM
LENGTH
(FT)
DISTRIBUTION MAX BUG
RATING
LUMEN OUTPUT
RANGE
Arterial /
Arterial
High 3.4 3 1.4 35-40 10 Type 2 or 3 3-0-3 16,000-25,000
Medium 2.6 3 0.9 35-40 10 Type 2 or 3 3-0-3 10,000-16,000
Low 1.8 3 0.5 30-40 10 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 7,000-12,000
Arterial /
Collector
High 2.9 3 0.9 35-40 10 Type 2 or 3 3-0-3 10,000-18,000
Medium 2.2 3 0.6 35-40 10 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 8,500-13,500
Low 1.5 3 0.4 30-40 10 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 5,000-10,000
Arterial /
Local
High 2.6 3 0.8 30-35 10 Type 2 or 3 3-0-3 10,000-16,000
Medium 2.0 3 0.6 30-35 10 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 7,500-12,500
Low 1.3 3 0.4 30-35 10 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 4,000-8,500
Collector
/ Collec-
tor
High 2.4 4 0.7 30-35 6 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 7,500-12,000
Medium 1.8 4 0.5 30-35 6 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 4,500-7,500
Low 1.2 4 0.5 30-35 6 Type 2 or 3 1-0-2 3,500-6,000
Collector
/ Local
High 2.1 4 0.6 30-35 6 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 6,000-10,500
Medium 1.6 4 0.5 30-35 6 Type 2 or 3 1-0-2 4,000-7,000
Low 1.0 4 0.3 30-35 6 Type 2 or 3 1-0-2 3,000-5,500
Local /
Local
>30mph
High 1.8 6 0.5 25-30 6 Type 2 or 3 2-0-2 5,000-8,000
Medium 1.4 6 0.4 25-30 6 Type 2 or 3 1-0-1 4,000-6,000
Low 1.0 6 0.2 25-30 6 Type 2 or 3 1-0-1 3,000-5,500
Local /
Local
<30mph
High N/A
Medium N/A
Low N/A
* A U2 BUG rating is acceptable when using a house side shield?
1. Arterial mid block crossing shall follow the arterial/arterial intersection criteria.
2. Collector mid block crossing shall follow the collector/collector intersection criteria.
16
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
SIGNALIZED/CONTINUOUS LIGHTING
For a signalized intersection with continuous lighting the typical streetlight arrangement is
interrupted by placing streetlight signal poles. This is called out as “1/2 to 1 mounting height to
centerline of crosswalk (Typical)” in Figure 5 below. Additional streetlights should be located on
signal poles if additional lighting is needed to meet the intersection criteria.
Figure 5: Typical Intersection Lighting Layout with Signals and Continuous Lighting
NON- SIGNALIZED/CONTINUOUS LIGHTING
For a non-signalized intersection with continuous lighting the typical streetlight arrangement is
continued through the intersection (see Figure 6). The streetlights should be located along the
approach to the crosswalk, if it exists, installed half to one luminaire mounting height in front of
the crosswalk, between approaching vehicles and pedestrians.
Figure 6: Typical Intersection Lighting Layout with No Signals and Continuous Lighting
17
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSIGNALIZED/NON-CONTINUOUS LIGHTING
For signalized intersections with non-continuous lighting luminaires are located half to one
luminaire mounting height in front of the crosswalk, illuminating the approach to the intersection.
If these four luminaires do not provide sufficient lighting throughout the entire intersection, two
more additional luminaires may be used, to be mounted on the signals as shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Typical Intersection Lighting Layout with Signals and Non-Continuous
Lighting
NON-SIGNALIZED/NON-CONTINUOUS LIGHTING
For streets with non-continuous lighting and no signals, one luminaire is to be placed at each
intersection, as shown in Figure 8. Refer to the Local Street chapter for more information.
Figure 8: Typical Intersection Lighting Layout with No Signals and Non-Continuous
Lighting
18
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
MID-BLOCK CROSSWALKS
The standard is a streetlight located one half to 1 mounting height in front of the crosswalk on both
sides of the street for all mid-block crossings, shown in Figures 9 and 10.
Figure 9: Streetlight Placement with Respect to Mid-Block Crossing
Figure 10: Cactus Pole Placement with Respect to Mid-Block Crossing
19
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSCACTUS POLE LAYOUTS
Cactus Poles within downtown SLC should be upgraded to fully shielded LED luminaires. The
Cactus Pole locations and spacing will not change, but the lumen output and distribution of
new luminaire should meet the criteria in Table 7 and 8 based on the location of the lighting
improvements seen in Figure 11 and 12.
Figure 11: Cactus Pole Lighting Layouts
Striped
Median
℄
Walk Tree
Lawn
Bike
Street Width
Parking Drive
Lane
Drive
Lane
℄
WalkTree
Lawn
Bike ParkingDrive
Lane
Drive
Lane
CACTUS POLESFigure 12: Cactus Pole Sections
TABLE 5: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 1.2 3:1 1.0
Medium 0.9 3:1 0.5
TABLE 6: COLLECTOR STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 0.8 3:1 1.0
Medium 0.6 4:1 0.5
20
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
TABLE 7: RECOMMENDED CACTUS POLE LUMINAIRE CRITERIA – ARTERIAL STREETS
STREET
WIDTH
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
STREET LIGHT
LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
STREET LIGHT
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. STREET
LIGHT BUG
RATING
PEDESTRIAN
LIGHT LUMEN
OUTPUT (LM)
PEDESTRIAN
LIGHT
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX.
PEDESTRIAN
LIGHT BUG
RATING
70-90
High 8,500-10,500 Type III or IV B3-U0-G2*3,000-
5,000 Type III or IV B1-U0-G1
Medium 5,500-9,000 Type III B3-U0-G2*
3,000-
5,000 Type III B1-U0-G1
90-110
High 6,500-9,500 Type II B3-U0-G2*
3,500-
5,500 Type III B1-U0-G1
Medium 8,000-11,500 Type III B3-U0-G2*
2,500-
5,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
TABLE 8: RECOMMENDED CACTUS POLE LUMINAIRE CRITERIA – COLLECTOR STREETS
STREET
WIDTH
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
STREET LIGHT
LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
STREET LIGHT
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. STREET
LIGHT BUG
RATING
PEDESTRIAN
LIGHT LUMEN
OUTPUT (LM)
PEDESTRIAN
LIGHT
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX.
PEDESTRIAN
LIGHT BUG
RATING
70-90
High 5,500-8,500 Type III or IV B2-U0-G2 2,500-
4,500 Type III or IV B1-U0-G1
Medium 4,500-8,000 Type II or IV B2-U0-G2
2,500-
4,500 Type III or IV B1-U0-G1
90-110
High 9,000-11,500 Type III B3-U0-G2
3,000-
5,000 Type III or IV B1-U0-G1
Medium 4,500-7,500 Type III or IV B2-U0-G2
3,000-
5,000 Type III or IV B1-U0-G1
* These BUG Ratings apply to all Cactus Pole lights, except at intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings,
which may have B3-U3-G2 Ratings to provide adequate vertical illuminance at crosswalks.”
21
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSStreet Width
Walk Tree
Lawn
Striped
Median
Drive
Lane
Drive
Lane
℄
WalkTree
Lawn
Drive
Lane
Drive
Lane
SUGARHOUSE TEAR DROP
SUGARHOUSE POLE LAYOUT
The teardrop luminaires in the Sugarhouse Business District should be upgraded to fully shielded
LED luminaires. The locations and spacing will not change, but the lumen output and distribution
of new luminaire should meet the criteria in Table 10. This is illustrated in Figures 13 and 14.
Figure 13: Sugarhouse Pole Lighting Layouts
Figure 14: Sugarhouse Pole Lighting Section
22
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
TABLE 9: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 1.2 3:1 1.0
Medium 0.9 3:1 0.5
TABLE 10: RECOMMENDED SUGARHOUSE POLE LUMINAIRE CRITERIA
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
STREET LIGHT
LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
STREET LIGHT
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. STREET
LIGHT BUG
RATING
PEDESTRIAN LIGHT
LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
PEDESTRIAN LIGHT
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX.
PEDESTRIAN
LIGHT BUG
RATING
High 6,000-8,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2 2,000-3,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
Medium 3,000-7,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G1 1,000-2,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
23
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTEAR DROP POLE LAYOUT
The teardrop luminaires along South Temple and State Street should be upgraded to fully shielded
LED luminaires. The locations and spacing will not change, but the lumen output and distribution
of new luminaire should meet the criteria in Table 12. This is illustrated in Figures 15 and 16.
Figure 15: Tear Drop Lighting Layouts
Figure 16: Tear Drop Lighting Section
Street Width
Striped
Median
Drive
Lane
℄
Drive
Lane
Drive
Lane WalkBikeParking
Walk Tree
Lawn
Tree
Lawn
Drive
Lane
Drive
Lane
Drive
Lane Bike Parking
S TEMPLE STATE ST TEAR
DROP
24
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
TABLE 11: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 1.2 3:1 1.0
Medium 0.9 3:1 0.5
Low 0.6 4:1 0.4
TABLE 12: RECOMMENDED TEAR DROP LUMINAIRE CRITERIA
STREET
WIDTH PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING
50-70
High 11,000-14,750 Type III B2-U0-G2
Medium 8,500-12,000 Type III B2-U0-G2
Low 5,500-8,500 Type III B2-U0-G2
70-
100
High 16,500-20,500 Type III B3-U0-G3
Medium 16,500-20,500 Type III B3-U0-G3
Low 11,000-16,500 Type III B2-U0-G2
25
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSARTERIAL STREET – CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non-
median lighting layout when designing an arterial street with only street lighting. Luminaires are
to be placed in an opposite arrangement when not located at an intersection, Figures 17 and 18.
Figure 17: Typical Arterial with Continuous Street Lighting Plan
Figure 18: Typical Arterial with Continuous Street Lighting Cross Section
26
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
TABLE 13: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 1.2 3:1 1.0
Medium 0.9 3:1 0.5
Low 0.6 4:1 0.4
TABLE 14: RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL (NON-MEDIAN MOUNTED) LUMINAIRE & POLE CRITERIA
STREET
WIDTH
(FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT)POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
50-70
High
120-140 30-35 6,500-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
140-180 30-35 8,500-14,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G2
Medium 140-180 30-35 6,500-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30-35 8,500-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Low 180-220 30-35 6,000-8,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
70-90
High 140-180 30-35 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30-35 12,000-18,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G3
Medium 120-160 30-35 7,500-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
160-200 30-35 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G2
Low 140-180 30-35 6,500-9,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30-35 7,500-11,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
90-110
High 120-160 30-35 11,000-18,000 Type II B3-U0-G3
Medium 140-180 30-35 10,000-18,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30-35 15,000-19,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G3
Low 140-180 30-35 8,000-13,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30-35 12,000-14,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
27
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSARTERIAL STREET – NON-CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non-
median lighting layout when designing an arterial street with non-continuous street. Street
luminaires are to be placed in an opposite arrangement when not located at an intersection,
Figures 19 and 20.
Figure 19: Typical Arterial with Non-Continuous Street Lighting Plan
Figure 20: Typical Arterial with Non-Continuous Street Lighting Cross Section
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
SIGNAL-MOUNTED
LUMINAIRE (TYP)
Striped
MedianDrive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
LaneWalkTree
Lawn
Drive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
Lane WalkTree
Lawn
Street Width
ARTERIAL STREET LIGHTING ONLY
MAX SPACING TO BE DOUBLE RECOMMENDED
SPACING FOR CONTINUOUS LIGHTING
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Striped
MedianDrive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
LaneWalk Tree
Lawn
Drive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
Lane WalkTree
Lawn
Street Width
ARTERIAL NON CONTINUOUS
STREET LIGHTING
28
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
TABLE 15: RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL (NON-MEDIAN MOUNTED) LUMINAIRE & POLE CRITERIA
STREET
WIDTH
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT)POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
50-70 Medium 240-280 30-35 6,500-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
280-360 30-35 8,500-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Low 360-440 30-35 6,000-8,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
70-90
Medium 240-320 30-35 7,500-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
320-400 30-35 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G2
Low 280-360 30-35 6,500-9,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
360-440 30-35 7,500-11,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
90-110
Medium 280-360 30-35 10,000-18,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
360-440 30-35 15,000-19,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G3
Low 280-360 30-35 8,000-13,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
360-440 30-35 12,000-14,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
29
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSARTERIAL STREET – CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING AND CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non-
median lighting layout when designing an arterial street with continuous street and pedestrian
lighting. Street lights are to be placed in an opposite arrangement when not located at an
intersection. Pedestrian lights should be coordinated with the landscape and street lighting
layouts to maintain a consistent spacing, Figures 21 and 22.
Figure 21: Typical Arterial with Continuous Street and Pedestrian Lighting Plan
Figure 22: Typical Arterial with Continuous Street and Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Striped
MedianDrive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
LaneWalk Tree
Lawn
Drive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
Lane WalkTree
Lawn
Street Width
ARTERIAL CONT STREET AND PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:29 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Striped
MedianDrive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
LaneWalkTree
Lawn
Drive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
Lane WalkTree
Lawn
Street Width
ARTERIAL CONT STREET AND PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:29 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
30
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
TABLE 16: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 1.2 3:1 1.0
TABLE 17: RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL (NON-MEDIAN MOUNTED) STREET LUMINAIRE & POLE CRITERIA
STREET
WIDTH
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT)POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
50-70 High
120-140 30-35 6,500-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
140-180 30-35 8,500-14,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G2
70-90 High 140-180 30-35 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30-35 12,000-18,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G3
90-110 High 120-160 30-35 11,000-18,000 Type II B3-U0-G3
TABLE 18: RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL (NON-MEDIAN MOUNTED) PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE & POLE CRITERIA
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT)POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
High 50-80 12-15 3,000-5,500 Type II or III B1-U2-G1
31
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSARTERIAL STREET – CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING AND NON-CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non-
median lighting layout when designing an arterial street with continuous street lighting and non-
continuous pedestrian lighting. Street luminaires are to be placed in an opposite arrangement
when not located at an intersection. Pedestrian luminaire should be located to illuminate locations
shadowed by trees or at vehicle-pedestrian conflict points, Figures 23 and 24.
Figure 23: Typical Arterial with Continuous Street Lighting and Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Plan
Figure 24: Typical Arterial with Continuous Street Lighting and Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Striped
MedianDrive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
LaneWalk Tree
Lawn
Drive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
Lane WalkTree
Lawn
Street Width
ARTERIAL CONT STREET AND NON CONT. PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:35 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Striped
MedianDrive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
LaneWalkTree
Lawn
Drive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
Lane WalkTree
Lawn
Street Width
ARTERIAL CONT STREET AND NON CONT. PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:35 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
32
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
TABLE 19: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 1.2 3:1 1.0
Medium 0.9 3:1 0.5
Low 0.6 4:1 0.4
TABLE 20: RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL (NON-MEDIAN MOUNTED) LUMINAIRE & POLE CRITERIA
STREET
WIDTH
(FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT)POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
50-70
High 120-140 30-35 6,500-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
140-180 30-35 8,500-14,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G2
Medium 140-180 30-35 6,500-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30-35 8,500-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Low 180-220 30-35 6,000-8,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
70-90
High 140-180 30-35 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30-35 12,000-18,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G3
Medium 120-160 30-35 7,500-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
160-200 30-35 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G2
Low 140-180 30-35 6,500-9,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30-35 7,500-11,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
90-110
High 120-160 30-35 11,000-18,000 Type II B3-U0-G3
Medium 140-180 30-35 10,000-18,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30-35 15,000-19,000 Type II or III B3-U0-G3
Low 140-180 30-35 8,000-13,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30-35 12,000-14,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
TABLE 21: RECOMMENDED ARTERIAL (NON-MEDIAN MOUNTED) PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE & POLE CRITERIA
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY POLE SPACING (FT)POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING
High 50-80 12-15 3,000-5,500 Type II or III B1-U2-G1
Medium 50-80 12-15 3,000-5,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
80-120 12-15 3,000-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
Low 50-80 12-15 2,000-4,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
80-120 12-15 2,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
33
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSARTERIAL STREET – INTERSECTION ONLY LIGHTING
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and
non-median lighting layout when designing an arterial street with intersection only street light-
ing. Street luminaires are to be placed at the intersection with luminaire on half to one mounting
height in front of any existing crosswalks, Figures 25 and 26.
Figure 25: Typical Arterial with Street Lights at Intersections Only Plan
Figure 26: Typical Arterial with Street Lights at Intersections Only Cross Section
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Striped
MedianDrive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
LaneWalkTree
Lawn
Drive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
Lane WalkTree
Lawn
Street Width
ARTERIAL STREET INT. ONL
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Striped
MedianDrive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
LaneWalkTree
Lawn
Drive
Lane
Bike/
Shoulder/
Parking
Drive
Lane WalkTree
Lawn
Street Width
ARTERIAL STREET INT. ONL
See Intersections & Crosswalks Section on page 14 for lighting criteria and luminaire recom-
mendations.
34
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
COLLECTOR STREET – CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non-
median lighting layout when designing a collector street with only street lighting. Luminaires are
to be placed in an opposite arrangement when not located at an intersection, Figures 27 and 28.
Figure 27: Typical Collector Street with Continuous Street Lighting
Figure 28: Typical Cross Section for Collector with Continuous Street Lighting
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median
Street Width
Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
COLLECTOR STREET LIGHTING ONLY
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median
Street Width
Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
COLLECTOR STREET LIGHTING ONLY
35
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTABLE 22: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 0.8 3:1 1.0
Medium 0.6 4:1 0.5
TABLE 23: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR STREET LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA
ROADWAY
WIDTH (FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
30-50
High 140-160 30 6,500-7,800 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30 7,000-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Medium 140-160 30 5,000-7,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30 6,500-8,800 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
50-70
High 140-160 30 6,500-8,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30 7,000-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Medium 140-160 30 6,000-7,700 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30 7,000-8,700 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
70-100
High 120-140 30 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Medium 140-160 30 7,000-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30 9,000-13,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
36
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
COLLECTOR STREET – NON-CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non-
median lighting layout when designing a collector street with non-continuous street lighting.
Luminaires are to be placed in an opposite arrangement when not located at an intersection,
Figures 29 and 30.
Figure 29: Typical Collector Street with Non-Continuous Street Lighting
Figure 30: Typical Collector Street with Non-Continuous Lighting Cross Section
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Street Width
COLLECTOR NON CONTINUOUS STREETZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:40 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Street Width
COLLECTOR NON CONTINUOUS STREETZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:40 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
37
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTABLE 24: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR STREET LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA
ROADWAY
WIDTH (FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
30-50
Medium 280-320 30 5,000-7,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
320-440 30 6,500-8,800 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Low 280-360 30 4,000-5,500 Type III B1-U0-G1
360-440 30 4,500-6,000 Type III B1-U0-G1
50-70
Medium 280-320 30 6,000-7,700 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
320-440 30 7,000-8,700 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Low 280-320 30 4,000-5,500 Type II or III B2-U0-G1
320-440 30 5,000-8,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
70-100
Medium 280-320 30 7,000-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
320-440 30 9,000-13,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Low 280-360 30 6,500-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
360-440 30 6,500-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
38
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
COLLECTOR STREET – CONTINUOUS STREET AND CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non-
median lighting layout when designing a collector street with continuous street and pedestrian
lighting. Street luminaires are to be placed in an opposite arrangement when not located at
an intersection. Pedestrian lights should be coordinated with the landscape and street lighting
layouts to maintain a consistent spacing, Figures 31 and 32.
Figure 31: Typical Collector Street with Continuous Street and Pedestrian Lighting
Figure 32: Typical Collector with Continuous Street and Pedestrian Lighting
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Street Width
COLLECTOR CONT STREET & PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:44 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Street Width
COLLECTOR CONT STREET & PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:44 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
39
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTABLE 25: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 0.8 3:1 1.0
TABLE 26: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR STREET LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA
ROADWAY
WIDTH (FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
30-50 High
140-180 30 6,500-7,800 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30 7,000-10,000 B2-U0-G2
50-70 High 140-160 30 6,500-8,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
160-220 30 7,000-9,000 B2-U0-G2
70-100 High 120-140 30 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
TABLE 27: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
High 50-80 12-15 3,000-5,000 Type II or III B1-U2-G1
80-120 12-15 3,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U2-G1
40
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
COLLECTOR STREET – CONTINUOUS STREET AND NON-CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non-
median lighting layout when designing a collector street with continuous street lighting and non-
continuous pedestrian lighting. Street luminaires are to be placed in an opposite arrangement
when not located at an intersection. Pedestrian luminaire should be located to illuminate locations
shadowed by trees or at vehicle-pedestrian conflict points, Figures 33 and 34.
Figure 33: Typical Collector Street with Continuous Street and Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Plan
Figure 34: Typical Collector with Continuous Street and Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Street Width
COLLECTOR CONT STREET NON CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:49 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Street Width
COLLECTOR CONT STREET NON CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:49 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
41
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTABLE 28: ARTERIAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 0.8 3:1 1.0
Medium 0.6 4:1 0.5
TABLE 30: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
High 50-80 12-15 3,000-5,000 Type II or III B1-U2-G1
80-120 12-15 3,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U2-G1
Medium 50-80 12-15 2,000-4,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
80-120 12-15 2,500-5,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
TABLE 29: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR STREET LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA
ROADWAY
WIDTH (FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
30-50
High 140-180 30 6,500-7,800 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
180-220 30 7,000-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Medium 140-160 30 5,000-7,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
160-220 30 6,500-8,800 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
50-70
High 140-160 30 6,500-8,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
160-220 30 7,000-9,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Medium 140-160 30 6,000-7,700 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
160-220 30 7,000-8,700 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
70-100
High 120-140 30 8,500-12,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Medium 140-160 30 7,000-10,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
160-220 30 9,000-13,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
42
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
COLLECTOR STREET – CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non-
median lighting layout when designing a collector street with continuous pedestrian lighting.
Pedestrian lights should be coordinated with the landscape and street lighting layouts to maintain
a consistent spacing, Figures 35 and 36.
Figure 35: Typical Collector Street with Continuous Pedestrian Lighting
Figure 36: Typical Collector with Continuous Pedestrian Lighting
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
60'-0"
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median
ROW
Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
COLLECTOR CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:57 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
60'-0"
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median
ROW
Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
COLLECTOR CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:58:57 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
See Intersection Section on page 46 for intersection lighting criteria and luminaire recommendations.
43
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTABLE 31: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
High 50-80 12-15 3,000-5,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
Medium 50-80 12-15 2,000-4,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
44
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
COLLECTOR STREET – NON-CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non-
median lighting layout when designing a collector street with street lighting at intersections and
non-continuous pedestrian lighting. Street luminaires are to be placed at the intersection with
luminaire on half to one mounting height in front of any existing crosswalks. Pedestrian luminaire
should be located to illuminate locations shadowed by trees or at vehicle-pedestrian conflict
points.
Figure 37: Typical Collector Street with Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Plan
Figure 38: : Typical Collector with Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median
Street Width
Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
COLLECTOR NON CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:59:02 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median
Street Width
Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
COLLECTOR NON CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:59:02 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3See Intersections and Crosswalks section on page 14 for intersection lighting criteria and
luminaire recommendations.
45
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTABLE 32: RECOMMENDED COLLECTOR PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE AND POLE SPACING CRITERIA
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
Medium 80-120 12-15 2,500-5,000 Type II or III B1-U2-G1
Low 80-120 12-15 2,500-4,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
46
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
COLLECTOR STREET – STREET LIGHTING AT INTERSECTIONS ONLY
The figures and tables below provide direction on the appropriate luminaire selection and non-
median lighting layout when designing a collector street with street lighting at intersections and
non-continuous pedestrian lighting. Street luminaires are to be placed at the intersection with
luminaire on half to one mounting height in front of any existing crosswalks, Figures 39 and 40.
Figure 39: Typical Collector with Street Lighting at Intersections Only Plan
Figure 40: Typical Collector with Street Lighting at Intersections Only Cross Section
See Intersections & Crosswalks Section on page 14 for intersection lighting criteria and
luminaire recommendations.
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median
Street Width
Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
COLLECTOR STREET INT ONLY
12 TO 1 MOUNTING HEIGHT TO
CENTERLINE OF CROSSWALK
(TYPICAL)
Travel
Lane
℄
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
Striped
Median
Street Width
Travel
Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Travel
Lane
COLLECTOR STREET INT ONLY
47
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSLOCAL STREET – CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING
Figure 41: Typical Local Continuous Street Lighting Layout
Figure 42: Typical Local Continuous Street Lighting Cross Section
Local Continuous Street Lighting
℄
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Street Width
LOCAL CONT STREET LIGHTING
Local Continuous Street Lighting
℄
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Street Width
LOCAL CONT STREET LIGHTING
48
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
TABLE 33: LOCAL STREET TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY ROADWAY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE LUMINANCE (CD/M2)LUMINANCE AVG:MIN RATIO AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 0.6 6:1 1.0
TABLE 34: RECOMMENDED LOCAL STREET LUMINAIRE CRITERIA
STREET WIDTH
(FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
30-50 High
140-180 30 4,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
180-220 30 4,500-7,750 Type II or III B2-U0-G1
50-80 High 120-160 30 4,500-7,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
160-200 30 5,500-8,250 Type II or III B2-U0-G1
49
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSLOCAL STREET – NON-CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING
Figure 43: Typical Local Street with Non-Continuous Street Lighting Plan
Figure 44: Typical Local Street with Non-Continuous Street Lighting Cross Section
Local Non Continuous Street Lighting
℄
Parking &
Travel Lane
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Street Width
LOCAL NON CONT STREET
LIGHTING
Local Non Continuous Street Lighting
℄
Parking &
Travel Lane
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Street Width
LOCAL NON CONT STREET
LIGHTING
TABLE 35: RECOMMENDED LOCAL STREET LUMINAIRE CRITERIA
STREET WIDTH
(FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
30-50 High 280-360 30 4,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
360-440 30 4,500-7,750 Type II or III B2-U0-G1
Medium 320-440 30 4,000-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
50-80 High 240-320 30 4,500-7,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
320-400 30 5,500-8,250 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
Medium 300-400 30 4,500-6,000 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
50
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
LOCAL STREET – NON-CONTINUOUS STREET LIGHTING AND CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
Figure 45: Typical Local Street with Non-Continuous Street and Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Plan
Figure 46: Typical Local Street with Non-Continuous Street and Continuous Ped Lighting Cross Section
Local Non Continuous Street Continuous Ped Lighting
℄
Parking &
Travel Lane
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Street Width
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
LOCAL NON CONT STREET CONT
PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:59:07 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
Local Non Continuous Street Continuous Ped Lighting
℄
Parking &
Travel Lane
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Street Width
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
LOCAL NON CONT STREET CONT
PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:59:07 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
51
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTABLE 38: RECOMMENDED LOCAL PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE CRITERIA
STREET WIDTH
(FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
30-50 High
60-90 12 2,500-4,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
90-120 12 4,000-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
50-80 High 60-90 12 3,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
TABLE 36: LOCAL SIDEWALK TARGET CRITERIA PER IES
RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 1.0
Medium 0.5
TABLE 37: RECOMMENDED LOCAL STREET LUMINAIRE CRITERIA
STREET WIDTH
(FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE SPACING
(FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)
TYPICAL
PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION
MAX. BUG RATING
30-50 High
280-360 30 4,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
360-440 30 4,500-7,750 Type II or III B2-U0-G1
50-80 High 240-320 30 4,500-7,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
320-400 30 5,500-8,250 Type II or III B2-U0-G2
52
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
LOCAL STREET –CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
Figure 47: Typical Local Street with Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Plan
Figure 48: Typical Local Street with Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section
Local Continuous Ped Lighting
36'-0"
℄
Parking &
Travel Lane
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Street Width
LOCAL CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:59:11 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3
Local Continuous Ped Lighting36'-0"
℄
Parking &
Travel Lane
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Street Width
LOCAL CONT PEDZ:\18060 Salt Lake Street Lighting Master Plan\CAD\Roadway plans for masterplan.dwg, 6/17/2020 9:59:11 AM, DWG To PDF.pc3See Intersections and Crosswalks section on page 14 for intersection lighting criteria and
luminaire recommendations.
53
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTABLE 39: LOCAL SIDEWALK TARGET CRITERIA PER IES
RP-8-18
PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY SIDEWALKS
AVERAGE ILLUMINANCE (FC)
High 1.0
Medium 0.5
TABLE 40: RECOMMENDED LOCAL PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE CRITERIA
STREET WIDTH
(FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE
SPACING (FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING
30-50
High 60-90 12 2,500-4,000 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
90-120 12 4,000-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
Medium 60-90 12 2,500-3,500 Type II, III, or IV B1-U0-G1
90-120 12 3,500-5,500 Type II, III, or IV B1-U0-G1
50-80 High 60-90 12 3,500-5,500 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
Medium 60-90 12 4,000-5,550 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
54
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
LOCAL STREET – NON-CONTINUOUS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING
Figure 49: Typical Local Street with Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Plan
Figure 50: Typical Local Street with Non-Continuous Pedestrian Lighting Cross Section
TABLE 41: RECOMMENDED LOCAL PEDESTRIAN LUMINAIRE CRITERIA
STREET WIDTH
(FT)
PEDESTRIAN
ACTIVITY
POLE
SPACING (FT)
POLE HEIGHT
(FT)LUMEN OUTPUT (LM)TYPICAL PHOTOMETRIC
DISTRIBUTION MAX. BUG RATING
30-50 Medium 120-180 12 2,500-3,500 Type II, III, or IV B1-U0-G1
180-240 12 3,500-5,500 Type II, III, or IV B1-U0-G1
Low 120-240 12 2,000-4,000 Type II, III, or IV B1-U0-G1
50-80 Medium 120-180 12 4,000-5,550 Type II or III B1-U0-G1
Low 160-240 12 2,500-4,000 Type II, III or IV B1-U0-G1
See Intersections and Crosswalks section on page 14 for intersection lighting criteria and
luminaire recommendations.
Local Non Continuous Ped Lighting
℄
Parking &
Travel Lane
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Street Width
LOCAL NON CONT PED
Local Non Continuous Ped Lighting
℄
Parking &
Travel Lane
Parking &
Travel Lane
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Sidewalk &
Park Strip
Street Width
LOCAL NON CONT PED
55
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSLOCAL STREET – INTERSECTION ONLY LIGHTING
Figure 51: Typical Local Street Intersection Only Lighting Plan
Figure 52: Typical Local Street with Intersection Only Lighting Cross Section
See Intersections and Crosswalks section on page 14 for intersection lighting criteria and
luminaire recommendations.
56
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
Figure 53: Uncovered Bus Stop Lighting Layout
BUS STOP LIGHTING
UNCOVERED BUS STOP
Uncovered bus stops should be lit by a street luminaire positioned 1/2 to 1 mounting height from
the bus stop in the direction of oncoming traffic. The illuminance criteria at bus stops are found
in Table 42.
Figure 54: Covered Bus Stop Lighting Section
BUS SHELTERS
Bus Shelters criteria are found in Table 42. Vertical illuminance aids in facial recognition and visible
comfort and is to be measured 5 ft. above the ground. Street luminaires within 100 ft of bus
shelters increase ambient light and visual comfort.
TABLE 42: LOCAL SIDEWALK TARGET CRITERIA PER IES RP-8-18
BUS STOP CRITERIA HORIZONTAL ILLUMINANCE (FC) VERTICAL ILLUMINANCE (FC)
Uncovered Bus Stop 1.0 0.2
Covered Bus Stop 1.0 1.0
57
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSMINIMAL IMPROVEMENTS
CONFIRM EXISTING CONDITIONS
Current existing conditions where improvements are being made should be evaluated prior to
beginning lighting improvement design. One-for-one replacements should be done where the
existing lighting strategy meets the required lighting strategy in the Lighting Warrants Table 1-3. If
the existing lighting strategy is appropriate, the spacing of the existing lights should be upgraded
to meet the lumen requirements for the specific type and land use and the necessary infrastructure,
such as wiring, foundation, and poles are all in good condition. If the lighting strategy in the area
requires additional street or pedestrian lights, supplemental improvements will need to be made.
Supplemental improvements may also need to be made if the spacing is not met or there are
infrastructure issues.
SUPPLEMENTAL IMPROVEMENTS
Supplemental improvements entail adding a limited quantity of new street or pedestrian light
locations to the existing lighting system to illuminate any dark areas on the street. If any of
the following conditions exist, then the improvement area should follow the comprehensive
improvement methodology:
• The existing lighting on the block does not meet the lighting strategy in Tables 1-3: Lighting
Warrants and additional pedestrian or streetlights are necessary to comply with the appropriate
lighting strategy.
• Existing street or pedestrian light spacing exceeds two times the recommended value based
on lighting strategy.
• Lighting only exists on one side of the street and does not sufficiently light the whole street.
To maintain consistency in the lighting design, all luminaires used in supplemental improvements
should match the luminaires chosen for 1-for-1 replacements.
ONE-FOR-ONE REPLACEMENT
Salt Lake City is upgrading existing HID lights to new energy efficient LEDs. The new replacement
lights should meet the lighting criteria set forth in the Luminaire Criteria Tables based on street
classification, adjacent land use and pedestrian conflict. The City is also working to upgrade any
previously installed LEDs that are not within the luminaire specification and are causing obtrusive
glare and light trespass to a luminaire that is more appropriate to the specific location. All one-
for-one replacements should match the appreciate color temperature based on adjacent land use
and existing LEDs that do not meet the appropriate CCT should be considered for replacement.
58
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
As part of the lighting upgrades throughout the city, the new LED lights will be compatible with
a city-wide wireless lighting control system. This lighting control system will allow Salt Lake City
to have precise control over each individual light throughout the City, enabling the City to raise or
lower light levels when needed or desired. Dimming strategies will vary throughout the City based
on adjacent land use, pedestrian conflicts, and time of day to ensure vehicle and pedestrian safety
while working to minimize light pollution and light trespass.
When dimming lighting in a certain area, the lighting strategy must be considered, speed limit on the
streets, and vehicle and pedestrian volumes.
• When dimming continuous street or pedestrian lighting, the first strategy is to dim from high
or medium pedestrian criteria to medium or low pedestrian criteria. If continuous lighting
is already in a low pedestrian area, research supports that when using broad spectrum LED
sources, dimming to 70% of current output or lower can still provide sufficient lighting. If the
City is interested in dimming below a low pedestrian criteria for a certain continuously lighted
street, the City should undergo a public engagement pilot study with residents, city council,
police, fire, and the city attorney to further understand the implications of reduced lighting in
the area.
• Along streets with non-continuous street and pedestrian lighting, there is not a required
lighting criteria and lights should be dimmed to comfortable levels while still maintaining the
desired effect of the lighting design.
DIMMING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS:
All street classifications are found in all single-and multi-family residential areas in Salt Lake City.
The Table below summarizes the recommended dimming strategies based on street classification,
and pedestrian conflict.
TABLE 43: RECOMMENDED DIMMING STRATEGIES FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS
ARTERIAL STREET COLLECTOR STREET LOCAL STREET
Multifamily Residential
(Med Ped Conflict)
Dim Street and
Pedestrian Lights to
Low Ped Conflict
Dim Street and
Pedestrian Lights to
Low Ped Conflict
Dim Street and
Pedestrian Lights to Low
Ped Conflict
Single Family Residential
(Low Ped Conflict)
*Dim Street and
Pedestrian Lights to
Comfortable Light
Levels
*Dim Street and
Pedestrian Lights to
Comfortable Light
Levels
*Dim Street and
Pedestrian Lights to
Comfortable Light Levels
* Dimming to comfortable light levels below the Low Pedestrian Criteria requires a public engagement
process.
LIGHTING CONTROLS AND ADAPTIVE DIMMING STRATEGIES
59
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSDIMMING IN DOWNTOWN RESTAURANT/RETAIL ENVIRONMENTS
It is essential to maintain proper light levels based on pedestrian conflict when adjusting light
levels in the downtown. Pedestrian traffic fluctuates based on the night of the week, as well as the
time of day. If an event is happening within a public gathering space or venue, higher pedestrian
volume should be expected, and the recommended dimming strategy should be overruled and
the areas surrounding the event center should be lighted to criteria. The table below shows the
dimming strategies based on night of the week and time of night.
TABLE 44: RECOMMENDED DIMMING STRATEGIES FOR DOWNTOWN
DIMMING STRATEGY
Sunday Night - Wednesday
Night
Dusk to 10PM Light to Criteria
10PM to Midnight Reduce Criteria to a Lower Pedestrian Conflict
Midnight to 2:30AM Reduce Criteria to Low Pedestrian Conflict or
to Comfortable Light Levels
2:30AM to Dawn Reduce Criteria to Low Pedestrian Conflict or
to Comfortable Light Levels
Thursday Night - Saturday
Night
Dusk to 10PM Light to Criteria
10PM to Midnight Reduce Criteria to a Lower Pedestrian Conflict
Midnight to 2:30AM Light to Criteria
2:30AM to Dawn Reduce Criteria to Low Pedestrian Conflict or
to Comfortable Light Levels
* Dimming to comfortable light levels below the Low Pedestrian Criteria requires a public engagement
process
DIMMING INTERSECTION AND MID-BLOCK CROSSINGS
Intersections and mid-block crossing should be dimmed separately from the rest of the streetlights;
however, the same strategy should be used. If the intersection or crossing has less traffic at certain
times throughout the night, the criteria can be reduced to a lower pedestrian conflict criteria. If
further reduction in light levels are desired, a similar public engagement process should be done
to ensure the safety of pedestrians and vehicles at intersection and mid-block crossings.
60
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
LUMINAIRE SPECIFICATIONS
Luminaire specifications are found in Tables 55 & 56
TABLE 55: SPECIFICATION OVERVIEW
CONTROLS ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
Integral 0-10V dimmable drivers to adjust light
levels. All streetlights will be installed with an ANSI
7 pin photocell receptacle to be compatible with
wireless controls in the future.
Single phase 120/240V electrical system
voltage.
LIGHT STANDARD SPECIFICATION LIGHT STANDARD FOUNDATIONS
The light standard - also referred to as the pole -
should be tapered, round galvanized steel with a
12-inch bolt circle. Color match the head and arm of
the pole. Design replacement poles, heads, and/or
arms to match existing color and type of adjacent
poles if appropriate and with written City approval.
City approval of decorative or non-standard poles
is required. Painted over galvanized is required for
any pole requiring color change. All new mast arm
installations are required to be 2, 6, or 10 feet. The
City must approve all poles with banner arms and
power receptacles.
City standard design for all precast concrete
or poured-in-place light standard foundations.
While the City accepts poured-in-place
foundations, precast concrete foundations are
preferred and should be installed whenever
possible.
61
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSTABLE 56: LUMINAIRE SPECIFICATIONS
Correlated Color Temperature
(CCT)3000K Maximum
Color Rendering Index (CRI)≥65 in most areas, or > 40 in Critical Wildlife Habitat
Luminaire Lumen Range
The lumen output should comply with the lumen range specified in the
Recommended Luminaire Criteria Tables based on street classification,
adjacent land use and pedestrian conflict. Criteria for luminaire CCT are
found in Volume 1 Table 5.
Luminaire Finish
Die cast aluminum housing with fade and abrasion resistant polyester
powder coat finish. Finish should match existing color of luminaires along
street.
Luminaire Warranty 10 years on luminaire and components.
Luminaire Warranty Period Earliest warranty period allowed starts on the date of receipt by City.
Luminaire Identification Luminaire external label per ANSI C136.15, and an interior label per ANSI
C136.22 required.
Operation and Storage
Temperature '-40°C to +40°C.
Frequency Vibration 'Luminaire should withstand low and high frequency vibration, per ANSI
C136.31, over the rated life of the light source.
Minimum Rated Life 70,000 hours minimum at 55°C, per IES TM-21
IP rating IP65 or greater.
Voltage 120/277.
Control Dimmable and installed with ANSI 7 pin photo receptacle to be compatible
with wireless luminaires controls in the future.
Cooling System Passive utilizing heat sinks, convection, or conduction. Upper surfaces
required to shed precipitation. Cooling fans are not allowed.
Photocontrol Individual multi-contact 7-pin twist lock receptacle per ANSI C136.41. Or
control module.
Electrical Immunity
Luminaire are required to meet the performance requirements specified
in ANSI C136.2 for dielectric withstand, using the DC test level and
configuration.LUMINAIREPower Factor (PF)Minimum of 0.9 at full input power.
Total Harmonic Distortion (THD)Maximum of 20 percent at full input power.
Restriction of Hazardous
Substances (RoHS)Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) compliant drivers required.
Surge Protection
Protection from all electrical surges with an elevated electrical immunity
rating, including but not limited to lightning strikes and stray current in rebar
and concrete required for all LEDs. Integral surge protection to the LED
power supply required.
“Elevated” (10kV/10kA) requirements per IEEE/ANSI C62.41.2 for luminaire.
Manufacturer indication of failure of the electrical immunity system can
possibly result in disconnect of power to luminaire required.
Total Power Consumed in Off
State Maximum 8 watt off-state power consumption for luminaire, including driver.
Electromagnetic interference
Electromagnetic interference: Compliance with Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) 47 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 15 non-
consumer radio frequency interference (RFI) and/or electromagnetic
interference (EMI) standards.LED DRIVERS
62
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
LIGHTING CALCULATIONS
PURPOSE
Lighting design calculations for new installations is an iterative process. The use of lighting models
to calculate the luminance along streets and illuminance on sidewalks is the most efficient and
accurate way to design to criteria. Light trespass calculations should also be included to limit the
amount of obtrusive light in the City. This section describes the required calculations to ensure
that all criteria is met for all new installations.
HOW TO SET UP A CALCULATION
The following sections document the parameters and considerations when calculating street
lighting levels.
IES FILES
The first step in running a calculation is to find and download the photometric in IES file format
for the specific luminaire being considered. This file is available on the manufacturer’s website and
can be downloaded into any lighting calculation simulation software. The IES file will contain all
information for the luminaire, such as lumen output, color temperature, wattage, distribution, and
voltage.
LIGHT LOSS FACTOR FOR LED
A light loss factor should be applied to every luminaire considered, to ensure that the maintained
light levels will meet the target criteria. Table 57, below, lists typical light loss factors for LEDs and
legacy products found throughout Salt Lake City.
TABLE 57: TYPICAL LIGHT LOSS FACTORS
LIGHT SOURCE LUMINAIRE DIRT DEPRECIATION
(LDD)
LUMINAIRE LUMEN
DEPRECIATION (LLD)
TOTAL LIGHT LOSS FACTOR
(LLF)
LED 0.9 0.97 0.818
HPS 0.9 0.9 0.81
MH 0.9 0.7 0.63
HPS: High Pressure Sodium
MH: Metal Halide
7 Use 0.9 or LM value provided by the Manufacturer at 60,000 hours, if L70 is greater than 100,000 hours
8 If using an LM value provided by the Manufacturer, the Total LLF is equal to 0.9 x LM60,000hr
63
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSLUMINANCE AND ILLUMINANCE CALCULATIONS
Calculations should be done in AGi32, DIALux, Visual, or comparable software, and include the
following calculation grids:
• ROADWAY LUMINANCE
- A calculation grid is required for every lane of traffic and oriented in the direction of travel
spaced 10’ OC along each lane, with two points across each lane.
- Every section of roadway where criteria changes requires a separate calculation grid.
• INTERSECTION ILLUMINANCE
- Intersection calculations done using horizontal illuminance grids that include the whole
intersection, as well as all crosswalks associated with the intersections. Calculation points
placed in a 5’x5’ grid.
• SIDEWALK ILLUMINANCE
- Horizontal sidewalk illuminance grids placed on all sidewalks, spaced every 5’-10’ OC along
the sidewalk with two points across the sidewalk.
• LIGHT TRESPASS ILLUMINANCE
- Light trespass grids located 5’ past the edge of ROW, into private property. Light trespass
grids placed 5’ AFF, oriented toward the street with calculation points every 5’-10’ OC.
- Light trespass calculation grids separated based on adjacent land use. If the project goes from
a residential area to a commercial area, a separate light trespass calculation grid required for
each section of the project.
- If a structure is within 5’ from the property line, light trespass grid to be placed on the
structure, 5’ AFF.
- Light trespass values should not exceed the following:
• Single Family Residential, Multifamily Residential, Industrial and Open Space properties:
0.1FC MAXIMUM.
- If this criteria is not feasible with proper shielding and distribution, a variance
may be considered to allow up to 0.2Fc Maximum light trespass in residential
areas. Designer will be required to submit a narrative describing the efforts to
control light trespass to the City Engineer.
• Commercial, Restaurant/Retail/Civic, and Mixed-use Residential properties: 0.3FC
MAXIMUM
• CROSSWALK VERTICAL ILLUMINANCE
- Vertical illuminance grids are required in all crosswalks at 5’ AFF, and oriented toward
oncoming traffic (See Figure 55). Calculation points should be located along the center line
of each crosswalk, placed every 5’ OC.
64
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSSALT LAKE CITY STREET LIGHTING MASTER PLAN // VOLUME 2
Designers submissions to the City should include a calculation summary table for each calculation
grid and include the average illuminance or luminance, maximum illuminance or luminance,
minimum illuminance or luminance, and Avg:Min ratio. Calculated values may vary from criteria by
no more than 10% above or below.
Figure 55: Horizontal Intersection Illuminance Grid
Figure 56: Vertical Intersection Illuminance Grid
65
LIGHTING DESIGN PROCESSFigure 57: Roadway, Sidewalk, and Light Trespass Calculation Grid Setup
International Dark-Sky Association
5049 E. Broadway Blvd., #105,
Tucson, AZ 85711 USA
tel +1.520.293.3198
www.darksky.org
Executive Director: Ruskin Hartley
Emeritus Director: David L. Crawford, Ph.D.
Board of Directors: Diane Knutson, President, USA • Kellie Pendoley, Vice President, Australia • Kim Patten, Treasurer, USA • Ken Kattner, Secretary, USA •
Laurel Alyn-Forest, USA • Alejandro Sanchez Miguel, Spain
August 16, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
Salt Lake City Council
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-5476
Re: Street Lighting Master Plan
Dear Chair Fowler and Councilmembers:
The International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) is the recognized authority on light pollution and is
the leading organization combating light pollution worldwide. We advocate for a future in which
the night sky, filled with stars, is celebrated and protected around the world as shared heritage
benefitting all living things. Protecting nighttime darkness and promoting quality outdoor lighting
practices have distinct benefits for wildlife, human health and wellbeing, energy security, and pub-
lic safety.
Our vision is encapsulated in Values-Centered Outdoor Lighting (https://www.darksky.org/our-
work/lighting/values-centered-outdoor-lighting/), a resolution adopted by our Board of Directors in
January 2021. These values are in turn described by the Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor
Lighting (https://www.darksky.org/our-work/lighting/lighting-principles/) jointly promoted by IDA
and the Illuminating Engineering Society (IES):
1. All light should have a clear purpose
2. Light should be directed only where needed
3. Light should be no brighter than necessary
4. Light should be used only when it is useful
5. Use warmer color lights whenever possible
IDA supports the draft Street Lighting Master Plan that currently under consideration by the Salt
Lake City Council. We find it to be consistent with both Values-Centered Outdoor Lighting and the
Five Principles. It contains the best practices that we encourage for all jurisdictions, and if adopted
it would set a new standard for street lighting plans for large cities.
In particular, the IDA commends specific policy elements of the plan that give it flexibility while not
compromising on core principles. These elements include:
• A flexible approach to allow illumination levels below IES recommendations that en-
courages dimming strategies based on community engagement and that benefits
both dark skies and wildlife (Principles 3 and 4).
• Use of zones for maximum permissible Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) values
that limit 3000 kelvin (K) lighting to commercial zones; sets 2700 K as the maximum
for residential zones without commercial elements; and establishes 2200 K as a
maximum in open space and the industrial zones, which happen to be near sensitive
natural resources in and near the city (Principle 5).
• Inclusion of policy goals to minimize impacts on wildlife and to balance energy effi-
ciency with human and environmental health needs (Principle 1).
• A commitment to shielding decorative street lighting to eliminate uplight (Principles 1
and 2).
• Specific commitment to reduce the obtrusive effects of light at night, including light
trespass onto private property, light pollution affecting the region, and glare that re-
duces visibility and nighttime safety and comfort (Principle 2).
Municipal lighting systems represent a large component of the light pollution generated by cities in
the United States. This plan, when implemented, will reduce light pollution from Salt Lake City and
make it a leader in this field.
We have experience with the successful LED streetlight conversion of Tucson, Arizona, that
measurably decreased the city’s light emissions (see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/arti-
cle/abs/pii/S0022407317308178). Appropriate technology and lighting design approaches are
available to upgrade street lighting systems, reduce energy consumption, and limit the adverse
impacts of excessive artificial light at night. The Salt Lake City plan goes a step further to incorpo-
rate 2200 K lighting in some areas, and offers flexibility to choose lower CCTs in residential and
commercial areas. This plan would put Salt Lake City at the vanguard of outdoor lighting best
practices among world municipalities.
Given the above considerations, we urge the City to adopt the Street Lighting Master Plan.
Yours sincerely,
John C. Barentine, Ph.D.
Director of Conservation
cc: Salt Lake City Council
Hon. Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
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
MOTION SHEET
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM:City Council Staff
DATE:December 14, 2021
RE:Resolution: Extension of Declaration of Local Emergency: COVID-19
MOTION 1
I move the Council adopts the resolution approving the extension of emergency
declaration Proclamation B of 2021 from the date of this Resolution until March
28, 2022, unless later extended or terminated by subsequent resolution of the
Council or unless terminated pursuant to State law.
MOTION 2
I move that the Council not adopt the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. ____ OF 2021
Extension of Declaration of Local Emergency: COVID-19
WHEREAS, under Utah Code 53-2a-208, the chief executive of a municipality may
declare a local emergency, which local emergency may remain in effect for up to 30 days.
WHEREAS, under Utah Code 53-2a-208(6), any extension of the local emergency beyond
the initial 30 days must be with the consent of the governing body of the municipality.
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2021, Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall issued a
Declaration of Local Emergency and Exercise of Emergency Powers No. B of 2021 in response to
the resurgence of the highly transmissible Delta variant of the COVID-19 virus in Salt Lake City
(“Proclamation B of 2021”).
WHEREAS, the City Council extended Proclamation B of 2021 on September 14, 2021
and on October 12, 2021.
WHEREAS, based on the rising cases of the Delta and Omicron variants of COVID-19,
the increase of hospitalizations and ICU utilization in the State related to COVID-19, and the high
transmissibility of the Delta and Omicron variants, the City Council has determined that extending
the duration of the local emergency again is in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare
of Salt Lake City’s residents.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, the
following:
1. The Council approves the extension of Proclamation B of 2021 from the date of
this Resolution until March 28, 2022, unless later extended or terminated by subsequent resolution
of the Council or unless terminated pursuant to State law.
2. Prior to the issuance of any proclamation exercising emergency powers under
Proclamation B of 2021, the Mayor shall provide written notification to the Council of: (a) the
specific powers the Mayor intends to exercise; (b) the justification for exercising such powers in
connection with the local emergency; and (c) the anticipated effect of the exercise of such powers,
including the anticipated cost or lost revenue to the City.
3. At any Council meeting while the local emergency is still in effect, the Council may
seek additional information from the Mayor, including the actual effect of the exercise of any
emergency powers and the actual costs or lost revenue to the City due to such exercise of powers.
4. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this 14th day of December, 2021.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
___________________________________
Amy Fowler, Chair
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
________________________
Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder
Approved as to form:
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
__________________________
Katherine Lewis, City Attorney
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
______________________________ Date Received: 10/19/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 10/19/2021
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 10/19/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Art Design Advisory Board.
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Art Design Advisory Board.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Michael Mejia as a member of
the Art Design Advisory Board.
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
October 19, 2021
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Fowler,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Art Design Advisory
Board.
Michael Mejia - to be appointed for a three year term starting from the date of City Council advice
and consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
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
______________________________ Date Received: 11/2/2021
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 11/2/2021
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 11/2/2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Business Advisory Board
STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan
jessi.eagan@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Business Advisory Board.
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Andy Robertson as a member of
the Business Advisory Board.
/
( )
,,,,,,,11111 ,,.,,,'
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
November 2, 2021
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Fowler,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Business Advisory Board.
Andy Robertson - to be appointed for a four year term ending December 29, 2025 starting from the
date of City Council advice and consent.
I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment.
Respectfully,
Erin Mendenhall, Mayor
Cc: File
.. Ji. ..
'•
/ ;\
trfj
\ .. l
,,,,, u111 ,v·'
DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ERIN MENDENHALL
MAYOR
BEN KOLENDAR
DIRECTOR
TO: Mayor Mendenhall
FROM: Roberta Reichgelt, Salt Lake City Economic Development
RE: Business Advisory Board Appointment Recommendation
Dear Mayor Mendenhall:
The Department of Economic Development would like to recommend Andy Robertson, Vice President of
Business Development at IONIQ Sciences/Prolung, Inc. for a nonvoting/ex-oficio member position on the
Business Advisory Board. The reason we are requesting ex-oficio position is because Mr. Robertson is not
the owner of the company as required in the BAB ordinance. As the Tech/Life Sciences Industry has
become a priority for the Mayor’s Office it is integral that there this industry representation on the BAB as
he would bring a unique perspective on this industry. Andy has been in the Life Sciences industry most of
his career and is poised to represent the other Life Sciences companies located in Northgate Business
Center, SLC’s hub for the Life Sciences community. This supports the efforts of the Economic Development
Department and Mayor’s 2021 goals to drive forward Tech Lake City and BioHive initiatives and pursue
additional partnership opportunities to further grow and expand the life sciences industry.
He is willing to give extra time on the Board to attend City Council meetings and understand what issues
coming through the Council may impact the business community and will lend his voice in relevant public
meetings.
We strongly support Andy’s application to the Business Advisory Board. Please find enclosed his
application and resume. Please feel free to reach out if you have any further questions.
Sincerely,
Roberta Reichgelt
Director of Business Development
Liaison to the Business Advisory Board
Salt Lake City Department of Economic Development
801-535-7694
Roberta.reichgelt@slcgov.com
.......... ,
..............
,
-:,.,,, ,_.,$
,,,,,,,,,,,.11,,,,,,, ........
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238
PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
MARY BETH THOMPSON
Chief Financial Officer
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
___________________________________ Date Received: ________________
Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: December 9, 2021
Amy Fowler, Chair
FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer
SUBJECT: Budget Amendment #5
SPONSOR: NA
STAFF CONTACT: John Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or
Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403
DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that, subsequent to a public hearing,
the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2021-22 adopted budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
REVENUE EXPENSE
GENERAL FUND $ 400,000.00 $ 400,000.00
MISCELLANEOUS GRANT FUND 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00
TOTAL $ 3,400,000.00 $ 3,400,000.00
Lisa Shaffer (Dec 9, 2021 13:09 MST)
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
Revenue for FY 2021-22 Budget Adjustments
Because the fiscal year just started the Fiscal Year 2022 projections are at budget. The following
chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2022.
Projections for fiscal year 2021 are coming in better than expected, more detail will be shared as
the audit progresses.
Given the available information fund balance would be projected as follows:
With no additional use of fund balance from this budget amendment fund balance remains at 12.86%.
FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL
Beginning Fund Balance 6,625,050 82,617,126 89,242,176 7,018,483 50,124,619 57,143,102
Budgeted Change in Fund Balance 2,924,682 (7,810,302) (4,885,620) (4,759,137) (19,471,917) (24,231,054)
Prior Year Encumbrances (3,733,743) (6,165,453) (9,899,196) - - -
Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 5,815,989 68,641,371 74,457,360 2,259,346 30,652,702 32,912,048
Beginning Fund Balance Percent 16.62%23.32%22.61%5.60%9.64%9.18%
Year End CAFR Adjustments
Revenue Changes - - - - - -
Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) - (5,676,583) (5,676,583) 5,759,137 7,652,037 13,411,174
Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 5,815,989 62,964,788 68,780,777 8,018,483 38,304,739 46,323,222
Final Fund Balance Percent 16.62%21.39%20.88%19.87%12.05%12.93%
Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance
BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - - - 5,138,235 5,138,235
BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - - - 490,847 490,847
BA#2 Expense Adjustment - (288,488) (288,488) - (986,298) (986,298)
BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (6,239,940) (6,239,940) (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (2,000,000)
BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - - - - 1,772,794 1,772,794
BA#4 Expense Adjustment - - - - (4,657,529) (4,657,529)
BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - (242,788) (242,788) - 400,000 400,000
BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (2,783,685) (2,783,685) - (400,000) (400,000)
BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (63,673) (63,673) - - -
BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - 540,744 540,744 - - -
BA#7 Expense Adjustment - (6,582,824) (6,582,824) - - -
BA#8 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - -
BA#8 Expense Adjustment (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (2,000,000) - - -
BA#9 Revenue Adjustment - 439,809 439,809 - - -
BA#9 Expense Adjustment - 362,532 1,555,532 - - -
Change in Revenue 2,202,494 3,018,144 5,220,638 - - -
Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - - - - - -
- - Adjusted Fund Balance 7,018,483 50,124,619 58,336,102 7,018,483 39,062,788 46,081,271
Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 20.05%17.03%17.71%17.39%12.28%12.86%
Projected Revenue 35,000,000 294,345,168 329,345,168 40,359,137 317,980,599 358,339,736
2021 Projection 2022 Projection
Fund Balance Projections
The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $3,400,000.00 of revenue and
expense of $3,400,000.00. The amendment proposes changes in two funds, with no additional
funding from the General Fund fund balance. The proposal includes two initiatives for Council
review.
A summary spreadsheet document, outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The
Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council.
The budget opening is separated in eight different categories:
A. New Budget Items
B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources
C. Grants for New Staff Resources
D. Housekeeping Items
E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
F. Donations
G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards
I. Council Added Items
PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. ______ of 2021
Fifth amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including
the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2021-2022
In June of 2021, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City,
Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1,
2021 and ending June 30, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the
Utah Code.
The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with
the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments
to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically
stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and
inspection by the public.
All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing
document as provided above, have been accomplished.
Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of
Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized
by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2021.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes
specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the
same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the
amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning
2
July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128
of the Utah Code.
SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is
authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including
amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in
the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2021.
________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________
Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed
_________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. _________ of 2021.
Published: ___________________.
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Approved As To Form
Senior City Attorney
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
1 Salt Lake County Police Services Contract at
Homeless Resource Centers
GF 400,000.00 400,000.00 One-time -
1 COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant
for the Switchpoint Hotel Project
Misc Grants 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 One-time -
-
Consent Agenda #3
Total of Budget Amendment Items 3,400,000.00 3,400,000.00 - - -
Initiative Number/Name Fund
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Revenue
Amount
Expenditure
Amount
Ongoing or One-
time FTEs
Total by Fund Class, Budget Amendment #6:
General Fund GF 400,000.00 400,000.00 - - -
Miscellaneous Grants Fund Misc Grants 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 - - -
- - -
Total of Budget Amendment Items 3,400,000.00 3,400,000.00 - - -
Administration Proposed Council Approved
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #5
Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed
Section I: Council Added Items
Section A: New Items
Section D: Housekeeping
Section F: Donations
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
1
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #5
Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only
FY 2021-22 Budget, Including Budget Amendments
FY 2021-22
Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total
^^ Total Through
BA#5 ^^
General Fund (FC 10)367,582,070 (5,138,235.00) 986,298.00 2,000,000.00 4,657,529.00 400,000.00 370,487,662.00
Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00
DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)2,033,573 2,033,573.00
Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,550,000 1,550,000.00
Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,699,663 7,098.00 5,706,761.00
Water Fund (FC 51)127,365,555 460,716.00 18,118.00 127,844,389.00
Sewer Fund (FC 52)268,213,796 221,826.00 7,941.00 268,443,563.00
Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,201,013 19,705.00 2,278.00 19,222,996.00
Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)706,792,500 1,350,949.00 39,790.00 708,183,239.00
Refuse Fund (FC 57)24,713,505 36,538.00 4,109.00 24,754,152.00
Golf Fund (FC 59)9,697,417 19,649.00 88,749.00 1,802,257.00 11,608,072.00
E-911 Fund (FC 60)4,056,856 4,056,856.00
Fleet Fund (FC 61)28,090,576 18,999.00 112,646.00 423,258.00 28,645,479.00
IMS Fund (FC 65)24,302,487 219,193.00 135,492.00 24,657,172.00
County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for
Transportation (FC 69)
5,307,142 5,307,142.00
CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,341,332 5,341,332.00
Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)18,684,617 10,427,551.76 1,522,743.00 15,751,215.48 3,000,000.00 49,386,127.24
Other Special Revenue (FC 73)273,797 273,797.00
Donation Fund (FC 77)2,752,565 2,752,565.00
Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)16,121,000 - 16,121,000.00
Debt Service Fund (FC 81)31,850,423 26,165,000.00 58,015,423.00
CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,503,216 (150,753.00) 23,400,000.00 52,752,463.00
Governmental Immunity (FC 85)2,933,913 24,843.00 2,958,756.00
Risk Fund (FC 87)52,939,489 19,705.00 212,897.00 53,172,091.00
Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,755,009,505 7,688,537.76 2,559,683.00 2,000,000.00 72,619,884.48 3,400,000.00 1,843,277,610.24
Budget Manager
Analyst, City Council
Contingent Appropriation
2
Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #5
Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount
1
Section A: New Items
A-1: Salt Lake County Police Services at Homeless Resource
Centers Contract
GF $400,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk / Mary Beth Thompson
For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mike Brown, Andrew Johnston, Mary Beth
Thompson, John Vuyk
The Administration received notification of funding for increased public safety costs for the areas surrounding the
homeless resource centers. Salt Lake County and the City have entered into a contract for an additional $400,000 of
County funding to support the City in additional public safety costs associated with the homeless resource centers. The
contract runs through April 30, 2022. Funding will be placed in the Police Department to cover additional overti me costs.
Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources
Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources
Section D: Housekeeping
Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources
E-1: COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant for the
Switchpoint Hotel Project
Misc Grants $3,000,000.00
Department: Finance Prepared By: Randy Hillier / Mary Beth Thompson
For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk, Elizabeth Gerhart, Melyn Osmond
The Mayor’s Office submitted a grant for $3,000,000 from the COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program. The
grant application was for the Point Hotel project. The Administration has received notification that the grant will be
awarded. The Amendment requests recognition of the grant funding.
The project proposes to change the ownership and repurposes the use of the existing Airport Inn from a traditional hotel to
approximately 100 units of extended stay housing for adults over 55 years of age and veterans experiencing or at risk of
homelessness. The 501c(3) non-profit, Friends of Switchpoint, will own and operate the Point Hotel.
Salt Lake City committed a $2,250,000 match for the project to increase the competitiveness of the application. The
sources of the match funds are:
− $2,000,000 from Salt Lake City General Fund approved in Budget Amendment No 8. FY2020 -2021
− $250,000 from the Friends of Switchpoint for renovation and remodeling to the facilit y.
Section F: Donations
Section G: Consent Agenda
Section I: Council Added Items
Impact Fees ‐ Summary Confidential
Data pulled 10/29/2021
Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area
Area Cost Center UnAllocated
Cash Notes:
Impact fee - Police 8484001 415,503$ A
Impact fee - Fire 8484002 1,487,183$ B
Impact fee - Parks 8484003 8,948,216$ C
Impact fee - Streets 8484005 6,101,644$ D
16,952,545$
Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month
202007 (Jul2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202008 (Aug2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202009 (Sep2020)2021Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202010 (Oct2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202011 (Nov2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202012 (Dec2020)2021Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202101 (Jan2021)2021Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202102 (Feb2021)2021Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202103 (Mar2021)2021Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202104 (Apr2021)2021Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202105 (May2021)2021Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202106 (Jun2021)2021Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202107 (Jul2021)2022Q1 (0)$ -$ -$ -$ (0)$
202108 (Aug2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202109 (Sep2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month
202110 (Oct2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202111 (Nov2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202112 (Dec2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202201 (Jan2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202202 (Feb2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202203 (Mar2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202204 (Apr2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202205 (May2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202206 (Jun2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202305 (May2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total, Currently Expiring through June 2021 0$ -$ -$ -$ 0$ FY 2023Calendar
Month
Fiscal Year 2021FY 2022Fiscal
Quarter
E = A + B + C + D
Police Fire Parks Streets
Total
Impact Fees Confidential
Data pulled 10/29/2021 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC
Police
Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Description Cost Center
Sum of Police Allocation
Budget Amended
Sum of Police Allocation
Encumbrances Sum of Police Allocation YTD Expenditures
Sum of Police Allocation
Remaining Appropriation
Public Safety Building Replcmn 8405005 14,068$ 14,068$ -$ 0$
Police Impact Fee Refunds 8421102 338,448$ -$ 60,722$ 277,727$
Sugarhouse Police Precinct 8417016 10,331$ 10,331$ -$ -$
Police Refunds 8418013 -$ -$ (3,588)$ 3,588$
PolicePrecinctLandAquisition 8419011 239,836$ 239,836$ -$ -$
Eastside Precint 8419201 21,639$ 21,639$ -$ -$
Police'sConsultant'sContract 8419205 3,565$ -$ 3,565$ -$
ReimbExcessPoliceCapacity IF 8422800 1,898,497$ -$ 1,898,497$ -$ A
Grand Total 2,526,385$ 285,875$ 1,959,195$ 281,315$
Fire
Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Study for Fire House #3 8413001 15,700$ -$ -$ 15,700$
Fire Station #3 8415002 1,568$ -$ -$ 1,568$
Fire Station #3 8416009 565$ 96$ -$ 469$
Fire Station #14 8415001 6,083$ 6,083$ -$ -$
Fire Station #14 8416006 44,612$ -$ -$ 44,612$
Fire refunds 8416007 82,831$ -$ -$ 82,831$
Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 4,941$ 3,021$ 1,862$ 58$
FY20 FireTrainingFac. 8420431 56,031$ -$ -$ 56,031$ B
Grand Total 212,331$ 9,200$ 1,862$ 201,268$
Parks
Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
9line park 8416005 21,958$ 19,702$ -$ 2,256$
Park refunds 8416008 11,796$ -$ -$ 11,796$
Parks and Public Lands Compreh 8417008 7,500$ -$ -$ 7,500$
Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,094,430$ 9,402$ 24,821$ 1,060,208$
Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$
Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,110$ -$ -$ 1,110$ C
Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$
Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$
Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 1,570$ -$ -$ 1,570$
Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 23,530$ 23,000$ -$ 530$
Fairmont Park Lighting Impr 8418004 49,752$ 6,000$ 37,597$ 6,155$
Bridge to Backman 8418005 290,276$ 10,285$ 4,515$ 275,475$
ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 10,830$ -$ -$ 10,830$
Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 4,857$ 2,596$ 2,219$ 42$
Fisher Carriage House 8420130 1,098,764$ 1,038,968$ 59,796$ -$
Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 20,411$ -$ 20,411$ -$
Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 431,000$ -$ -$ 431,000$
9Line Orchard 8420136 195,045$ 32,650$ -$ 162,395$
Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 12,795$ 4,328$ -$ 8,467$
JR Boat Ram 8420144 15,561$ 6,378$ -$ 9,183$
Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 489,688$ 64,333$ -$ 425,355$
Pioneer Park 8419150 3,343,904$ 169,077$ 59,946$ 3,114,882$
UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 135,084$ 21,169$ 1,355$ 112,560$
Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 388,477$ 92,174$ 30,958$ 265,346$
Cnty #2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 88$ -$ 88$ -$
FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 722,920$ 571,809$ 3,343$ 147,769$
IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 58,014$ 1,905$ -$ 56,109$
Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 523,889$ 287,290$ 8,852$ 227,746$
Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 224,247$ 173,467$ 34,134$ 16,646$
Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ -$ 275,000$
Parks Impact Fee Refunds 8418015 101,381$ -$ -$ 101,381$
Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$
GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,200,000$ -$ -$ 3,200,000$
Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 610,000$ -$ -$ 610,000$
Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 420,000$ -$ -$ 420,000$
SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$ -$ -$ 1,304,682$
SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 425,000$ -$ -$ 425,000$
Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 510,000$ -$ -$ 510,000$
RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 180,032$ -$ -$ 180,032$
Grand Total 16,694,447$ 2,534,534$ 288,033$ 13,871,881$
Streets
Allocation Budget
Amended
Allocation
Encumbrances YTD Expenditures
Allocation
Remaining
Appropriation
Values
Gladiola Street 8406001 16,109$ 13,865$ -$ 2,244$
500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 32,718$ 16,691$ 16,027$ -$
Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$
700 South Reconstruction 8415004 2,449$ -$ 2,449$ -$
1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$
Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 1,444$ -$ -$ 1,444$
500 to 700 S 8418016 96,637$ 22,744$ 73,893$ -$
9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 152,500$ 139,280$ 13,220$ -$ D
Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 200,000$ -$ 12,484$ 187,516$
Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 35,392$ -$ -$ 35,392$
Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 95,653$ 44,088$ 50,864$ 700$
Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ 13,000$ -$ -$
Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 29,817$ 17,442$ -$ 12,374$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 221,688$ 10,244$ 7,033$ 204,411$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8420105 300,000$ 300,000$ -$ -$
Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 875,000$ -$ -$ 875,000$
Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 58,780$ 20,697$ -$ 38,083$
Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 2,250,220$ 290,460$ 1,216,451$ 743,309$
TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 302,053$ -$ -$ 302,053$
IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$
200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 37,422$ -$ -$ 37,422$
900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$ -$ -$ 28,000$
Local Link Construction IF 8422606 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$
Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ -$ -$ 25,398$
400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$
Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$
900 S Signal Improvements IF 8422615 70,000$ -$ -$ 70,000$
Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$
Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 44,400$ -$ -$ 44,400$
1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$
Grand Total 5,967,404$ 888,511$ 1,392,421$ 3,686,472$
Total 25,400,567$ 3,718,120$ 3,641,511$ 18,040,936$
E = A + B + C + D
TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE
8,948,216$
6,101,644$
16,952,545$
8484002
8484003
8484005
415,503$
$1,487,183
8484001
UnAllocated
Budget
Amount
fW;4
tell
��`"f "�"'w
AeXte
4F
'Ale-
d -�t.1i �
4t4,.oc --e4 cu" c, Ice
\ ,0 1 `,
4d �AvAc�,d ;6 Y oo,,likov�;vz.e�
71,14
o
cmd ovke, �'
N L"-)<-` )( qf O�VtOl V5�
I w^ ►� ' VU,t, /V1 OCc UTt'u i
p-o s , wince
V � �r ► :'em s �� S,O? 4-wA, we csw �/G �
ov to e S-Covp2,e, ek r\ -Z-'k""-a
C-0—
OL
-4�
CA,
Ct L-o
V� CAJ 40, (�,I_ (,A
CA
0 V)p
40
03 10 rvN-
4c�
LQ
Date/Time Opened Popular Topic Contact Name
12/8/2021 8:43 Bueno Ave Rezone Cindy Cromer
12/8/2021 14:21 Salt Lake Mutual Aid
12/8/2021 15:42 Devin Asher Vernick
12/8/2021 23:13 Bueno Ave Rezone Sandrine McDonald
12/8/2021 23:15 Bueno Ave Rezone Judith Rubadue
12/8/2021 23:18 Bueno Ave Rezone Tim Funk
12/8/2021 23:28 Bueno Ave Rezone Rich Wilcox
12/10/2021 9:05 Devin Asher Vernick
12/13/2021 11:29 Christy Clay
12/13/2021 18:23 Mask Mandate in Schools Colleen Santelli
12/13/2021 18:24 Mask mandate Michele Tuckness
12/13/2021 18:26 Bueno Ave Rezone Mel Martinez
12/14/2021 10:07 Kelsey Maas
Comment Attachments
Members of the City Council- I have already sent you the comments I wrote
for the Planning Commission when the motion on Bueno was recalled in July.
You received them at the time of your Work Session on this proposal. Since
then, Jen Colby and I have written a summary of the unresolved issues. We
have had the privilege of talking with Council Members Valdemoros and
Wharton and hope to talk to the rest of you prior to your decision. Tonight I
want to respond to the question that some of you have articulated: Why were
there 2 hearings at the Planning Commission and why did the
recommendation change? You received a response from Planning staff at the
Work Session. It did not do justice to what happened. It was far more
complicated than "different members of the Commission showed up in
September." You have all of the data in this e mail, with my thanks to the
AMAZING Aubrey Clark who handled the minutes for the 3 meetings of the
Planning Commission. On June 23, the Commission held the hearing on 4
proposals associated with the site. Regarding the 2 before you now, there
were two people in favor, one of them the seller, and 9 people opposed. The
Commission voted 4 to 2 in favor of the zoning change and master plan
amendment (In Favor: Lyon, Bachman, Barry, Lee / Opposed: Paredes, Young-
Otterstrom) On July 14, the Commission had to recall the vote from June and
voted unanimously to do so, 6-0. Later in that meeting, the Commission had to
recall the earlier recall and vote to recall again because of a procedural error.
That vote was also unanimous. There were no public comments, of course. On
September 8, the Commission held another public hearing on the master plan
amendment and zoning change. This time 4 people spoke in favor and 18
people spoke against the proposals. The first motion to support the requests
resulted in a 2-2 vote and Chairperson Scheer broke the tie by voting against
the motion. It failed 2-3. The motion against the proposal was also a 2 to 2
vote, again with Chairperson Scheer breaking the tie (In Favor of a negative
recommendation: Bachman, Hoskins, Scheer / Opposed: Barry, Lee) At the
second hearing, twice as many people showed up to support and oppose the
l l i i 4 d 18 l i l A d C i i
Thank you so much Sarah for getting this conversation started. And thank you
for such a detailed history of this project and the hurdles we have faced thus
far. The only things I would add to your summary above are the following: -
the fridge in its current location is far less accessible to the community. This, in
our opinion, has contributed to the decline in use it has seen over the past 7
days since it was moved (for comparison, before the move and elimination of
pantry shelves, the fridge was rotating upwards of $350 worth of groceries per
week. This past week has probably seen about $30 worth of groceries taken by
the community - over 90% reduction in use). - we would love to help in any
way we can to amend the current code to both legally sustain the current
fridge, and to create the structure necessary for additional community fridge
networks in SLC. Since the fridge has come up, we have received messages
from other groups, businesses, and individuals hoping to start their own
fridge. Food insecurity is a real issue in so many neighborhoods in SLC.
Community fridges help to close the gap that food pantries, as well
intentioned as they are, will never 100% be able to meet (for a variety of
reasons that we are happy to go into if you like). They also encourage
community care amongst neighbors. It is our firm belief that the city
government should be directing their efforts into encouraging mutual aid
efforts which help solve food insecurity instead of expending time and
resources to actively oppose them (as is happening with our fridge). Sarah
Gronlund (the homeowner currently hosting the fridge) let us know that she
had spoken to you both (Victoria & Chris) on Sunday, and that several options
were proposed, including moving the fridge to a public space such as a library
or community center. We would love to chat more about this possibility, and
would be happy to help facilitate communications between local libraries
and/or community centers to see if this could be a feasible option Please let us
know any ways in which we can help facilitate change to the current zoning
laws and work together to help address food insecurity in Salt Lake City!
Regards, Salt Lake Community Mutual Aid Good Afternoon, Victoria and Chris:
i S h ll d d id ( li h h f SLC City Council, During the heavy rainstorm of October 25, a large gully
developed on the western side of City Creek, cutting across the recently built
City Creek Loop Trail and undercutting Bonneville Blvd. Estimated to be 12
feet wide, 12 feet deep, and extending 40 feet downslope, this wash-out
rendered Bonneville Blvd unsafe for cars, bicycles, and pedestrians; half of the
road had to be closed to all traffic. On November 19, the Public Lands
Department released an e-newsletter and Instagram message stating: “The
trail was impacted but was not a contributing factor to the cause of the
washout.” This is a verifiably false statement. In fact, the poorly planned and
shoddily built City Creek Loop trail, constructed just below Bonneville Blvd,
was directly responsible for the washout and gully that undercut the road. As
a citizen, like many, who values our precious natural resources, please hold
those parties responsible who carelessly implement construction in our
foothills. Please advocate for our natural ecosystem and the trails you/we/us
appreciate. Thank you, Devin Vernick District 5
Please ban the Bueno project.
Hello City Council members, I have lived on 200 South down from the U for 28
years. The neighborhood is half rentals and half owner occupied, we are lucky
to have all religions, older and younger folks, families with young kids, all
professions, a mix, too many short stay rentals, etc. Down to business, Bueno
from 7th to 8th east is a promising opportunity. Plenty of room to grow
including permitted redevelopment within current zoning allowed under the
Central Community Master Plan. Please do not grant the requested
"Upzoning." Thank you for your dedicated work on these important matters.
Best wishes, Jude Rubadue
Dear Council Members; Hopefully this message finds you all safe and well in
these tricky times. We urge you to to refuse the developer request for zoning
the properties on Bueno Avenue by rezoning the interior blocks from SR3 to
RMF-45. This rezoning request seems to be an extension of the many concerns
which provoked the city to undertake the current Gentrification and
Displacement Mitigation Plan earlier this year. Our fair city is looking for a new
way to bring needed and affordable housing to all our residents, poor to well
off, singles and families, renters and homeowners. This proposal does not do
that for many reasons some which we cite here. 1) Looking at the projected
target population and rent, the proposed on-site parking is entirely insufficient
for the likely vehicle ownership numbers. In fact this is a main issue with many
if not most of the herd of rental properties being built across the city. On
either side of the Crossroads Urban Center on 400 East we have two
apartment buildings in various stages of early development with over 40 units
in each but less than a dozen and a half parking places required. A few
proposed bike racks, severely limited access to on street parking, a two to
three block walk to limited tracks service, all promise to contribute another
growingly insufferable impact on current nearby businesses and neighbors. 2)
Up-zoning by a specific location or "spot-zoning” is tricky, bad policy. It
presents a practice, a precedent if you will, encouraging more of the same
rather than directing investment to zones already appropriate for higher
density projects. It stimulates the rise of built-in real estate costs because
builders, investors, price the premiums in their plans in anticipation of getting
the demon up-zone. If and when approved, up-zones give the long-term
investor a value build up which makes the property and the subsequent rents
less affordable. It is in effect unreasonably inflationary. 3) The Planning
process for this project has been messy and controversial. The majority vote
was to send a negative recommendation to the city council. No re-zoning.
Often when negative vote is received owners pay heed and rework their
proposal. Certainly the City Council has seen and ultimately approved such
ki i h b bl h h ) dd h
Salt Lake City Council Members: Please vote to uphold the negative
recommendation from the Planning Commission, on the matter of a request
for a re-zone of properties located on Bueno Avenue. Although this private
street has been neglected by current and past owners of the properties, it has
great potential for development of an interesting and useful mix of residential
styles while working within the current SR3 zoning to preserve the character
of this mid-block setting. The proposed leap to a huge complex of 192 single-
room units would obviously come at an high cost to the neighborhood in
terms of an enormous increase in number of vehicles accessing the property,
as well as the impacts from the proposed set-back variances on all sides of the
property. That the proposed use would also add zero new options for family
housing (while demolishing several old but very salvageable homes) makes it
that much worse. If the developer really wants to build something that
requires RMF 45 zoning, they should do so on one of the many
underdeveloped lots in SLC already zoned for that use. If they are committed
to building on Bueno, they have an exciting opportunity to breathe new life
into this street with a mix that could include town houses, apartments, and
micro or traditionally sized houses: the type of imaginative and appropriately
scaled housing that this city needs, and that meets the carefully and
intentionally developed goals of the governing Central Community Master
Plan. Respectfully, Rich Rich Wilcox District 4 Resident
SLC City Council, During the heavy rainstorm of October 25, a large gully
developed on the western side of City Creek, cutting across the recently built
City Creek Loop Trail and undercutting Bonneville Blvd. Estimated to be 12
feet wide, 12 feet deep, and extending 40 feet downslope, this wash-out
rendered Bonneville Blvd unsafe for cars, bicycles, and pedestrians; half of the
road had to be closed to all traffic. On November 19, the Public Lands
Department released an e-newsletter and Instagram message stating: “The
trail was impacted but was not a contributing factor to the cause of the
washout.” This is a verifiably false statement. In fact, the poorly planned and
shoddily built City Creek Loop trail, constructed just below Bonneville Blvd,
was directly responsible for the washout and gully that undercut the road. As
a citizen, like many, who values our precious natural resources, please hold
those parties responsible who carelessly implement construction in our
foothills. Please advocate for our natural ecosystem and the trails you/we/us
appreciate. Thank you, Devin Vernick District 5
Dear Councilperson Fowler, As a constituent I hope that you will vote to
support the RDA's Sustainable Development Policy. It will make meaningful
changes for our city and help to address climate change. Sincerely, Christy Clay
84106Hello, Please continue supporting mask mandates in schools. RSV and flu
season has Primary Children's over 100% capacity and not all children are fully
vaccinated yet. Please continue to keep our kids safe. Thank you. Colleen
SantelliMasks are a must and help the spread! Numbers of cases are proof they work.
Please keep it up and going strong. Thank you, Michele Tuckness
SLC Council, I strongly encourage you to NOT allow any sort of boarding house
style micro apartments be built in Salt Lake City with expensive rents. And
INSTEAD create a plan for actual affordable housing. Mel Martinez Ballpark
neighborhoodHello, My partner and I live in District 5 on South Jefferson. The other day on a
walk we clocked how truly odd this pedestrian crossing thing is on South
Jefferson & Goltz (I put a screenshot). I got an email today about the Ballpark
<https://www.buildingsaltlake.com/planners-tell-ballpark-the-future-is-trax-
upzoning-entertainment-and-pinpricks-of-
green/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=planners-tell-
ballpark-the-future-is-trax-upzoning-entertainment-and-pinpricks-of-
green&ct=t(RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN)> Plan which I'll be reading more on, but
what jumped out to me was the 'pinpricks' of green. My partner and I thought
wouldn't it be fun if this odd traffic-island-triangle thing was a tiny park
instead of more pavement on top of existing pavement. I'm not sure if you are
familiar with Mill Ends Park in Portland
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mill_Ends_Park> - its the smallest park in the
world - so a bigger than that, but something that is fun. Also, as a side note I
wanted to say that we love Ballpark. There are hidden gems of restaurants,
global groceries, bakeries and breweries that would be tragic if they got
pushed out due to rising rents. On that same note, we love living here,
because we actually have a porch and small back garden - access to the
outside - which we can't afford really elsewhere in the city. In short, we don't
live in a studio or one bedroom 'luxury apartment' that crams you in small
space with little to no access to being able to sit outside for a lot of money.
Please, please be thoughtful in how density is added. We understand its
needed, but let's not build future slums, but future homes. Thanks for your
time! Kelsey -- Kelsey Maas World Heritage Studies, M.A. Preservation Utah |
Salt Lake City, UT LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/kelsey-maas/> |
Pronouns: she, her, hers