12/13/2022 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
WORK SESSION
December 13, 2022 Tuesday 2:30 PM
Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at
the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas.
Council Work Room
451 South State Street Room 326
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
SLCCouncil.com
2:30 PM Work Session
Or immediately following the 2:00 PM
Redevelopment Agency Meeting
7:00 pm Formal Meeting
Room 326
(See separate agenda)
Welcome and public meeting rules
In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the
City & County Building through the main east entrance.
The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items
scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting
based on circumstance or availability of speakers.
Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start times
and durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion.
Generated: 09:54:47
Work Session Items
1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 3:00 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects
in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and
resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts,
and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Recurring Briefing
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
2.Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 675 N F
Street – Capitol Park Cottages – Petitioner: Ivory Development
Follow-up
~ 3:30 p.m.
15 min.
The Council will receive a follow-up briefing about a proposal that would amend the
zoning of property at 675 North F Street from FR-3/12,000 (Foothills Residential
District) to SR-1 (Special Development Pattern Residential District). The ordinance
would also amend the Avenues Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map from Very
Low Density to Low Density so that the master plan will correspond with their requested
low-density zone. The requests are intended to accommodate two pending Planned
Development and Subdivision requests from Ivory Development for a 19-lot single-family
dwelling development titled "Capitol Park Cottages." 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, October 18, 2022 and Tuesday, December 13, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, October 18, 2022
Hold hearing to accept public comment - Thursday, November 10, 2022 at 7 p.m.
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 13, 2022
3.Informational: Thriving in Place Update ~ 3:45 p.m.
60 min.
The Council will receive a briefing from the Community and Neighborhoods Department
(CAN) about progress on the City’s anti-gentrification and anti-displacement plan,
known as Thriving in Place. This will include discussion of proposed policies and
programs that are considered feasible and effective, with particular focus on those which
can be implemented within two years.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, December 13, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
4.Informational: Discussion of Options for Council's Routine
Oversight Audits ~ 4:45 p.m.
30 min.
The Council will discuss options for potential oversight audits in the coming year.
Legislative oversight is a key component of the Council's role in this form of government,
and the Council has ongoing budget and firms on contract to help perform this function
as topics arise.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, December 13, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a
5.Informational: Naming the Salt Lake City Justice Court
Building the “John L. Baxter Justice Court” Written Briefing
-
The Council will receive a written briefing about the naming of the Salt Lake City Justice
Court Building the “John L. Baxter Justice Court.” Judge Baxter served Salt Lake City for
more than 20 years as a Justice Court Judge. He was dedicated to serving some of the
most traditionally underserved people in the City, making sure that they were not just
processed through the justice system, but that they received the support they needed to
be successful in society.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, December 13, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 13, 2022
6.Board Appointment: Arts Council – Kate Jarman Gates ~ 5:15 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Kate Jarman Gates prior to considering appointment to the
Arts Council for a term ending December 13, 2025.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, December 13, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 13, 2022
7.Board Appointment: Bicycle Advisory Committee – Ben
Trueman ~ 5:20 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Ben Trueman prior to considering appointment to the Bicycle
Advisory Committee for a term ending December 13, 2025.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, December 13, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 13, 2022
8.Board Appointment: Bicycle Advisory Committee – Laura
Lewis ~ 5:25 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Laura Lewis prior to considering appointment to the Bicycle
Advisory Committee for a term ending December 13, 2025.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, December 13, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 13, 2022
9.Board Appointment: Bicycle Advisory Committee – Maxwell
McLeod ~ 5:30 p.m.
5 min
The Council will interview Maxwell McLeod prior to considering appointment to
the Bicycle Advisory Committee for a term ending December 13, 2025.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, December 13, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 13, 2022
10.Board Appointment: Historic Landmark Commission –
Emoli Kearns TENTATIVE
5 min
The Council will interview Emoli Kearns prior to considering appointment to the
Historic Landmark Commission for a term ending December 13, 2026.
FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council
discussion)
Briefing - Tuesday, December 13, 2022
Set Public Hearing Date - n/a
Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a
TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, December 13, 2022
Standing Items
11.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair
Report of Chair and Vice Chair.
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;
•Final 2023 Annual Meeting Calendar; and
•Scheduling Items.
13.Closed Session -
-
The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described
under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to:
a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental
health of an individual;
b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property,
including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the
transaction would:
(i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water
right or water shares, if:
(i) public discussion of the transaction would:
(A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under
consideration; or
(B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best
possible terms;
(ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be
offered for sale; and
(iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body
approves the sale;
f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct.
A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to
Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent
requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act.
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, Decembe 8, 2022, 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.
Administrative
updates
December 13, 2022
COVID-19
update
Cases in Utah are down 3% in the last two weeks.
(NYT Coronavirus in the US: Latest Map and Case Count 10/4/2022)current status
summary
Cases in the US are up 56% in the last two weeks.
(NYT Coronavirus in the US: Latest Map and Case Count 12/6/2022)
Sources: NYT Tracking Coronavirus in Utah , NYT Coronavirus in the US, CDC COVID-19 Integrated County View
COVID-19
Update
Source: Salt Lake County Health Department
Source: Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Flu/RSV U
pdate
•There were 3.72 flu
hospitalizations per 100,000
Utahns last week —more than
five times the rate in early
December of any of the last five
years.
•Emergency visits at
Intermountain Primary
Children's Hospital "are setting
records for the last decade at
least."
•Kids' hospital visits for
bronchiolitis —the set of
breathing problems linked to
RSV and other respiratory
illnesses —are "at or above our
historic peaks."
www.slc.gov/feedback/
Regularly updated with highlighted
ways to engage with the City.
Community Engagement Highlights
Planning slc.gov/planning
•Digital Sign Regulations
45 Day Engagement ends December 30th
•Planning Commission 12/14
Shelter zoning
Northpoint Small Area Plan
Landscaping Changes
•Accessory Dwelling Unit Modifications
•Affordable Housing Incentives
Focus Group has wrapped up
Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canTransportation
•Virginia Street Reconstruction
Now live!
virginiastreet@slcgov.com
December 31st deadline
•West Temple Reconstruction
Now Live!
westtemple@slcgov.com
January 6th deadline
slc.gov/transportation
Public Utilities
•City Creek Water Treatment Plant Upgrade (city-wide)
Trail closed weekdays now through the New Year
slc.gov/utilities
Mayor's Office slc.gov/mayor
ACE FUND DEADLINE:
TONIGHT, at MIDNIGHT
Upcoming Events
Event Date Start
Winter Farmer’s Market Weekly starting 11/12/22 –4/15/23
Park Rangers Jingle and Mingle 12/23/22
Last Hurrah –Gateway 12/31/22
Homelessness Update:
Single Adult HRC Occupancy
11/28-12/2 12/5-12/9
Homeless Resource Centers 95.5%94.1%
HRC Overflow "Flex" Beds *74.9%83.3%
Millcreek Overflow 72.6%65.6%
St. Vincent de Paul Overflow 86.5%81.5%
Total Beds Available/night:975 1005
*All HRC Overflow Flex Beds are open 24/7 as of Monday
Winter Clothing Drive
HEART, Mayors Office, Airport sponsoring
Thursday 3-6pm @
City Hall East driveway
Rapid Intervention
VOA Outreach is working with 8 locations
SLC/ SLCo Health Dept
Encampment Impact Mitigation
•None scheduled this week
•Some occupied Vehicle engagement along
900 West corridor
Homelessness
Update
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 13, 2022 – 6:00PM
RE:Master Plan and Text Amendment: Capitol Park Cottages - 675 N F Street
PLNPC2020-00335/00334
MOTION 1 – adopt with no conditions
I move the council adopt the zoning ordinances.
MOTION 2 – reject
I move the council reject the zoning ordinances.
MOTION 3 – adopt with development agreement conditions
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance amending the zoning of the property at 675 N. F Street
from FR-3-12,000 to SR-1 and amend the Avenues Community Master Plan future land use map,
subject to applicant entering into a development agreement with the City which includes the following
conditions:
1. Accessory buildings shall not be allowed in rear yards located along the west-most property
line of the subject property.
2. Where the west-most property line is a rear or side property line, the second levels of any
homes located along that rear or side property line shall be setback at least 30' from the
corresponding rear or side property line.
3. Specify that the ADUs may not be used as short-term rentals, using CCRs or another method
deemed efficient and appropriate.
4. The open space area shown on draft drawings will generally be accessible to the community at
large, with rules/management to be established by the HOA or other entity based upon the
applicant’s preference.
5. Confirming that the City building approval and permitting process will be followed to build
retaining walls on the property.
MOTION 4 – adopt with restrictions on retaining walls
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance amending the zoning of the property at 675 N. F Street
from FR-3-12,000 to SR-1 and amend the Avenues Community Master Plan future land use map,
subject to the following conditions:
1. The ordinance rezoning the property at 675 N. F Street will be published and become
effective only after the property owner records a restrictive covenant against the entire
property which will require that all walls built on the property are subject to the table in
21A.36.020B.
1. For any terrace of retaining walls, each four-foot vertical retaining wall must be
separated by a minimum of three horizontal feet.
2. The restrictive covenant will be approved by the City prior to recording and will be
enforceable by Salt Lake City Corporation.
COUNCIL STAFF
REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Nick Tarbet, Policy Analyst
DATE: December 13, 2022
RE:Master Plan and Text Amendment:
Capitol Park Cottages - 675 North F Street
PLNPC2020-00335/00334
PROJECT TIMELINE:
Briefing: Oct 18 & Dec 13, 2022
Set Date: Oct 18, 2022
Public Hearing: Nov 10, 2022
Potential Action: December 13
Public Hearing Summary and New Information
During the public hearing the Council heard comments both in support and opposition to the
proposed rezone. Most of the comments were opposed to the proposed zoning amendments.
Comments generally related to concerns about density, traffic, impacts to neighborhood character,
parking, questions about the safety of proposed retaining walls, especially for the existing
development to the north of the property and loss of open space and wildlife habitat.
The applicant and a few other individuals spoke in favor of the changes, citing the need for more
housing in the city.
The Council closed the public hearing and deferred action to a future Council meeting.
Following the public hearing Council Member Wharton asked for a motion to be drafted requiring
future development on the property adhere to the zoning ordinance pertaining to walls (City Code
21A.36.020B). This would effectively require any retaining walls to follow the design standards
identified in the draft motion below.
Page | 2
Staff worked with the Attorney’s Office and Planning staff on the following motion. This is option #4
on the motion sheet the Council will use when considering action on the zoning amendments.
I move that the Council adopt the ordinance amending the zoning of the property at 675 N. F
Street from FR-3-12,000 (Foothills Residential District) to SR-1 (Special Development Pattern
Residential District) subject to the following condition:
1. The ordinance rezoning the property at 675 N. F Street will be published and
become effective only after the property owner records a restrictive covenant
against the entire property which will require that all walls built on the property are
subject to the table in 21A.36.020B.
1. For any terrace of retaining walls, each four-foot vertical retaining wall must
be separated by a minimum of three horizontal feet.
2. The restrictive covenant will be approved by the City prior to recording and will be
enforceable by Salt Lake City Corporation.
The applicant confirmed they support including the following conditions as part of the final ordinance.
The first two were recommended by the Planning Commission, the others are requests of the Council.
This is option #3 on the motion sheet.
1. Accessory buildings shall not be allowed in rear yards located along the west-most property
line of the subject property.
2. Where the west-most property line is a rear or side property line, the second levels of any
homes located along that rear or side property line shall be setback at least 30' from the
corresponding rear or side property line.
3. Specify that the ADUs may not be used as Short-Term Rentals. (Using CCRs or another
method that you determine to be efficient and appropriate)
4. The open space area shown on draft drawings will generally be accessible to the community at
large, with rules/management to be established by the HOA (or other entity based upon the
applicant’s preference.
5. Confirming that the City building approval and permitting process will be followed to build
retaining walls on the property.
The following information was provided for the November 10 Public Hearing. It is
provided again for background purposes.
Work Session Briefing
The Council talked about the impact of increasing the density of the property on the surrounding
neighborhoods. Many of the questions included the following:
•How will the ADUs be incorporated into the project, will any be rented at an affordable rate
•Will the open space shown on the draft plans be open to the public
•Loss of existing open space and mature trees
•The lack of public transit in the area
•Density is needed in all parts of the city to help address the lack of housing supply
•How this proposed rezone fits in with the current development patterns, some expressed
concerns it does not fit in well
Page | 3
•Could the current zoning be sufficient to build more density that is also more compatible with
existing development.
•How will the city ensure the retaining walls in the proposed development, especially the walls
on the north side, be built so they will not collapse
Some Council members expressed interest in working with the developer on a potential development
agreement that could address some of the question raised above.
The applicant addressed the council, providing an overview of their plans. They detailed how they
think including the ADUs will be a benefit and that the proposal can fit in with the current
development in the area.
The public hearing is scheduled for November 10, 2022
The following information was provided for the October 18 work session briefing. It is
provided again for background purposes.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will be briefed on a proposal to amend the Avenues Community Master Plan and rezone
the property located at approximately 675 North F Street. The request includes the following
applications:
1. Master Plan Amendment: The applicant is requesting to amend the master plan designation
for the property in the Avenues Community Master Plan from "Very Low Density" to "Low
Density."
2. Zoning Map Amendment: Rezone the property from the FR-3/12,000 "Foothills Residential
District" to the SR-1 "Special Development Pattern" zoning district.
If the rezone request is approved, the property owner indicated their plans are to construct 19 single-
family homes. At least 14 of the homes would include an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). To complete
this plan, the applicant will also seek approval from the Planning Commission for a planned
Development and preliminary subdivision plat. According to the transmittal letter, these plans are still
pending consideration by the Planning Commission and require some revisions before they can be
considered.
Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission forwarded a favorable recommendation.
Planning Commission Recommended Conditions
As stated in the transmittal letter, Planning staff and the Planning Commission both recommended
two conditions of approval intended to ensure compatibility of any development on the subject
property with the 35' rear yards of the adjacent west properties.
These conditions are:
1. Accessory buildings shall not be allowed in rear yards located along the west-most property
line of the subject property.
Page | 4
2. Where the west-most property line is a rear or side property line, the second levels of any
homes located along that rear or side property line shall be setback at least 30' from the
corresponding rear or side property line.
For context, the FR-3 has a 35' rear yard requirement and does not allow buildings in the rear yard,
whereas the SR-1 zone has a percentage rear yard requirement, which can go as low as 15', and allows
accessory buildings in rear yards.
Policy Questions
•The Council may wish to ask if the applicant is supportive of the conditions recommended by
the Planning Commission and Planning Staff.
•Affordability of units/ADUs
o The Council may wish to ask the applicant if there are plans to require
any of the ADU units be rented at a more affordable rate and at what
percentage of AMI.
•Concerns about the proposed development have been raised about fire code compliance, access
for fire apparatuses, etc. Additionally, concerns have been raised about the potential impact
wildfires in the foothills may have on this development and whether those are factored into the
permit process. Typically, any development will be required to abide by fire codes which
includes minimum requirements for fire vehicle access.
o The Council may wish to ask the Administration to provide an overview
of the permitting process and how it may address these concerns.
•Concerns have been raised about the steepness of lot and the proposed retaining walls and,
how will the city ensure they will be built so they will not fail.
o The Council may wish to ask the administration to provide an overview of
the permitting process and how it may address these concerns.
•The draft plans identify some open space will be included on the south side of the property
o The Council may wish to ask what the plans are for that open space. Is it
meant to be public or private?
•The application has been in process for about two years and has some changes from the
original proposal.
o The Council may wish to ask the applicant how the current proposal has
changed from the start and how they have responded to issues raised by
the community and City staff.
Vicinity Map
Attachment A, Planning Commission Staff Report
Page | 5
Public Process
A narrative of the public process is outlined on pages 2-3 of the Transmittal Letter. The table below
provides the key dates of the petition’s process.
Page | 6
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
(Page 11 transmittal letter)
Council Public Engagement
A project website for the public to follow this issue has been posted on the Council website. It will be
updated as new information becomes available.
Key Considerations
The planning commission staff report noted six key considerations outlined on pages 9-23. Below is a
short summary of those considerations. Please see the Planning staff report for full analysis.
Page | 7
1. Consideration 1: Proposed Zone Potential Effects on Adjacent Properties
•Zoning amendment considerations include how an amendment will affect adjacent
properties
•FR-3/SR-1 zones primarily differ in density (min. lot area), lot width, and rear setbacks
• Rear setbacks and rear accessory structure allowances differ
•SR-1 zone may allow development closer to the FR-3 property, staff recommends
condition imposing 30' rear upper-level setback and rear accessory building
prohibition
•Density brings additional traffic, traffic study shows limited impact
2. Consideration 2: Zoning and Density Context
•SR-1A zone (sister to SR-1) mapped over most of the “lower” Avenues (below 13th Ave),
with identical regulations, excepting height (25' v 28') and accessory structure size
•Nearby SR-1A properties are generally not developed to their maximum allowed
density
•Property is proposed for development (in concept) and would likely develop with the
rezone at a higher density than existing surrounding properties
•The proposed density is found in the Avenues and in many places compatibly co-exists
with lower density properties
3. Consideration 3: Avenues Master Plan and Citywide Housing Policies
•Avenues Master Plan (1987) calls for “very low density” on the Future Land Use map
and supports larger lot sizes in “foothill” areas
•Avenues Master Plan text calls for “low density” development on the property
•Growing SLC (2018), the City’s current housing plan, includes citywide policies to
increase housing options and types of housing throughout the City
•Support in-fill development and modifying zoning regulations when appropriate and
where it can be compatible in scale
•Citywide policies support amendment to Avenues Master Plan and zoning given
broader City goals, changed conditions, the low level of density proposed, and its
compatibility potential
4. Consideration 4: Gentrification and Displacement
•The City is working on plans and policies to address gentrification and displacement
concerns
•Rezones are often requested for properties that consist of existing lower-income
affordable housing and so the zoning change is associated with the potential to displace
people with lower incomes
• This property is unique in being a sizeable vacant property that can accommodate infill
development without displacing any existing residents
5. Consideration 5: Proposed Development Plans
•19 total single-family home lots
•14 homes on the proposed private street will include ADUs
•Homes will include 3 covered parking stalls. 1 for ADU, 2 for single family dwelling
Page | 8
•Min. 20' depth driveways
•Avg. lot size 6,800 sq ft
•5 homes on F Street will be “custom homes” – no specific plans. May include ADUs.
• private park lot (17,432 sq ft/0.4 acre)
•Average Lot Size (Overall): 7,355 sq ft
•Density: 5.9 units per acre (Single-family units only)/10.3 units per acre (single-family
+ ADUs)
6. Consideration 6: Public Comments and Concerns
•This section focused on the concerns raised by the community, including ADUs and
Short Term Rentals, traffic impacts and accidents, affordable housing, air pollution,
adequacy of public utilities, Fire codes pertaining to access and street width, property
values, nesting bird habitat, tree protection and school enrollment/Family supportive
housing.
•Planning staff provides a response to each of these concerns in the staff memo, Pages
19-24.
Intermountain GeoEnvironmental Services, Inc.
12429 South 300 East, Suite 100, Draper, Utah 84020 ~ T: (801) 748-4044 ~ F: (801) 748-4045
Copyright 2022 IGES, Inc. 02058-205 L1.docx
December 8, 2022
Ivory Development
978 Woodoak Lane
Salt Lake City, Utah 84117
Attn: Peter Gamvroulas
IGES Project No: 02058-205
Subject: Memo Regarding Retaining Walls
Capitol Park Subdivision
Salt Lake City, Utah
Reference: IGES, 2020, Geotechnical Investigation, Capitol Park Subdivision, Capitol Park
Ave. and F Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, Project No. 02058-118, dated March 3,
2020.
Mr. Gamvroulas:
IGES has been asked to provide a memo regarding the process of retaining wall design. The
process of completing a retaining wall design starts with site reconnaissance, this includes a
geotechnical investigation, survey of the site, and grading and drainage plan development. The
site reconnaissance will provide us with the soil parameters, location and loading conditions for
the retaining walls. With this information we size either the block or geogrid as needed to
provide the minimum required factors of safety based on the current industry standard of care.
Once the retaining wall design is complete our plans are provided to the contractor that builds
the retaining wall. During construction we will provide site visits to verify that the contractor
is building the retaining wall in accordance with our design package. After construction has
been completed, we use our documentation from the site visits to compile a letter stating that
the retaining wall was built per our design package.
Closure
All recommendations in the original geotechnical report should be followed. We appreciate the
opportunity to provide you with our services. If you have any questions, please contact the
undersigned at your convenience (801) 748-4044.
Respectfully Submitted,
IGES, Inc.
Justin W. Whitmer, P.E.
Project Engineer
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: August 15, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: PLNPC2020-00335/00334 Capitol Park Cottages Zoning Map and Master
Plan Amendment
STAFF CONTACT: Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, Planning Division,
daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com or 801-535-7165
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the proposed ordinance with conditions as recommended by
the Planning Commission.
BUDGET IMPACT: None.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The property owner, Ivory Development, represented by Peter
Gamvroulas, is requesting to amend the zoning of the property
located at 675 N F Street from the FR-3/12,000 "Foothills
Residential District" to the SR-1 "Special Development
Pattern" zoning district. The owner is also requesting to amend
the corresponding “Future Land Use Map” designation for the
property in the Avenues Community Master Plan (1987) from
“Very Low Density” to “Low Density” so that the master plan
will correspond with their requested low-density zone.
The applicant is requesting the amendments in order to
accommodate additional homes on the site. Under the current
zone, the maximum number of homes allowed is 11 homes. The subject property at 675 N F Street
is outlined in yellow on the above map.
8/15/2022
8/15/2022
Under the proposed zone the maximum number of homes allowed would be 27. Under each
scenario the homes could include ADUs. Realistically, through the normal City subdivision
process and without additional special approvals, such as a Planned Development, the site can
likely only accommodate around 9 homes under the current zone and 18 homes under the proposed
zoning. The development potential of the site under the current and proposed zoning is further
discussed on page 4 of the Staff Report.
The applicant has formally submitted Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision plat
plans to the City for consideration. Those plans propose 19 lots and include requests for
modifications to dimensional regulations to accommodate the number of lots. At least 14 of the
homes would include an ADU. Those plans are located in Attachment C and C.2 of the Staff Report
linked below. These plans are still pending consideration by the Planning Commission and require
some revisions before they can be considered by the Commission.
The key differences between the existing and proposed zones are the lot size requirements for
single-family homes, which are 12,000 square feet per lot with the current FR-3/12,000 zone and
5,000 square feet per lot for the proposed SR-1 zone. The zones otherwise have similar regulations
for setbacks and building coverage. Each zone allows development up to 28' in height. A
comparison of the zones is included on page 6 of the Staff Report.
The Commission considered a number of factors in their positive recommendation for the rezone
and those are detailed in the Staff Report linked below. These include the minimal impact the
additional homes would have on the neighborhood, surrounding similar zoning, lack of
displacement, current housing market conditions, and adopted City policies supporting additional
housing where it can be compatible with neighborhoods in both the Plan Salt Lake and Growing
SLC plans.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
The applicant submitted the amendment requests in May 2020. The Planning Division started an
early notification public process at that time, sending notices to the local community council and
nearby property owners and residents. The proposal went through multiple iterations with multiple
rounds of public notice and public input since that time. The applicant also met with the Greater
Avenues Community Council multiple times.
The Greater Avenues Community Council provided multiple letters in opposition to the proposal.
A new recognized organization, the Preserve Our Avenues Zoning Coalition (POAZC), which was
organized in response to the zoning proposal, also submitted formal input in opposition to the
proposal. Virtually all the public input received was opposed to the request, with over 600 letters
provided in opposition and less than 20 letters provided in support. Many of these letters were
provided by the same individuals over the course of multiple versions of the proposal. A petition
opposed to the first iteration of the zoning amendment was circulated by the POAZC in 2020 which
received over 2,000 signatures from across the Avenues.
A detailed overview of the two-year public process is in the Staff Report under “Community Input
and Public Process” on page 8 of the Staff Report. Responses to recurring concerns received about
the proposal are located in Consideration 6 on page 19 of the Staff Report. A slide highlighting
only immediately adjacent property owner concerns is located on slide 19 of Exhibit 3a.
Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation
The Planning Commission held a public hearing for the proposal on June 22, 2022. Notice of the
public hearing was sent via e-mail to the Planning listserv and to 406 e-mail addresses, including
all persons and organizations who had contacted City Staff about the proposal over the course of
the public process. Notices were also mailed to property owners and residents within 300 feet of
the proposal.
At the public hearing, 51 people provided comments, including two persons representing the
GACC and POAZ. Four people spoke in favor with the remainder speaking in opposition. Speakers
and comments are summarized in the minutes linked below. Generally, commenters expressed
concerns related to impacts of the proposed density, such as compatibility with the neighborhood,
traffic, and parking. Comments were also provided related to concerns with the associated
development plans.
Following the hearing, the Planning Commission discussed the public input, adverse impacts,
ownership, use of potential accessory dwelling units, neighborhood context and compatibility, the
level of density change, traffic, site conditions, the proposed development plans, the need for
additional housing, current housing conditions, and changes to City plan policies. A more detailed
summary of the discussion is located in the minutes. Following discussion, the Commission voted
to recommend approval of the amendments with conditions, with eight commissioners voting for
the amendments and two against.
Recommended Conditions
The Commission included two recommended conditions of approval. These conditions are:
1. Accessory buildings shall not be allowed in rear yards located along the west-most property
line of the subject property.
2. Where the west-most property line is a rear or side property line, the second levels of any
homes located along that rear or side property line shall be setback at least 30' from the
corresponding rear or side property line.
The conditions are intended to ensure compatibility of any development on the subject property
with the 35' rear yards of the adjacent west properties and were recommended by Planning Staff.
For context, the FR-3 has a 35' rear yard requirement and does not allow buildings in the rear yard,
whereas the SR-1 zone has a percentage rear yard requirement, which can go as low as 15', and
allows accessory buildings in rear yards.
Planning Commission (PC) Records for June 22, 2022 Meeting
a) Agenda (Click to Access)
b) Minutes (Click to Access)
c) Staff Report, see below for additional attachments (Click to Access)
a. Attachment B: Applicant Materials/Narrative
b. Attachment C.2: Full Size Landscape Concept Plan
c. Attachment K.1 & K.2: Public Comments Part 1
d. Attachment K.3 & K.4: Public Comments Part 2
e. Attachment K.5: Public Comments Part 3
EXHIBITS:
1) Ordinance
2) Chronology
3) Planning Commission Public Hearing Additional Materials
a) Planning Staff Presentation Slides
b) Applicant Presentation Slides
c) Additional Public Comments Received After Report Publication
d) Postmarked Public Notice
4) Notice of City Council Hearing
5) Original Petition
6) Mailing List
1. ORDINANCE
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. _____ of 2022
(Amending the zoning of property located at 675 North F Street
from FR-3/12,000 Foothills Residential District to
SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District, and amending
the Avenues Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map)
An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at 675 North F
Street from FR-3/12,000 Foothills Residential District to SR-1 Special Development Pattern
Residential District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00335 and amending the Avenues
Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00334.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 22,
2022 on an application submitted by Peter Gamvroulas (“Applicant”) to rezone property located
at 675 North F Street (Tax ID No. 09-30-455-021-0000) (the “Property”) from FR-3/12,000
Foothills Residential District to SR-1 Special Development Pattern Residential District pursuant
to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00335, and to amend the Avenues Community Master Plan Future
Land Use Map with respect to the Property from Very Low Density to Low Density pursuant to
Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00334; and
WHEREAS, at its June 22, 2022 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of
forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said applications, subject
to conditions to prohibit accessory buildings in rear yards along the west most property line and
require a minimum 30' setback for second levels of homes along the west most property line; and
WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that
adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted
by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and
hereby is amended to reflect that the Property identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be
and hereby is rezoned from FR-3/12,000 Foothills Residential District to SR-1 Special
Development Pattern Residential District, subject to the condition identified in Section 3 herein.
SECTION 2. Amending the Avenues Community Master Plan. The Future Land Use
Map of the Avenues Community Master Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the
future land use designation of the Property identified in Exhibit “A” from Very Low Density to
Low Density, subject to the conditions identified in Section 3 herein.
SECTION 3. Condition. The zoning map amendment and master plan amendment that
are the subject of Petition Nos. PLNPCM2020-00335 and PLNPCM2020-00334 described
herein are conditioned upon Applicant restricting the use of the property by means of an
appropriate instrument recorded against the property in favor of Salt Lake City Corporation that
does the following:
1. Accessory buildings shall not be allowed in rear yards located along the west-most
property line of the subject property.
2. Where the west-most property line is a rear or side property line, the second levels of
any homes located along that rear or side property line shall be setback at least 30' from
the corresponding rear or side property line.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its
first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The city recorder is
instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the condition identified above has been
met as acknowledged by the director of the Salt Lake City Planning Division.
SECTION 5. Time. If the condition identified above has not been met within one year
after adoption, this ordinance shall become null and void. The city council may, for good cause
shown, by resolution, extend the time period for satisfying the condition identified above.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________,
2022.
______________________________
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________.
Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed.
______________________________
MAYOR
______________________________
CITY RECORDER
(SEAL)
Bill No. ________ of 2022.
Published: ______________.
Ordinance amending zoning and MP 675 N F Street
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office
Date:__________________________________
By: ___________________________________
Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney
August 4, 2022
EXHIBIT “A”
Legal Description of Property to be Rezoned
and Subject to Avenues Master Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment:
675 North F Street
Tax ID No. 09-30-455-021-0000
LOT 1, CAPITOL PARK AVENUE EXTENSION SUBDIVISION.
2. CHRONOLOGY
PROJECT CHRONOLOGY
Capitol Park Cottages Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment
May 1, 2020 Petition submitted by applicant requesting to rezone the property to FB-
UN1 and amend the future land use map of the Avenues master plan to a
corresponding designation.
May 11, 2020 Application assigned to City Staff.
May 27, 2020 Proposal posted to City Open House webpage. Minimum 45-day notice
period starts. Public notices were sent to recognized community
organizations, listserv, and nearby property owners/residents.
July 1, 2020 Applicant attended Greater Avenues Community Council meeting and
presented their proposal. Staff also attended meeting and presented on the
process and standards.
August 5, 2020 Applicant attended the GACC for a second time to present their proposal.
GACC holds vote on the proposal with 688 opposed and 4 in favor.
February 1,
2021
Applicant submitted revised concept plan. City Staff sent an e-mail update
to all persons who had contacted City Staff, providing 45 days for additional
public comments.
March 3, 2021 Applicant attends GACC meeting and presented revised proposal. Staff
attended to answer any questions.
March 22, 2021 Applicant revised requested zone to SR-1, Special Development Pattern
Residential. Staff sent an e-mail update to all persons who had contacted
City staff, providing additional time for public input.
April 7, 2021 GACC held a vote on the proposal at their meeting, with 1244 opposed and
25 in favor.
November 29,
2021
Applicant submitted associated Planned Development and Subdivision
applications to the City. Minimum 45-day notice period starts. Public
notices were sent to recognized community organizations, listserv, and
nearby property owners/residents. E-mail notice also sent to all persons
who had contacted City Staff regarding the rezone/master plan amendment
proposal.
January 5,
2022
Applicant attended GACC meeting to discuss Planned
Development/Subdivision applications. Staff also presented on the process
and standards and answered questions.
June 9, 2022 Public notices provided for Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments.
Public notices sent to property owners/residents within 300 feet, posted on
City webpage, sent to City listserv, and posted on State public notice
website. E-mailed notice also sent to all persons who had contacted staff
regarding the proposal for the property.
June 17, 2022 Staff report published recommending a positive recommendation for the
zoning map and master plan amendment with conditions.
June 22, 2022 Planning Commission holds a hybrid in-person and virtual public hearing
on the zoning map/master plan amendments and passes a motion to send a
positive recommendation to the City Council with conditions. Motion
passed with 8 Commissioners in favor and 2 opposed.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
a. Planning Staff Presentation Slides
PLANNING COMMISSION // JUNE 22, 2022
CAPITOL PARK COTTAGESZONING MAP AND MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT
675 N F STREET
PLNPCM2020-00335/00334
•Two requests:
•Zoning Map Amendment
•From FR-3/12,000 Foothills Residential
District
•To SR-1 Special Development Pattern
Residential
•Master Plan Amendment
•From “Very Low Density” to “Low
Density”
•Intended to accommodate 19-lot single-family
development plans (Planned Development and
Preliminary Subdivision)
Recommendation: Staff is recommending a favorable
recommendation to the City Council with conditions
REQUEST
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
CONTEXT
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Salt Lake City // Planning Division *Development agreement limited these RMF-35 properties to “low-density,” a lower number of units than otherwise allowed
ZONE INFORMATION
•FR-3 vs SR-1
•Lot size/density -min. 12,000 vs 5,000 sq ft
•3.6 (7.3) vs 8.7 (17.6) dwelling units per acre (w/ADU)
•Theoretical limits:
•FR-3: 11 lots
•SR-1: 27 lots
•Practical limit (estimate):
•Impacted by min. lot size, width, public street requirements,
private street access limits
•FR-3: 9 lots, 18 total dwelling units (5.6 du/ac)
•SR-1: 18 lots, 36 total dwelling units (11.2 du/ac)
•Higher lot counts would require discretionary modifications
to lot dimensions through Planned Development
•Applicant concept plans are 19 lots with ADUs on 14 lots
(33 total units)
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
DENSITY COMPARISON
Maximum 16-lot single-family development potential for typical
Avenues block due to min. 50' lot width. Theoretical limit-21 lots.
Major Differences:
•Lot size/density -min. 12,000 vs 5,000 sq ft
•3.63 (7.3) vs 8.7 (17.6) dwelling units per acre (w/ADU)
•Rear setbacks -min. 35' vs. min. 25%, as low as 15’
•Buildings not allowed in FR-3 rear
Similar:
•Heights:Both 28'
•Building coverage: Max. 35% vs 40%
•Effectively 5% more open space required in FR-3
•Front setbacks: Both 20'
•Side setbacks: 10’/10’ vs 10’/4’
•ADUs: Attached ADUs allowed by right in both zones
•Parking: 2 stalls per home + 1 per ADU
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
FR-3 VS SR-1 ZONES
Standard FR-3 SR-1
Min. Lot Size 12,000 sq ft 5,000 sq ft
Min. Lot Width 80 ft 50 ft
Min. Front Setback 20' or average 20' or average
Min. Rear Setback 35'25%, min. 15' to max 30'
Max. Building Coverage 35%40%
FR-3
SR-1
•Consistency with adopted City plans and policies
•Consistency with zoning ordinance purposes
•Effects on adjacent properties
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
CONSIDERATION STANDARDS
•Consistency with any applicable overlays
•Adequacy of public facilities and services
Ultimately up to City Council discretion
KEY CONSIDERATIONS
Effects of zone on adjacent properties is a consideration
Rear Setback Difference:
•FR-3 -35' and no buildings allowed
•SR-1 -25%, min. 15', up to 30' (ex: 25' for 100' deep lot)
•May be as close as 15’
•May impact privacy of rear yards and sense of openness
Recommendation:
•Min. 30' rear setback for second story
•No accessory buildings in west rear yards
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
SETBACK DIFFERENCES
Northpoint Drive
F
S
t
r
e
e
t
Private Yards
Private Street
•More units bring more traffic
•How much traffic?
•Applicant provided traffic study showing low impact to
neighborhood.
•Will account for 5% of traffic at nearby F Street intersections
•Adding less than a second to wait times at intersections
•Accidents
•Very low number of serious accidents on or near F Street over
time
•Given relative low increase in traffic, Staff would not
anticipate substantive impact
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
TRAFFIC IMPACTS
F
S
t
r
e
e
t
•Sister zone (SR-1A) mapped across adjacent blocks to
the east and nearby blocks to the south
•Difference is lower max. height (23' in SR-1A vs 28')
•Density/lot requirements are the same
•Compatibly interfaces with FR-3 along 11th, 12th, and
13th Aves
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
ZONE CONTEXT
•Proposed plan density is ~10 du/ac
•Practical limit (~11 du/ac)
•Similar to density of many blocks in Lower Avenues
•Other nearby blocks would meet or exceed if ADUs were built
in existing homes
•Examples of low scale, single-and
two-family dwellings on nearby
blocks with similar existing density
•Compatible with surrounding
properties.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
DENSITY CONTEXT
❶F Street & 10th
❶
❷F Street & 9th
❷❸
❸D Street & 9th
•Avenues Master Plan (1987)
•Future Land Use map –“very low density”
•Supports larger lots in foothill areas
•“Low Density” on former BYU property (incl. subject site)
•Citywide Plans
•Housing Plan (Growing SLC, 2018)
•Policies intended to ensure low-and moderate-
income housing is in the City
•Supports aging in place with diverse housing choices
•Identifies large lot sizes as a barrier
•City General Plan (Plan Salt Lake, 2015)
•Supports finding ways to accommodate new housing
growth and new housing types where it can be
compatible throughout the City
•Housing market has changed significantly
•Amendments warranted given level of zone change,
changed conditions, and changed citywide policies
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
CITY MASTER PLANS
•Concerns with many rezones:
•Displacement
•Gentrification
•Loss of neighborhood character defining buildings
•Large, vacant lot without these potentials
•High opportunity area with good access to jobs,
schools, parks, services
•Good location for additional families
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
VACANT LOT INFILL DEVELOPMENT
•Applicant has submitted formal Planned
Development and Subdivision plans
•Not for formal consideration tonight
•Provided for context
•Building height compliance issues due to
slope, may require revisions
•Height can’t be modified in a PD
•Requesting modifications to setbacks, lot
frontage (private street), grade change limits,
retaining wall height limits
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
CONCEPT SITE PLAN
•Considerable amount of public input
•Proposal has changed over time, with multiple rounds of comments
•Originally FBUN1 -> Changes to concept plans -> Change to SR-1 -> Formal Planned Development plans
•Vast majority opposed (~637 comments), less than 20 comments in support
•Opposition petition estimated at >2,000 signatures opposed
•Recognized Community Organizations:
•Greater Avenues Community Council provided multiple letters opposed
•Preserve Our Avenues Zoning Coalition also provided opposition letters and petitions
•Variety of concerns related to increased density of zone
•Support development with existing zoning
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
PUBLIC INPUT
Zoning Specific Comments from Adjacent Properties
•West Homes*: Preference for 35' rear setback from 1 owner
•East Homes*:
•Concerns with density, traffic, vehicle access from 2 owners
•Concern with original FB-UN-1 zone from 1 owner
•South -Meridian Condos HOA -Concerns with density, vehicles,
character, use of their private road
•Capitol Park HOA –(Homes on Capitol Park Ave) –Similar
concerns
•North -Northpointe Condos HOA –Similar concerns, also with
north adjacent reduced setback, traffic, fire access/safety related
to F Street and off-site parking
Planned Development Comments
•Concerns with reduced setbacks, grade changes, open space,
vehicles, parking, service logistics, and loss of trees
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
PUBLIC INPUT
RECOMMENDATIONS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Staff recommends a positive recommendation to the City
Council on the zoning map and master plan amendment request
with conditions:
1.Accessory buildings shall not be allowed in rear yards located
along the west-most property line of the subject property
2.Where the west-most property line is a rear property line, the
second levels of any homes located along that rear property
line shall be setback at least 30' from the corresponding rear
property line.
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
RECOMMENDATION
QUESTIONS
Salt Lake City // Planning Division
Daniel Echeverria // Senior Planner
daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com
3. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
b. Applicant Presentation Slides
Capitol Park Avenue Rezone
675 North F Street
1977 Current
The current zone is outdated and no longer
reflects the current site conditions or values of
Salt Lake City
At Current Zone, the
physical constraints of
the property would
limit development to
nine 1/3 acre lots.
“Density and compact development are
important principles of sustainable growth,
allowing for more affordable transportation
options and creating vibrant and diverse
places” (pg. 9)
“Barriers such as density limitations,
prohibitions on different types of housing,
and other development regulations, have
contributed in part to a general supply
deficit and economic segregation” (pg.11)
The current zone is
outdated and no
longer reflects the site
conditions or values of
Salt Lake City
The requested rezone is
modest while creating
an opportunity to
remove density barriers
and promote a more
diverse housing stock
3. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
c. Additional Public Comments Received After
Report Publication
Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 12:43:02 Mountain Daylight Time
Page 1 of 12
Subject:(EXTERNAL) DO NOT allow Capitol Park Catastrophe
Date:Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 8:06:54 AM Mountain Daylight Time
From:William LiLg
To:Planning Public Comments
This is markeOng. This is not like any part of The Avenues, paSerned, repeOOve housing, red
brick. This a cheap Disneyesque unimaginaOve package of BULL SHIT. We have small streets,
impacted by hospitals, canyons, and we have reached capacity. This property could support real
architecture, new, not hermaphrodite history, Please do NOT support this latest packaging. They
are hoping you and this community will Ore and roll over. When they bring quality we will know
and support it, second or third best is not good enough.
Some one got Ored and allowed “The Hardison” to be built on Historic South Temple and it will
forever be an eyesore. DO YOUR BEST for the city.
William liLg
121 D Street
SLC, Ut 84103
Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 12:43:02 Mountain Daylight Time
Page 2 of 12
Subject:(EXTERNAL) NO! Support for Capitol Park POS
Date:Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 7:46:56 AM Mountain Daylight Time
From:William LiLg
To:Planning Public Comments
MarkeOng! This is a sales job, clear and simple. Simple? Where in the Historic Avenues could you find
paSerned small houses in mass? Red brick? This is another insult to my community not part of us! It is them
trying to bring Daybreak’s Disneyesque housing to a small piece of land. Maximum density and more. We
have small narrow streets, trees and need to encourage families. NIMBY I wouldn’t wish this at Mar-a-lago!
They
Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 12:43:02 Mountain Daylight Time
Page 5 of 12
Subject:(EXTERNAL) 675 N F Street Zoning Plan and Master Plan amendment request - Deny
Date:Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 11:07:52 AM Mountain Daylight Time
From:Russ Norvell
To:Planning Public Comments
To: Salt Lake Planning Commission
From: Russ Norvell
As a nearby homeowner and full-Ome resident, I oppose Ivory Homer’s proposal to rezone the 675 N F Street
property in order to develop it far beyond that which is already allowed under FR-3 zoning. I encourage the Planning
Commission to do the same and not give a favorable recommendaOon to City Council for three reasons:
1) The two Staff recommendaOons do not begin to address the long list of issues- legal, transportaOon, strategic
planning, and cultural character - that have been idenOfied and documented;
2) Amendments to the Strategic Plan and to zoning rules can and should be made - when they meet the intent of the
amendment guidelines. This proposal does not, and giving a favorable recommendaOon sets precedent that will
erode the Commission’s ability to execute its mission in the future;
3) Too big and too many is too much. Ivory’s design is a fat man in a bad suit.
Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 12:43:02 Mountain Daylight Time
Page 6 of 12
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Ivory Homes Development
Date:Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 8:20:57 AM Mountain Daylight Time
From:Adrienne
To:Planning Public Comments
Planning commission:
As a neighbor of the proposed ivory home planned development, I want to share my concerns as follows:
1. I believe that neighbors in the area have bought property based on existing zoning laws and to that end, a change in these
laws deserves much scrutiny. From my perspective, the developers have not made the case that this change is warranted
and thus the city’s agreement with current residents (existing zoning) should not be broken. As proposed, not a single unit
meets the zoning requirements.
2. I see that part of the planning commission’s justification for recommending this change is that SLC has a tremendous
housing problem - especially lacking low-income housing. If the described change were for low income families, this would
offset some of my issues personally (e.g., increased traffic). Given that the majority of the proposed houses are 3350 sq ft,
with three-car garages, the idea that this model fits in with the type of housing needed in SLC is ridiculous.
3. The design that includes 17ft retaining walls is an aesthetic disaster as is removing trees that include active raptor nests.
Thank you,
Adrienne Cachelin
510 E 14th Ave
Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 12:43:02 Mountain Daylight Time
Page 7 of 12
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Support for Capitol Park CoSages
Date:Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 1:28:50 AM Mountain Daylight Time
From:Holly
To:Planning Public Comments
My greatest concern for this change in zoning is the traffic increase. We have already had bus service reduced
significantly and constant traffic specifically in this area is noOceable and a problem. Roads are in disrepair
with only bandaid maintenance over recent years Water use is another concern and hopefully restricOons
and restraint would be designed into the landscaping.
Sent from my iPad
Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 12:43:02 Mountain Daylight Time
Page 8 of 12
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Support for Capitol Park CoSages
Date:Monday, June 20, 2022 at 8:37:36 PM Mountain Daylight Time
From:pamellagl
To:Planning Public Comments
Dear Members of the Planning Commission. Please deny the request for Capitol Park CoSages. I live in the Avenues
and request that you deny the rezone! NO to REZONE!
Pam LiLg
Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 12:43:02 Mountain Daylight Time
Page 9 of 12
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Support for Capitol Park CoSages
Date:Monday, June 20, 2022 at 7:11:25 PM Mountain Daylight Time
From:Bonnie Bowman
To:Planning Public Comments
Please, DO NOT APPROVE! A disaster.
Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 12:43:02 Mountain Daylight Time
Page 10 of 12
Subject:(EXTERNAL) I strongly appose Ivory Home plan in the upper Avenues.
Date:Monday, June 20, 2022 at 6:30:50 PM Mountain Daylight Time
From:PaSy Philpot-Stewart
To:Planning Public Comments
The Penny Lane development was a mistake. Traffic in the Avenues is already unmanageable.
Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 12:43:02 Mountain Daylight Time
Page 11 of 12
Subject:(EXTERNAL) No Support for Capitol Park CoSages' latest proposal
Date:Monday, June 20, 2022 at 5:31:50 PM Mountain Daylight Time
From:Carol Moss
To:Planning Public Comments
I wish to state that the plan being presented is not good for the neighborhood. It will put
extreme demands on the resources of the neighborhood, namely with traffic, parking,
busing, fire fighting when needed, privacy matters, and will not truly address the city's
need for more housing. The prices of these homes will be very much out of the price
range that middle class homeowners can afford.
The zoning requirements that are in place at this time are part of a well planned
neighbor that was built with this specific zoning in place. It's a beautiful neighborhood
that I suggest your members visit and assess before making a decision on the upcoming
request for change in zoning, which will overpopulate the property in question.
Our wish is that the proposed building company of Ivory be satisfied with the current
zoning laws and you allow the laws to remain in place.
Thank you.
Warmest regards,
Carol Brennan Moss
Brian H. Moss
Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 12:43:02 Mountain Daylight Time
Page 12 of 12
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Support for Capitol Park CoSages
Date:Monday, June 20, 2022 at 5:05:28 PM Mountain Daylight Time
From:HELEN HODGDON
To:Planning Public Comments
I don’t support this project. I own a coSage on D Street. Keep the Avenues historical please. I think this
project is really just about greed. Thank you.
Helen Hodgdon
230 D Street
Slc, Utah. 84103
Sent from my iPhone
Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 13:00:23 Mountain Daylight Time
Page 1 of 1
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Comments for today's Ivory Homes proposed rezoning hearing
Date:Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 8:52:42 AM Mountain Daylight Time
From:Beth Chardack
To:Echeverria, Daniel, Wharton, Chris
I am in strong opposition to the proposed zoning and masterplan changes in the upper
Avenues by Ivory Homes.
According to the City’s zoning code, “The purpose of the FR-3/12,000 Foothills Residential
District is to promote environmentally sensitive and visually compatible development.” This
means that high density urban zoning does not belong on the Ivory parcel. Our masterplan
exists to uphold that continuity and preservation of the neighborhood. The proposed zoning
would set dangerous precedent for future building and would invite others to disregard the
integrity of the zoning code and masterplan. These documents exist to preserve our
neighborhoods and must be kept intact.
In addition, building ADUs onto proposed new higher density construction just adds fuel to
the fire. It is my belief that Ivory Homes is bastardizing the intent of the ADU, by calling the
extra units they are hoping to build ‘ADUs’, instead of simply calling it what it is: higher
density housing. This change in nomenclature is merely a guise so Ivory Homes can
maximize profit without regard to the consideration of carefully thought-out plans and
regulations put in place years ago by professional urban planners, meant to protect
homeowners and neighborhoods from this very situation. Let’s allow these documents to
preserve our neighborhoods and natural areas.
The protection offered by the Foothills preservation zoning must mean something, and failure
to enforce the current zoning deems the very work of the Planning Commission irrelevant.
Ivory’s proposal would have a serious negative impact, without providing benefit to the
neighborhood or consideration to preserving the natural area around it. Ivory has failed to
prove that their project deserves deviation to the planning and zoning goals of the City and
the Avenues. This site is zoned for eleven homes (plus allowable ADUs), which is the
maximum that should be allowed on this site. The request to change the zoning code and
masterplan by Ivory Homes is misguided and should be denied.
Thank you.
Beth Chardack
BA, Political Science, University of Michigan
MA, Urban and Regional Planning, George Washington University
MA, Public Administration, University of Utah
563 Cambridge Cir
Salt Lake City, UT 84103
Dear Planning Commission:
My husband and I are long-time residents of the Avenues. We strongly object to Ivory Homes’ current
request for rezoning at the property located at 675 N ‘F’ Street. Ivory is requesting a rezone from FR-3
to SR-1. This will reduce the minimum lot size to only 5000 sq ft. They are also requesting an increase
from 11 to 19 homes. Moreover, Ivory plans to include 14 or so ADUs. That’s a total of 33 new living
units. That’s not suitable for the Avenues. The intent of allowing ADUs to exist was to provide help for
individual homeowners who felt the need. The intent was NOT to help a developer make more money
on less land. Ivory’s rezone request is altogether too dense for this location.
As you are well aware, zoning regulations exist for a reason. If zoning regulations can be changed
whenever a developer wants to change them, what good are they? If the proposed changes were for the
good of the community, maybe that would be a reason to approve a rezone. Well, in this case, the
rezone is definitely not for the good of the community. This is totally obvious if you look at the results
of past votes taken by the Greater Avenues Community Council (GACC) [1244 to 25 against rezoning].
The rezone would only be for the good of Ivory Homes, so they could squeeze more money out of their
intended project.
We are concerned about growing traffic on our Avenues streets. These streets were designed and built
many years ago. They were not built for heavy usage. They already present risks at 4-way corners.
So much additional traffic from the proposed over-populated cottages would exacerbate the dangers.
Then, because we are at a higher elevation than most parts of Salt Lake City, the risks get even worse
on snowy or icy days. In addition, we are an active neighborhood, with many walkers and cyclists.
Please notice our attempts at “traffic calming.” We don’t need more traffic to add more danger for
pedestrians!!!!!
Ivory’s request is not compatible with the ambiance of our neighborhood. Two of the aspects we most
love about the Avenues are the relative quiet of the neighborhoods and the presence of older,
individually-built homes, each with their own unique characteristics. These proposed homes do not
align with that vision. According to Ivory’s plans, there will be minimal setback and minimal
greenspace. There are even a number of lovely mature trees that would be removed. That’s bad for
wildlife, bad for aesthetics, bad for our quality of life, and not suitable for the Avenues.
In summary, Ivory Homes’ request for a rezone at 675 N ‘F’ Street lacks a logical basis for approval.
Please do the right thing and do not approve the request.
Respectfully submitted,
Carolyn Clark
929 N Terrace Hills Dr
SLC UT 84103
1
Clark, Aubrey
From:Courtney Henley <courtney.henley@icloud.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 22, 2022 2:24 PM
To:Planning Public Comments
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Opposed to Rezone of 675 N F Street
I am strongly opposed from the depths of my body and spirit to the application to amend the zoning of the property at 675 N F
Street from the FR‐3/12,000 (Foothills Residential) zone to the SR‐1 (Special Development Pattern Residential) zone to allow three
times the number of lots to be developed.
The proposal by for profit Ivory Homes out of southern Salt Lake County is an insult to our local community in Salt Lake City. Ivory
Development currently has no stake in the future prosperity of the local community and seeks to maximize profit by negating
decades old community master plans. For more than 40 years the Avenues community has been committed to honoring and
preserving it’s low density urban/rural character. For 20 years my family has dedicated our lives and livelihood to cultivation of low
density nature loving development on our property at 13th Ave and J Street. It would be a betrayal for city planners to throw away
all of my family’s and neighbors' hard work.
Every aspect of the 1987 Avenues Community Master Plan would be violated by the applicant's proposed development: it is
incompatible with the historic district nature of the community, it includes multiple‐family dwellings out of character with the
neighborhood, it will cause dramatic increases in traffic congestion where there is none, it will destroy the ultimate parks and
recreation spirit of the rural/urban Avenues by developing precious avian nesting habitat, it would violate the proposals for
streetscape improvements that are less concrete and steel and more trees and open space.
For 40 years the community has supported the City Acquisition of Foothill Properties via agreements with Salt Lake County, the State
of Utah, and appropriate agencies of the Federal Government to ensure that public properties in the foothills are not sold to private
interests without giving the community an opportunity to purchase the property. This is a precedent that should apply to a deep
pocketed community organization like the most recent owner of the property ‐ the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints ‐ a tax
exempt organization as beholden to the welfare and spiritual nourishment of citizens as a county, state, or federal agency. When a
tax exempt church sold the property to a private interest for profit development it violated a sacred trust with the community. How
to restore this trust? The property in question should be zoned Open Space, Foothills Protection, or Public Lands. These are the
only master plan amendments that would honor the vision of the Avenues Community Master Plan.
Courtney Henley
635 J Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84103
801-502-9523
courtney.henley@icloud.com
1
Clark, Aubrey
From:Smith Douglas <swimdocdoug@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, June 22, 2022 2:41 PM
To:Planning Public Comments
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Support for Capitol Park Cottages
As a long time Avenues resident and property owner, I am totally AGAINST the proposed rezoning to allow the
development of the misleadingly named Capitol Park Cottages. This would add density and traffic to the neighborhood
in ways that would be detrimental to the local quality of life. Thank you for allowing me to share my views. Doug Smith,
MD
From: Tyler Jack
Date: Monday, June 20, 2022 at 1:21 PM
To: Echeverria, Daniel
Subject: RE: (EXTERNAL) setbacks question
I wanted to shoot you one last note to remind you why I am against the re-zone. If you don’t remember
I live on the west side of the subject property and I do not want the re-zone simply because I’d like the
set-backs to stay at 35 ft. I think the project will be nice but I just don’t want another home less than 35
feet from my property line.
Thanks again for your consideration,
Tyler Jack
Manager - NMLS 132155
P: F:
www.frontlinefinancial.com
[Secure Upload]
This message and any attachments may be privileged, confidential, or
proprietary. If you are not the intended recipient of this email or believe that
you have received this correspondence in error, please delete this email.
June 21, 2022
To:
Daniel Echeverria, Senior Planner, Planning Division
Chris Wharton, District 3 Council Member and City Council Chair
Opposition to Ivory Homes Amended & Supplemented Rezoning Application
for 675 North F Street
Petition Number: PLNPCM2020-00334/00335/0034, PLNPCM2021-00656,
PLNSUB2021-01175, etc.
I am still very adamantly opposed the rezoning of 675 N. F Street property from FR-3/12,000
to SR-1 or any other zone other than the existing zoning.
I have lived at 790 Northpoint Drive for 21 years.
My home is directly across from the 675 North F Street Rezoning application.
I recommend Ivory Homes develop their “new-build, in-fill, planned community that
incorporates Accessory Dwelling Units” under the current foothills zoning goals.
Any zoning change will result in an overly dense and possibly a high elevation development.
Reduced setbacks to the north will impinge on the Northpoint Estates community.
Development will not help in providing affordable housing to those in need; the cost will be too
high, public transport is not available & amenities are not in walking distance.
No zoning change is needed to develop . The existing zoning adequately allows for ADUs while
also limiting over-dense construction.
This additional amended concept does not represent a substantial difference in creating a
development consistent with the existing foothills neighborhood density; nor does it commit to
a specific build density.
As a resident and very concerned citizen, I urge you to oppose the Ivory Homes rezoning
proposal for 675 North F Street. It is deleterious to my home and community.
Please support this community and represent the needs to the SLC Counsel to deny the
zoning change.
M Lisa Larriva, directly adjacent resident
790 Northpoint Drive
Salt Lake City, UT 84103
Tuesday, June 21, 2022 at 11:12:40 Mountain Daylight Time
Page 1 of 1
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Rezoning 675 North F Street
Date:Friday, June 17, 2022 at 4:47:23 PM Mountain Daylight Time
From:Julie Mackie
To:Echeverria, Daniel
Dear Mr. Echeverria,
I am wriPng to oppose the rezoning of the property at 675 North F Street. If the city and neighborhood feels the
need to rezone, it should be done through changing Master Plan with the coordinaPon of the city government and
neighborhood. Changing zoning for the whim of a developer cannot be good city planning. I understand the desire
for higher density, but, this should be done on a Master Plan level and not piecemeal where a developer feels the
profit.
Please do not consider this. It is not in anyone's interest but the developer. Reasons to deny this amendment have
been put forth to you many Pmes and I only want reiterate my support to deny Ivory Development a zoning change.
Thank you,
Julie Mackie
685 G Street
June 18, 2022
Dear Mr. Echeverria, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission,
It has come to my attention that on or about June 15th, a letter was transmitted to you by
Peter Wright of the Preserve our Avenues Zoning Coalition. That letter was accompanied by a
PowerPoint-style PDF that laid out their arguments. In that document, there was a claim made on
page 5 that “Every resident of F Street adjacent to Ivory’s property is strongly opposed.”
This statement is false, and was or should have been known to be false at the time of its
writing.
I purchased the property on the corner of F Street and 13th Avenue, directly opposite the lot
in question, on January 13th, 2022. A member of the Preserve our Avenues Zoning Coalition
identified me by name while speaking to my neighbors in April, and therefore knew that the house
was under new ownership. At no time have I expressed any opinion regarding this matter, publicly
or privately. At no time prior to June 15th had anyone spoken to me about this planned rezone,
representing either side.
I reserve the ability to formulate an opinion. Should I choose to do so, I will base that
opinion on a considered understanding of both sides’ arguments.
I feel that this must be brought to your attention, as a known false statement may affect the
credibility of the representatives of the Preserve our Avenues Zoning Coalition in the upcoming
hearing on June 22nd.
Regards,
Andrew Steiner
461 E. 13th Ave.
Salt Lake City, UT 84103
I write in support of the request to change the zoning map and the SLC master plan to
accommodate the Capitol Park Cottages proposal. I live in the Avenues myself, just below Sixth Avenue,
and prize the neighborhood for its diversity of housing types, mix of owners and renters, access to a
grocery store and public library, and economic diversity. The area surrounding the North F Street
property already has a variety of housing—town homes, large single-family homes, condos, and small
single-family homes. The “cottage” development envisioned (not yet officially under review) is not so
dense that it would appreciably increase traffic in the area. The larger homes proposed will be big
enough to accommodate families, which will help support the declining enrollment of Ensign
Elementary. The yards are small, but from looking around the Avenues, there are plenty of people who
wish to purchase a home and not have to do a lot of yard upkeep.
Salt Lake City (as well as much of Utah) is desperately short of housing of all kinds. Even if this
will not be income-restricted, “affordable” housing, increasing the supply at the likely price point will
ease the pressure on the housing market in general. Developing vacant property is ideal because it does
not displace existing, “naturally affordable” older housing. Yes, it is very important that the proposed
ADU’s not be used for short-term rentals, so I urge all parties to work to increase the enforcement
options available to cities to combat short-term rentals. The state Political Subdivisions Interim
Committee is studying this issue this summer and fall.
Approving the requested amendments would not damage the character of the Avenues. Salt
Lake City needs the additional housing. I urge the Planning Commission to support the requested
changes.
Susan Olson
Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 15:55:28 Mountain Daylight Time
Page 1 of 2
Subject:(EXTERNAL) Support for Ivory Homes Rezoning at 675 North F Street
Date:Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 3:34:01 PM Mountain Daylight Time
From:JulieQe Palmer White
To:Echeverria, Daniel
CC:Wharton, Chris
AFachments:emailsignaturelogonotext_c4fe8a58-60ec-4e55-8f78-be04eY3833d.png
Mr. Echeverria,
Apparently, I'm late to the game and didn't realize that this issue was s]ll being debated in my
community. I became aware today that there is a planning commission mee]ng tonight regarding the
request by Ivory Homes for a rezone to allow higher density housing, ADUs, etc., at the top of F Street.
I cannot aQend this mee]ng, so I am wri]ng to you instead in the hopes that you will receive this
message before the mee]ng tonight and take it into account.
I am wri]ng to express my support. And I am wri]ng to reassure you that residents of the Avenues are
not unified in their opposi]on to this project. I have lived in the Avenues off and on since 1981,
including 15 years living on 18th Avenue and now 20 years living on Virginia Street. I have read many
of the comments / arguments in opposi]on to this project since the beginning and find myself
profoundly disappointed in what I can only describe as an intensely narrow and unyielding mindset
held by individuals that should know beQer.
I am now a parent of a teenager with significant disabili]es. And I have an aging mother. I was, and
remain, thrilled by the prospect of new and innova]ve housing op]ons in this wonderful community
that may allow me to support my child with disabili]es into adulthood, and provide a place for my
mother as she ages, all while providing them some level of independence in a separate ADU. I am
keen to see the City develop more mul]-genera]onal housing op]ons, more innova]ve solu]ons
other than typical apartments/condos or single-family housing. I am one of those Avenues residents
that will seek to add an ADU to their backyard someday if I cannot find another alterna]ve for my son
that will allow him to live in the community where he grew up and that he knows well, with as much
independence and dignity as possible.
And I want the future residents of this proposed development to live in my community and to be a
part of it. Those who object to this project appear to have a very limited view of who they want living
in the Avenues. I will never forget the first leQer I received in the mail from someone who opposed
this project -- the objec]on to "urban" zoning s]ll lingers in my mind. At first it made me laugh,
considering the many bus stops within just a few blocks, the number of condos and apartments nearby
(both above and below), and the grocery store/liquor store/shopping complex within six blocks. But
then the comment hit home, as I fear it is code for some other perceived threat.
I have no doubt that there was, and likely remains, much room for improvement in what Ivory Homes
is trying to do. And I have no love for developers. But I respect everyone who is trying to make this
work and trying to find innova]ve solu]ons for the housing challenges we now face in our City. Please
con]nue to do so.
I embrace a broader perspec]ve. The persistent and unyielding opposi]on to this project makes me
sad. There is no beQer to describe it.
Page 2 of 2
Sincerely yours,
JulieQe White
275 N Virginia Street
Juliette Palmer White • Shareholder
Parsons Behle & Latimer
201 South Main Street, Suite 1800 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Main +1 801.532.1234 • Direct +1 801.536.6804 • Fax +1 801.536.6111
A Professional
Law Corporation parsonsbehle.com • JWhite@parsonsbehle.com • vCard
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any attachment(s) are confidential and may also contain privileged
attorney-client information or work product. The message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended
recipient, or the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, distribute, or copy this communication. If you
have received the message in error, please immediately notify us by reply electronic mail or by telephone at +1 801.532.1234, and delete
this original message.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
d. Postmarked Public Notice
4. NOTICE OF CITY
COUNCIL HEARING
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2020-00335/00334 – Capitol
Park Cottages Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments – Peter Gamvroulas, representing
the property owner, Ivory Development, is requesting zoning map and master plan amendments
for property located at approximately 675 N F Street. The request includes the following
applications:
A. Zoning Map Amendment (Rezone): The applicant is requesting to amend the zoning of
the property from the FR-3/12,000 "Foothills Residential District" to the SR-1 "Special
Development Pattern" zoning district. Although the applicant has requested that the
property be rezoned to the SR-1 zone, consideration may be given to rezoning the
property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Case number
PLNPCM2020-00335
B. Master Plan Amendment: The applicant is requesting to amend the master plan
designation for the property in the Avenues Community Master Plan from "Very Low
Density" to "Low Density." Case number PLNPCM2020-00334
The requests are intended to accommodate two pending Planned Development and Subdivision
requests for a 19-lot single-family dwelling development titled "Capitol Park Cottages." The
property is currently vacant and is zoned FR-3/12,000 "Foothills Residential District." The
property is located in Council District 3, represented by Chris Wharton. (Staff contact: Daniel
Echeverria at 801-535-7165 or daniel.echeverria@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: Room 315
City & County Building
451 S State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah
If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call
Daniel Echeverria at 801-535-7165 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday or via e-mail at daniel.echeverria@slcgov.com. Petition details can also be found
on the petition webpage here: http://bit.ly/slc-openhouse-01175
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)
5. ORIGINAL PETITION
Zoning Amendment Questionnaire
Parcel Number 09304550210000
1. A description of the proposed zoning amendment: The property is currently zoned as FR-
3/12000 Foothills Estates Residential. The purpose of the FR-3/12000 foothills residential
district is to promote environmentally sensitive and visually compatible development of lots not
less than twelve thousand (12,000) square feet in size, suitable for foothills locations. The
proposed zoning designation for the property is FB-UN1 this zone allows for small scale
structures, up to two-and-one-half (2.5) stories in height, or relatively small lots with up to four
dwelling units per lot depending on the building type. The master plan amendment would
continue to allow the promotion of environmentally sensitive and visually compatible
development as envisioned in the FR zoning and would further provide the flexibility to enhance
housing type diversity in the neighborhood.
2. A statement declaring the purpose of the zoning amendment: The proposed Master Plan
amendment change is specific to the approximately 3 acer parcel 09304550210000; to be
changed from the residential large lot designation of FR-3 to accommodate a FB-UN 1 zoning
designation. This Master Plan amendment will enable the parcel to support an innovative
development in which diverse Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are integrated into a planned
community development. The Growing SLC: Five Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 (“5YP”)
acknowledges that “ADUs are the most cost-effective method of new construction for small
housing units” (5YP pg. 20). The proposed development would showcase how a variety of ADU
types can blend into an existing neighborhood and provide housing solutions for diverse
demographics (students, seniors, young families). The development can further materialize the
objectives stated in the Five Year Housing Plan. The first Goal expounded in the Five Year Plan
recognizes the need to “increase the diversity of housing types and opportunities in the
city…Strategic policy decisions that integrate…innovative design and construction methods, can
break down social and economic segregation, thus building a city for everyone” (5YP pg.17).
3. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area the present
master plan for this property was done in 1987 and new and innovative opportunities exist that
will allow for more current housing outcomes. The Five Year Housing Plan recognizes that “each
generation has different ideas and behaviors that influence their decisions at each stage of life,
and in the aggregate create the demand for housing” (5YP pg. 10). The current zone restricts
the property to rigid lot sizing that limits opportunities for diversity in housing and exacerbates
the housing affordability crisis. Furthermore, the Five Year Housing Plan acknowledges
“barriers, such as density limitations, prohibitions on different types of housing, and other
development regulations, have contributed in part to a general supply deficit and economic
segregation” (5YP pg. 11).
4. Is the request amending the zoning map? The request is amending the Zoning Map. The parcel
number to be changed is 09304550210000.
5. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? There is no request to amend the
text.
6. MAILING LIST
OWN_FULL_NAME own_address_andUNIT OWN_CITY OWN_STATEOWN_ZIP
JOSEPH FLANAGAN; AIRA FLANAGAN (JT)1326 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105
WRIGHT PROJECT, LLC 1589 E YALECREST AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105
HAMILTON FAMILY 1998 TRUST 07/10/1998 171 E THIRD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
NANCY H HALVERSON 1914 E 9400 S SANDY UT 84093
PETER WRIGHT; JANET WRIGHT (JT)20012 OAK FAIRWAY CT ESTERO FL 33928
JENI INDRESANO; MATTHEW A STELLA (JT)22 OLIVER STREET SALEM MA 01970
KELLEE W BURTON 22 S EAGLEWOOD DR NORTH SALT LAKE UT 84054
MUFFY FERRO 2250 N STATELINE RD ALTA WY 83414
RICHARD WENDELL NIELSEN TRUST 05/04/2020 2321 S DALLIN ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109
LEO SOTIRIOU; CYNTHIA G SOTIRIOU (JT)250 E BROADWAY ST # 330 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111
BENJAMIN ADAM STEINBERG; LAURA L STEINBERG (JT)290 E PENNY PARADE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 298 E PENNY PARADE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
HUGH J SHARP; ANIKA N SHARP (JT)3 ROBINHOOD RD CAPE ELIZABETH ME 04107
JENNIFER L AZZI 307 LOWELL AVE MILL VALLEY CA 94941
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 3075 RED SPRINGS DR LAS VEGAS NV 89135
678 F STREET CONDOMINIUMS UNIT OWNERS ASSOCIATION 308 W 300 S # LL2 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101
REED TOPHAM; ANNA TOPHAM (JT)310 E PENNY PARADE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
DANIEL H PAYNE; VANESSA I PAYNE (JT)315 E CAPITOL PARK AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
SFY TR; CBM TR 322 E PENNY PARADE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
DIANE B LANZL 329 E PENNY PARADE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
HENRY L LEVINE 340 E PENNY PARADE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 343 E PENNY PARADE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ROBERT RYAN RICHARDS; MARTINA WRIGHT RICHARDS (JT)343 E REDBRICK CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
RICHARD SCHMIDT; NANCY SCHMIDT (JT)344 E CHARITY CV SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
WILL S TENNEY 346 E REDBRICK CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
FREEMAN FAMILY TRUST 03/08/2000 348 E REDBRICK CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JACOB H COPINGA; FRANCES R COPINGA (JT)349 E CHARITY CV SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 351 E REDBRICK CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 353 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
MATTHEW TYLER; JUDITH TYLER (JT)354 E CAPITOL PARK AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TINA B RUGA 357 E CHARITY CV SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
DAVID M GRANT 357 S 1840 W CEDAR CITY UT 84720
P&B PROPERTIES III LC 3581 E WARR RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109
HERBERT H JR POLLOCK; DANA D POLLOCK (JT)363 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 3650 TYLER AVE OGDEN UT 84403
ANIQUE J MONFROOY 368 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 369 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
CORY M SHIPP; BOBBI L MORGAN (JT)374 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
BENJAMIN LANOHA 377 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
DONALD R MORRIS; MAISA MORRIS (JT)381 E ELEVENTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
RAH LIV TR 385 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
NAS REV LIV TRUST 386 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JMT TRUST 01/04/2019 400 CAPITOL PARK AVE #101 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
HAASTR 400 CAPITOL PARK AVE #201 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
DAVID L MAHER; MARILYN J MAHER (JT)400 CAPITOL PARK AVE #202 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
MJM REV TRUST 400 CAPITOL PARK AVE #202 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 400 CAPITOL PARK AVE #204 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TODD A JENSEN; CARMELLE JENSEN (JT)400 CAPITOL PARK AVE #301 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
KBB FAM TRUST 400 CAPITOL PARK AVE #401 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
MLVV FIVR TRUST 400 CAPITOL PARK AVE #406 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
CJC REV TRUST; GLC REV TRUST 400 CAPITOL PARK AVE #501 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
GLC REV TRUST 400 CAPITOL PARK AVE #501 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
NT MARITAL TRUST NO 1 400 CAPITOL PARK AVE #502 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
AMBER SKOLNICK; JOSHUA SKOLNICK (JT)400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #503 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
AMBER SKOLNICK; JOSHUA SKOLNICK (JT)400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S-9 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
GEORGE B HOKE; G&EHFT 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #305 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JANET K MANCINI; VINCENT P MANCINI (JT)400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S-3 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
LINDA PEARLINE DEAN REVOCABLE TRUST 7/18/2013 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #303 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
LINDA PEARLINE DEAN REVOCABLE TRUST 7/18/2013 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S30 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
MERIDIEN AT CAPITOL PARK CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
NAOMA TATE; NTM #1 TRUST 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #504 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
NAOMA TATE; NTM #1 TRUST 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S11 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
PATRICIA A DAVIS; JOHN L DAVIS 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #403 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
PATRICIA A DAVIS; JOHN L DAVIS 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S31 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
PAUL & JANICE MCKINNON JOINT TRUST 01/09/2020 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #302 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
PAUL & JANICE MCKINNON JOINT TRUST 01/09/2020 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #402 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
PAUL D MCKINNON; JANICE W MCKINNON (JT)400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S-4 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
PAUL MCKINNON; JAN MCKINNON (JT)400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S-5 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
PETER BILLINGS; MARGARET BILLINGS (JT)400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #104 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
PETER BILLINGS; MARGARET BILLINGS (JT)400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S26 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
PETER BILLINGS; MARGARET BILLINGS (JT)400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S28 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
SHOLLY KAGAN; CYNTHIA KAGAN (JT)400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #304 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
SHOLLY KAGAN; CYNTHIA KAGAN (JT)400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S17 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
SHOLLY KAGAN; CYNTHIA KAGAN (JT)400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S19 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S16 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
VICTORIA OWEN KLEIN 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #105 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
VINCENT P MANCINI; JANET K MANCINI (JT)400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #404 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
GAYLE PERKINS TRUST 03/14/2019 405 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
OBLC 4066 BITHYNIA RD SANTA BARBARA CA 93110
WALTER R JONES; HELEN W JONES (JT)412 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
THOMAS W KEEN 415 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TERRY HALL; DREW HALL (TC)416 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 420 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
BEDELL IRREVOCABLE TRUST 04/01/2015 423 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
LEILA BROWN ARMKNECHT 433 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ALAN & PAMELA LAKOMSKI TRUST 08/05/2013 440 N VIRGINIA ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 453 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ALAN E CRAWFORD 456 E THIRTEENTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
KODY M POWELL; ELISABETH C POWELL (JT)459 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
HANNAH DUFFEY; DAN FRAME (JT)460 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
KINNEY FAMILY TRUST 03/17/2020 461 E THIRTEENTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ANDREW STEINER 461 E THIRTEENTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
RANDAL W KOZIATEK; GINA M KOZIATEK (JT)463 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
NIRUPAMA RAMKUMAR; SANDEEP C MANYAM (JT)466 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ERIC C HANSEN 468 E THIRTEENTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
PETER SUMMERILL 472 E THIRTEENTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 473 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
SHARON RAMMELL 4732 S 4300 W REXBURG ID 83440
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 474 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JAD TRUST 475 E THIRTEENTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
PATRICIA E KING 480 E THIRTEENTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
FREDRICK W REIMHERR; KATHLEEN R REIMHERR (JT)482 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
KUBOTA REVOCABLE TRUST 03/09/2021 483 E THIRTEENTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
CHRISTOPHER BURCH; SEUL YE PARK (JT)4885 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117
JEFFERY K SCOTT; SHEPARD SCOTT, SARAH P SCOTT (TC)489 E TWELFTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
HOFFMANN LIVING TRUST 02/19/2019 504 E THIRTEENTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
LAVERNE S JR ERICKSON 505 E FOURTEENTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
RUSSELL E NORVELL (JT)510 E FOURTEENTH AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
GARR SMITH; CATHY STUTZ-SMITH (JT)571 N E ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
RYAN J KIER; DARCI TAYLOR (JT)572 N F ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
HENRY MITCHELL STEINMAN 573 N G ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
STEPHANIE CAUMET 574 N E ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
CHRISTINE PACKARD 577 N F ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
KENT M MILES; LINDA H MILES (JT)578 N G ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ZACHARY DRAPKIN & ZOE RALEIGH FAMILY REVOCABLE TRUST 05/12/2020 584 N G ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
DAVID B YOUNG 585 N F ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
RONALD B WILKINS; SUSAN P WILKINS (JT)586 N E ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JOHN Y YOON; KATHERINE A YOON (JT)601 N D ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
PATRICK MARTIN BURKE LIVING TRUST 11/12/2018 604 N CAPITOL PARK AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ALAN B YORGASON; JANNETTE J YORGASON (JT)604 N G ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
AMD & RESTATED DECLARATION OF TRUST OF THE DAVID PARKINSON TRUST 607 N CAPITOL PARK AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ROBIN & JANE KIM FAMILY TRUST 10/09/2020 615 N CAPITOL PARK AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
MICHAEL P FILBEN; DIANE HILL (JT)618 N G ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
MAX D HUNSAKER 620 N F ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
RICHARD F GROW; JODY W GROW (JT)623 N CAPITOL PARK AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JOHN NISSON 623 N F ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
POVEY SKYE O 623 N F ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ELIZABETH OWENS 623 N G ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
MS LIV TRUST 624 N G ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
BENJAMIN E FARR; ERICA J FARR (JT)626 N F ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 633 N G ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 655 N G ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
CHERI DAILY; MICHAEL STEVENS (JT)668 N F ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
PETAR GERMANOV; DIANA GERMANOV (JT)671 N G ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JEP REV TRUST 672 N G ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
LANGHEINRICH, FRANK A; JT LANGHEINRICH 674 N CARING CV SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
DG LIV TR; IS LIV TR 674 N CARING CV SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
KAYALENE M SPATAFORE 678 N F ST # 678E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JARED J YOUNG; PAMELA BROWN (JT)678 N F ST # W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TYLER A JACK & ANN MARIE LEONE FAMILY TRUST 06/04/2019 684 N CARING CV SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 685 N G ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
LYNN M KEENAN; MARJORIE J MATHIS (JT)688 N F ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
GAC REV TR 689 N CARING CV SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JASON R PAUL 690 N CARING CV SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
CHRISTOPHER C KOLB; HEATHER M KOLB (JT)695 N G ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ADAM H HIRSCHEL; ALICE D HIRSCHEL (JT)701 N G ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ELYCE B MOUSKONDIS; EBMT 7212 HELSEM BLVD DALLAS TX 75230
LON A JEKINS; RICHARD M MAXFIELD (JT)786 N NORTHPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 787 N NORTHPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ROLAND K BARBERO & CASSANDRA E BARBERO LIVING TRUST 01/26/2016 789 N NORTHPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
MLL LIV TRUST 790 N NORTHPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
DJB LIV TRUST 791 N NORTHPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ALAN B HAYES & SUSAN E MACNAMARA REVOCABLE TRUST 04/16/2020 793 N NORTHPOINT CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
BRIAN H MOSS; CAROL B MOSS (JT)796 N JUNIPERPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
NORTHPOINT ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 798 N NORTHPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
P KENT FAIRBANKS; MARY P FAIRBANKS (JT)799 N NORTHPOINT CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
LORI ELIZABETH PASSEY; MARK PASSEY (JT)800 N JUNIPERPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
KEVIN L HAVLIK TRUST 05/17/2021; CAROL A BALLOU TRUST 05/17/2021 801 N JUNIPERPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
BRIAN RUGGLES; JANICE RUGGLES (JT)803 N GRANDRIDGE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
BRENDAN BUCKNER 806 N NORTHPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
HUGO ROSSI; JULIA ROSSI (JT)807 N JUNIPERPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
MHN FAM TRUST 809 N GRANDRIDGE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
GENESIS INVESTMENT CORPORATION 810 N NORTHPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
CAROLE D NELSON REVOCABLE TRUST 7/1/1998 811 N GRANDRIDGE DR #29E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JUDY A DALY; JOEL L DEATON (JT)813 N JUNIPERPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JAMES H VIRDEN; ELIZABETH H VIRDEN (JT)814 N NORTHPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
DJN LIV TRUST; JBN LIV TRUST 815 N NORTHPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
LORETTA C RICE REVOCABLE TRUST 02/05/1996 817 N NORTHPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JOSEPH FOURNIER 819 N JUNIPERPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 820 N JUNIPERPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
GENESIS INVESTMENT CORP 821 N NORTHPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 822 N GRANDRIDGE DR #49C SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
WILLIAM CRAIG STERN LIVING TRUST 12/23/2013 823 N NORTHPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
KSCS LIVING TRUST 12/11/2020 824 N JUNIPERPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
MICHAEL S ZAVELL; CHRISTINA B ZAVELL (JT)825 N JUNIPERPOINT CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO 825 NE MULTNOMAH ST #1900 PORTLAND OR 97232
JOHN T HOPKIN REVOCABLE TRUST 01/28/2002 826 N GRANDRIDGE CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
WARMBIER FAMILY TRUST 08/13/1999 827 N GRANDRIDGE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
EUGENE MISHCHENKO; GALINA POLEI (JT)828 N JUNIPERPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
ALEX TREHARNE; ERIKA TREHARNE (JT)829 N GRANDRIDGE DR #41B SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TAMMY DEE BERKHOUDT 830 N GRANDRIDGE CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
HEATHER HAMBY 834 N GRANDRIDGE CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
COLIN ROBINSON; JEANETTA ROBINSON (JT)835 N GRANDRIDGE CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
JAT FAMILY TRUST 07/10/2002 839 N GRANDRIDGE CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
D&CLVK TR 843 N GRANDRIDGE CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
MARK S LEVITT; KATHLEEN ANNE LUNG (JT)847 N JUNIPERPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 849 N JUNIPERPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
DAVID HOPKINS; WENDY HOPKINS (JT)851 N JUNIPERPOINT DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
PATRICK G AKERS; TERI L AKERS (JT)853 N JUNIPERPOINT DR #17 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
LIVING TRUST OF DAVID RICHARD GULLING 06/16/2021; DAVID RICHARD G 8718 REDONDO DR DALLAS TX 75218
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 88 E EDGECOMBE DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103
PEMBROKE CAPITOL PARK LLC 940 N 1250 W CENTERVILLE UT 84014
IVORY DEVELOPMENT, LLC 978 E WOODOAK LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117
SKAAR PROPERTIES LLC 9846 E EMERALD DR SUN LAKES AZ 85248
KATHLEEN M HOLDING PO BOX 1083 DAYTON WY 82836
WILLIAM I HIGUCHI LEGACY TRUST 12/23/2020 PO BOX 1223 PARK CITY UT 84060
SALT LAKE CITY CORP PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114
TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED PO BOX 3181 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110
ASSOCIATED PROPERTIES, LC PO BOX 478 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84110
MOUNTAIN SEAS DEVELOPMENT LTD PO BOX 680844 PARK CITY UT 84068
MOUNTAIN SEAS DEVELOPMENT LTD; NTM TRUST PO BOX 680844 PARK CITY UT 84068
CRAIG N PACINI; JULIE M PACINI (JT)PO BOX 708682 SANDY UT 84070
SPINAZZOLA JOINT REVOCABLE TRUST 06/03/2014 PO BOX 8891 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067
CAPITOL PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION PO BOX 9375 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109
Current Occupant 794 N NORTHPOINT DR #3A Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 795 N NORTHPOINT CT Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 804 N JUNIPERPOINT DR Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 855 N JUNIPERPOINT DR Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 853 N JUNIPERPOINT DR Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 841 N JUNIPERPOINT DR Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 833 N GRANDRIDGE DR #42D Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 837 N JUNIPERPOINT CT Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 341 E CHARITY CV Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 673 N CARING CV Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 685 N CARING CV Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 675 N F ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 705 N G ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 505 E 14TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 535 E 14TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 669 N G ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 461 E 13TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 473 E 13TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 475 E 13TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 483 E 13TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 510 E 14TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 503 E 13TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 678 N F ST #W Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 678 N F ST #E Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 678 N F ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 320 E CAPITOL PARK AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 342 E CAPITOL PARK AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 610 N CAPITOL PARK AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 590 N CAPITOL PARK AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 317 E PENNY PARADE DR Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 375 E CAPITOL PARK AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 589 N CAPITOL PARK AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 588 N D ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 584 N D ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 574 N D ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 368 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 374 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 380 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 386 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 381 E 11TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 353 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 363 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 369 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 377 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 385 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 395 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 405 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 415 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 358 E CAPITOL PARK AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 617 N F ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 433 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 423 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #101 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #102 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #103 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #201 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #202 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #203 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #204 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #205 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #301 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #306 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #401 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #405 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #406 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #501 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #502 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S-1 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S-2 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S-6 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S-7 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S-8 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S10 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S12 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S13 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S14 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S15 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S18 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S20 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S21 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S22 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S23 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S24 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S25 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S27 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 400 E CAPITOL PARK AVE #S29 Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 456 E 13TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 468 E 13TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 472 E 13TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 480 E 13TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 615 N G ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 453 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 459 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 463 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 473 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 489 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 504 E 13TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 412 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 416 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 420 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 430 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 580 N F ST Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 460 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 466 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 474 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 482 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
Current Occupant 488 E 12TH AVE Salt Lake City UT 84103
DANIEL ECHEVERRIA
SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114-5480
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: Allison Rowland
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:December 13, 2022
RE: INFORMATIONAL: UPDATE ON THE ANTI-GENTRIFICATION AND -DISPLACEMENT
PLAN, THRIVING IN PLACE
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
The Council will receive an update from the Department of Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) about work
on the City’s anti-gentrification and -displacement plan, known as Thriving in Place. The overarching goal of
this project is to identify policy measures that can help current residents remain in Salt Lake City as it grows and
changes. The plan will draw on research about gentrification pressures and patterns of involuntary displacement
in Salt Lake City, as well as extensive local community input, and research on policies in other cities nationwide.
In its final form, this plan aims to present a list of effective anti-displacement policies and programs feasible in
Salt Lake City, with particular focus on those which can be implemented within two years. It will also outline the
budget and staffing increases, ordinance changes, strategies for State-level advocacy, and new community
partnerships that would be required to fully implement the plan. Some of the proposed policies and programs
would build on work already underway but add modifications or significantly expand them, while others would
be entirely new.
The process of formulating this anti-gentrification and -displacement plan got underway in September 2021,
and the Council was updated on progress in the April 12 and July 12 work sessions. The Department states in the
transmittal that it anticipates incorporating this plan into the forthcoming draft of the new five-year housing
plan (dubbed Housing SLC). It expects to present that version to the Planning Commission in early 2023. Staff
note: CAN is planning to transmit a draft of Housing SLC to the Council in early 2023.
Item Schedule:
Briefing: December 13, 2022
Set Date: n/a
Public Hearing: n/a
Potential Action: n/a
Page | 2
Additional information about the plan is available in English and Spanish on the Thriving in Place website.
Goal of the briefing: Receive an update and provide feedback on the ongoing work for the City’s
gentrification and displacement plan, known as Thriving in Place, in compliance with the Council’s policy on
mid-terms plan updates.
ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.Goals and Near-Term Priority Actions.
The Administration has selected three interrelated “outcome goals” for this project (numbers 1-3 below) and
three “supporting goals” (numbers 4-6 below):
1. Protect tenants from displacement;
2. Preserve existing affordable housing;
3. Produce additional affordable housing units;
4. Expand funding for tenant support and affordable housing;
5. Partner and collaborate for maximum impact; and
6. Advocate for tenants at the state level.
The final version of the plan is anticipated to include a total of 21 proposed priority actions, some of which
would advance more than one of the goals above. A subset of 11 of the 21 priority actions are proposed as
near-term priorities (see also the one-page graphical summary in Attachment 1 of the transmittal.) These
include:
o Replace the Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance (referred to as 1a in Attachment 1 of the
transmittal)—this is discussed more in Section B below;
o Create a one-stop shop tenant resource (1b);
o Improve and expand tenant resources, access to legal services, and landlord training and
incentives (1c);
o Factor displacement impacts in master plans, rezonings, and development agreements (2a);
o Partner with impacted communities to coordinate action and investment (2d);
o Incentivize creation and preservation of affordable housing (3a)–see Policy Question #2
regarding role clarity;
o Prioritize and invest in community ownership, and housing that is integrated with support
services (3d);
o Develop new and increased funding sources (4a);
o Expand and invest in Community Land Trust models (4c)–see Policy Question #3;
o Be bold, accountable, and transparent (5a); and
o Create an SLC Anti-Displacement Coalition (5c).
B.Proposed Replacement of the Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance.
With the rapid pace of new construction in Salt Lake City, both the Council and the Administration have
stressed the importance of replacing the City’s Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss ordinance (Section
18.97), since it is widely acknowledged to be ineffective and the development environment has changed
significantly since it was first adopted. Proposed strategies to help maintain the City’s existing number of
affordable units and help households that may be involuntarily displaced include:
1. Improving City data collection through the business licensing process for rental units and the
voluntary Landlord Tenant Initiative (previously known as the Good Landlord program) to
document units, affordability levels, and any tenants residing on proposed redevelopment sites.
Page | 3
2. Changing City Code to:
- Include incentives like increased development intensity to preserve or replace existing
housing units at similar levels of affordability.
- Define community benefits when an applicant proposes a modification to an adopted plan.
- Update the Tenant Relocation Fee ordinance (Section 18.99.040) to include tenants
displaced due to redevelopment or demolition of private development, and update the fee,
linking it to potential incentives-based developer contribution.
3. Providing relocation assistance, as well as ongoing rental assistance (interim or long-term) when
needed, to affected households as part of the demolition permitting process and/or development
entitlement process.
4.Prioritizing displaced renter households for returning to the site or neighborhood when new
affordable housing units are available. The project team has found that other cities have adopted
“community preference policies” that do not violate Fair Housing Law because they do not restrict
new affordable units to only these households. Instead, they give first priority (through a preference
point system) to displaced households.
C.Other Actions to Protect Tenants.
CAN acknowledges that “‘Fixing’ the HLM [Housing Loss Mitigation] ordinance will address only a small
fraction of the City’s displacement challenges and does not effectively protect or create more affordable
units.” Additional proposed priority actions intended to support the plan’s goal of Protecting Tenants
include the following:
o Improve and Expand Tenant Resources, Access to Legal Services, and Landlord Training and
Incentives (Action 1c in Transmittal Appendix 1);
o Factor Displacement Impacts in Master Plans, Rezonings, and Development Agreements (Action
2a);
o Incentivize Creation and Preservation of Affordable Housing (Action 3a);
o Prioritize and Invest in Community Ownership and Housing Integrated with Support Services
(Action 3d); and
o Develop New and Increased Funding Sources (Action 4a)—The transmittal discusses the possibility
of new types of incentives or voluntary agreements for housing developers but acknowledges that
these would not amount to enough to expand tenant supports or fund new affordable housing units
at the levels needed.
The other Near-Term Action Priorities are discussed schematically on pages 12 to 18 of the transmittal, and
are listed in its Appendix 1.
D.Relationships with Other City Plans and Policies.
The Administration plans to transmit a draft of the new five-year housing plan, Housing SLC, in early 2023.
That plan has benefited from the data and resident engagement generated for the Thriving in Place project
and is expected to “address additional facets of the City’s current housing affordability crisis,” as well as to
serve as the City’s mandatory Moderate Income Housing Plan. It will integrate the anti-displacement and -
gentrification strategies of Thriving in Place and include the full report as an attachment. It is anticipated
that the Council will consider adopting Housing SLC with Thriving in Place as an attachment, in their full
forms, in early spring 2023, although the timeline is dependent on Planning Commission action. The City
must adopt a new Moderate Income Housing Plan by the end of fiscal year 2023 to comply with recent State
code changes.
Page | 4
E.Background.
1.June 2020: In the FY21 annual budget, the City Council allocated funding for a Gentrification
Assessment and Displacement Mitigation Plan to understand the breadth and depth of involuntary
displacement and formulate policies and programs to mitigate any such displacement.
2.December 2020: The Department of Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) presented The
Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City to the City Council. The intent
of that presentation was to discuss various housing policy topics identified as goals in Growing SLC:
A Five-Year Housing Plan.
3.September 2021: A consultant team was retained through a City Request for Proposals (RFP).
The Administration selected Baird & Driskell to oversee the Gentrification Assessment and
Displacement Mitigation Plan, now called Thriving in Place. The full team includes:
•Baird & Driskell Community Planning (led by David Driskell);
•Urban Displacement Project, University of California Berkeley (led by Dr. Tim Thomas);
and
•A team from the Department of City and Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah (led by
Dr. Ivis Garcia and Dr. Alessandro Rigolon).
4.April 2022: The Council received an update from CAN about work on the City’s anti-gentrification
and anti-displacement plan, Thriving in Place. It included information on new Utah statutes that
are applicable to housing loss mitigation, and an analysis of the City’s existing housing loss
mitigation ordinance.
5.July 2022: The Council received an update from CAN about results of the team’s community
engagement efforts and “data mapping” to date, as well as refinements to the plans for the next
phase.
F.2022 Utah State Legislature Updates.
Two new laws from the 2022 Utah Legislative session—House Bill 462, Utah Housing Affordability
Amendments, and House Bill 303, Local Land Use Amendments—have elements that are related to anti-
gentrification and anti-displacement.
1. HB 462 and HB 303 define moderate income housing as 80% AMI or below. These two policies are
compatible with the City’s RMF-30, Shared Housing, and Parking Reduction ordinances, which
were adopted by the Council in October 2022. They are also compatible with proposals that have
not yet been received by the Council including the Affordable Housing Zoning Incentives (formerly
known as the Affordable Housing Overlay), and Accessory Dwelling Unit proposals.
2. Elements of these statutes also apply to the establishment of a Housing Loss Mitigation fund and
the City’s ability to require moderate-income housing units in a land use decision:
a. HB 462 authorizes a city to establish a Housing Loss Mitigation fund to preserve
existing, subsidized, and new moderate-income housing (lines 708-710).
b. HB 303 states that a city may require moderate income housing units as a condition of
approval of a land use application only if the developer and the city enter into a written
agreement, or the city provides incentives that are agreed to by the developer (lines 828-
838). It does not specify that the written agreement must be a development agreement.
Page | 5
3.Additionally, HB 303 prohibits a city from approving or denying a land use application based on a
developer’s decision to incorporate moderate-income housing units in their development. The
Administration notes that this change has caused concern for the City's ability to charge a fee for the
loss of housing units through a mandatory program.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1. Several sections of the transmittal mention that additional funding and staff will be needed to
implement the plan. Would the Council like to request additional information about the
level of detail that will be provided in the plan about the additional funding needs
anticipated, and when to anticipate receiving related budget requests? The Council
may also wish to discuss potential funding sources for these expanded needs.
2. Several elements of the proposed plan are related to what could be considered housing
development. Based on the Council’s recent discussions about consolidating housing development
in the RDA and housing services in CAN’s Housing Stability, the Council may wish to discuss role
clarity in how the plan may be executed. Would the Council like to confirm with the
Administration that the RDA is intended to carry out those pieces, even though the
plan itself has been stewarded by CAN.
3. Over the years, both CAN and the RDA have expressed their interest in expanding the Community
Land Trust. The draft plan alludes to this goal as “Invest in a community ownership model and
maximize City-owned parcels through the expansion of the City’s Community Land Trust program
to address intergenerational poverty.” Would the Council like to request the
Administration elaborate on this goal, including how each department’s work could
be coordinated with the other?
4.The Council may wish to ask about the details and elements of the final Thriving in
Place document beyond Replacement of the Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance. For
example, will all ten of the other Near-Term Priorities listed in Appendix 1 be fleshed out to the
same degree as this one? Is this work already underway, and what is the timeline for completion?
5.Would the Council like to request additional information on how the Administration
expects Thriving in Place to complement Housing SLC, and what kinds of
information one will include that the other does not?
Salt Lake City’s
Anti-Displacement Strategy
STRATEGY OVERVIEW
+ NEAR-TERM PRIORITIES
City Council 12.13.22
Action
Framework
What the Framework Does
1 Elevates anti-displacement as a citywide priority.
2 Increases city investment and services to help lower income
tenants avoid eviction and remain in Salt Lake City.
3 Prioritizes creation of more affordable housing, especially
“community-owned housing” that will be affordable long-term.
4 Changes how the city works with impacted communities and
key partners.
5 Calls for new policies and tools that utilize land use decisions
for affordable housing and public benefit.
What the Framework Does Not Do
1 Solve the affordable housing challenge
(rising rents are eroding affordability).
2 Stop displacement (see #1).
3 Overcome state preemption hurdles.
4 Bridge the resource gap.
5 Eliminate the deficit of trust.
6 Goals / 21 Actions /
11 Near-Term Priorities
Focus of this briefing:
>Proposed Community Benefits Policy +
Tenant Relocation Assistance Program
>Other Near-Term Priorities
>Next Steps and Schedule
Actions to
Mitigate the
Displacement
Impacts of
Development
Community Benefits Policy
Triggered by upzones that require a master plan amendment
>In return for increase in development capacity, community benefits
must be provided. Options could include:
○Preservation of existing units at current affordability
○Replacement of units, of comparable size / affordability
○In-lieu fee payment or land donation
>“By right” projects could choose to proceed without participating
>Options are established in code, and documented in development
agreements
>Potential to offer financial incentive via RDA investment
Tenant Relocation Assistance Program
1 Establish funding to support tenants dislocated due to demolition
for new development
2 Notify impacted tenants of potential demolition and availability of
relocation assistance
>Work with developers and partners to provide notification, plus
provide proactive outreach and education
3 Provide relocation assistance to qualified tenants
>Ongoing rental assistance can also be provided as needed
4 Adopt a Community Preference Policy for deed-restricted units
>Give displaced tenants first priority for returning
Improved Data Systems (and more)
1 Collect rent data through the Landlord Tenant Initiative (Action 1c)
>Request info as part of opt-in program in business licensing
2 Improve tracking of units lost due to demolition and what is
replacing them (Action 5a)
3 Strengthen community partnerships to deliver info and services
(Actions 1b, 1c, 2d and 5c)
>Community partners are best positioned to be proactive
4 Expand the inventory of affordable housing (Actions 2b, 3a, 3c, 3d)
>Displaced households need places to move to
What would this look like?
Example 1:
Six townhomes proposed on property with an existing “naturally
affordable” single family home.
Density Already Allowed Requires Rezone + Plan Amendment
> No community benefit required > Development agreement defines
community benefit: preservation or
replacement of affordable unit;
in-lieu fee payment; or land donation
> Assist tenant w/ relocation > Assist tenant w/ relocation
What would this look like?
Example 2:
42-unit apartment proposed on property with two existing “naturally
affordable” single family homes and a duplex.
Density Already Allowed Requires Rezone + Plan Amendment
> No community benefit required > Development agreement defines
community benefit: preservation or
replacement of affordable unit;
in-lieu fee payment; or land donation
> Assist tenants w/ relocation > Assist tenants w/ relocation
2023/24
Priorities
Protect + Support
Tenants
1a Replace the HLM Ordinance
1b Create a One-Stop Shop for
Tenant Resources
1c Improve / Expand Tenant
Resources, Legal Services +
Landlord Training
Preserve + Produce
Affordable Housing
2a Factor Displacement Impacts in
Plans, Rezonings +
Development Agreements
3a Incentivize Creation +
Preservation of Affordable
Housing
3d Prioritize/Invest in Community
Ownership + Housing
Integrated w/ Support Services
Partner in New Ways
2d Partner with Impacted
Communities to Coordinate
Action + Investment
5c Create an SLC Anti-
Displacement Coalition
5a Be Bold, Accountable +
Transparent
Expand Funding + Invest
4a Develop New and Increased
Funding Sources
4c Expand + Invest in Community
Land Trust Models
■Draft Strategy release, review, refinement
and adoption
■Formation of City Implementation Team
■Budget requests for 2023/2024
■Convening of Anti-displacement Coalition
■Work on near-term priorities (code and
policy changes, program design, etc.)
Next Steps
December
●Online sharing / feedback
●Continued development
and refinement
January 2023
●Thriving In Place Strategy
for public review
February 2023
●Housing SLC Plan
for public review
Proposed Schedule
March 2023
●Planning Commission
hearing + recommendation
April - June 2023
●City Council hearing
+ adoption
Feedback/
Discussion
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
________________________
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Received: 11-29-2022
Date Sent to Council: 11-29-2022
______________________________________________________________________________
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: November 28, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community and Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Update on the Thriving in Place efforts to mitigate involuntary displacement.
STAFF CONTACT: Blake Thomas, Director, Community and Neighborhoods, 801-718-7949,
blake.thomas@slcgov.com
Angela Price, Policy Director, Community and Neighborhoods, 385-315-9024,
angela.price@slcgov.com
Susan Lundmark, Transportation Planner, Transportation Division, 801-535-6112,
susan.lundmark@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Written briefing
RECOMMENDATION: No action needed
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Administration, in conjunction with Baird and Driskell,
will be providing a briefing to the City Council on Thriving in Place (TIP), Salt Lake City’s
Gentrification and Anti-displacement Plan. TIP has entered the final stage of developing
recommendations to mitigate involuntary displacement and the Administration is seeking
feedback from the City Council on the proposed policy framework. This briefing follows a series
of presentations to the City Council through the lifespan of the plan’s community engagement
and policy development process to ensure compliance with City Council Resolution 14 of 2020.
In April, CAN presented on housing efforts generally and the Housing Loss Mitigation
Ordinance specifically during two separate Council meetings. In July, the TIP project team
presented to Council to offer a progress update on the findings from Phase I of th e project. In
rachel otto (Nov 29, 2022 07:43 MST)
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
October, the TIP project team met with a variety of stakeholders to discuss the pro ject’s progress
and solicit additional feedback.
TIP will be transformative by establishing Salt Lake City’s first comprehensive anti-
displacement framework. After extensive community outreach, TIP has a heavy focus on
protecting tenants by providing programmatic resources including legal services, increasing
affordable housing stock, and replacing the City’s Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance. Current
policies do not provide the City with an opportunity to maximize public benefit on land use
decisions; TIP is proposing an incentive-based approach to upzoning, which includes the
development of affordable housing units. To address intergenerational poverty, TIP proposes
investment in a community ownership model and maximizing City-owned parcels through the
expansion of the City’s Community Land Trust program.
The policy framework is bold and recommends new programs and expansion of existing
services. This will require financial investment, staffing increases, accountability, and political
capital to execute what has been proposed. The policies outlined in TIP reverberate through all
City departments and, as such, it has been imperative that representatives from each department
have been involved in the development of the framework. There is no silver bullet to solving
gentrification, displacement, social inequity, and the housing crisis, which is why the framework
is a multifaceted approach. There are many areas where state preemption exists, and the
framework must work within the legal parameters. This will be frustrating for residents as the
biggest driver of displacement is increasing rents, and there is not a legal option for rent control.
Salt Lake City is undoubtedly a leader in the state on creating a more equitable city and
combating displacement; however, there is more that can be built upon to strengthen current
efforts. These are complex and systemic social issues that will require collaboration,
partnerships, and accountability.
Housing SLC
In conjunction with TIP, the Administration (through the Department of Community and
Neighborhoods) is developing a new five-year housing plan to replace Growing SLC, which is
set to expire at the end of this year. The new housing plan, which is being called Housing SLC,
has incorporated the data and feedback gathered through the TIP process to inform further
engagement efforts, policies for inclusion, and recommendations for implementation. Housing
SLC and TIP have worked in tandem to develop policy recommendations to address all facets of
the City’s current housing affordability crisis. It is anticipated that TIP will be included, in full,
as an appendix to Housing SLC, while the policy recommendations will be specifically
addressed in the body of the plan and will be included in the implementation portion of the
Housing SLC.
The inclusion of TIP into Housing SLC allows the recommendations and strategies in TIP to be
included in the City’s General Plan, as Housing SLC will fulfill the Moderate-Income Housing
portion of the General Plan requirements outlined in HB 462. Inclusion in the General Plan
allows the City to allocate funding toward pursuing the strategies outlined in TIP and Housing
SLC and sets a policy framework to guide all City housing efforts over the next five years. A full
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
draft of Housing SLC will be ready for public comment and Council review by the end of
December 2022.
OVERVIEW OF THE DRAFT ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY
The TIP team has developed a framework for Salt Lake City’s Anti-Displacement Strategy that
outlines 21 proposed priority actions to help counter displacement pressures, mitigate the
impacts of displacement, and build a more resilient community over time where lower income
residents and tenants can stay in place and thrive. The actions are organized under six
interrelated goals, with many of the actions helping to advance more than one goal as well as the
strategy’s overall “guiding principles” (see below).
The areas of focus have been shaped by extensive analysis of displacement data and trends as
well as community input, as summarized in the Phase 1 Report and presented to City Council on
July 12, 2022. The strategy is also grounded in the regulatory limits of State preemption as well
as resource constraints and capacity, as expressed in the short but important list of “caveats”
(also listed below).
In its final form, the strategy will outline anti-displacement program priorities and budget needs,
with a strong focus on near-term priorities to implement in the coming two years.
Guiding Principles
The TIP policy framework is guided by five principles that speak to the core values of the Anti-
Displacement Strategy, all of which were informed by the project’s extensive community
engagement:
●Prioritize tenant protections. Work to strengthen tenant rights and make tenant
assistance a top priority, especially for those most at risk.
●Partner with the most impacted. Work with those facing high displacement risks to
coordinate comprehensive action beyond housing to keep communities in place and help
them thrive.
●Increase housing everywhere. Create more housing overall, and more affordable
housing specifically, while minimizing displacement and countering historic patterns of
segregation.
●Focus on affordability. Create and preserve diverse rental housing and ownership
options for lower and moderate-income households and families in all parts of the city,
especially options that are affordable in perpetuity.
●Build an eco-system for action. Work with regional and state partners, the private and
nonprofit sectors, and affected communities to coordinate action and advance shared
priorities.
Caveats
There are some important caveats to keep in mind as we craft the action plan, including State
preemption that limits what the City can do, as well as the challenge of finite resources and
things beyond our control. These include:
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
●There are no magic fixes; success will be incremental. It will require hard, ongoing
work and difficult decisions.
●We will build on what we are already doing; this is a next step. Sequencing and
coordination of actions will be key.
●State preemption limits the range of potential action. We will work with the State
legislature to make changes where possible.
●We have finite resources and capacity, and there are many things Salt Lake City
does not control.
●It’s not just what we do, but how we do it. We must work together, build trust, ensure
transparency, and have honest conversations.
Goals
The framework defines six core goals: three goals focused on desired outcomes, and three
focused on supporting actions to achieve the outcomes. Importantly, most actions support more
than one goal, and many are interrelated or will need to be implemented in sequence. The six
goals are:
1.PROTECT tenants from displacement, especially the most vulnerable
2.PRESERVE the affordable housing we have
3.PRODUCE more housing, especially affordable housing
4.EXPAND FUNDING for tenant support and affordable housing
5.PARTNER + COLLABORATE for maximum impact
6.ADVOCATE for tenants at the state level.
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
Anti-Displacement Framework at-a-glance
To help provide a high-level overview of the Anti-Displacement Strategy’s full range of
proposed policies and actions, the TIP team has developed an “at-a-glance” one page summary,
which has been updated iteratively over the past weeks as we hear feedback from the community
and our internal and external partners. The latest version of the at-a-glance summary is attached
with this memo as Appendix 1.
Near-Term Action Priorities
The Draft Anti-Displacement Strategy outlines 21 proposed actions. While they are all
important, effective implementation of the strategy requires prioritization: we cannot do 21
actions, in full, all at once. Some of the proposed actions build on areas of work already
underway, with modifications to specific aspects of the work or requiring a significant up -scaling
to meet the level of need. Others represent new areas of work or investment or recommend a
change in not just what the City does, but also how we do it. Eleven (11) of the proposed actions
are flagged for near-term action as called out in the at-a-glance summary and shown in the table
below.
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
For this briefing, the Thriving in Place team is seeking Council feedback on a subset of the 11
proposed near-term priorities. In particular, staff is looking for Council feedback on the proposed
set of strategies that would replace Ordinance 18.97, Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss
(aka: Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance or “HLM”).
The full set of actions and complete Anti-Displacement Strategy document will be presented to
the Planning Commission and Council in early 2023 along with the Housing SLC plan for full
review and consideration.
PROTECT TENANTS
1a Replace the Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance
1b Create a one-stop shop tenant resource
1c Improve and expand tenant resources, access to legal services + landlord training and incentives
PRESERVE + PRODUCE AFFORDABILITY
2a Factor displacement impacts in master plans, rezonings + development agreements
2d Partner with impacted communities to coordinate action and investment
3a Capture value from zoning decisions to create affordability
3d Prioritize and invest in community ownership + housing integrated with support services
EXPAND FUNDING / PARTNER + COLLABORATE
4a Develop new and increased funding sources
4c Expand and invest in Community Land Trust models
5a Be bold, accountable + transparent
5c Create an SLC Anti-Displacement Coalition
Deep Dive on Proposed Action 1a - Replace the Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance
Why Is a Different Approach Needed?
A key catalyst for the TIP work was Council and community concern about the ineffectiveness
of the City’s HLM Ordinance (18.97). On April 12, 2022, the Administration briefed the City
Council on HLM and outlined the challenges with the current ordinance (Appendix 2), including
the fact that the fee rarely applies and does nothing to address the loss of affordability. In
addition to those outlined issues, the City Attorney’s office has communicated concerns that the
existing fee structure may not hold up under scrutiny. Since the ordinance was enacte d in 1995,
there have been substantive state statute changes limiting fees and inclusionary zoning.
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
Additionally, there is case law that raises questions about the legality of collecting a fee for the
loss of a housing unit.
Community input in Phase 1 of TIP also underscored concern that new development is driving
displacement, sometimes through direct demolition of existing units but often indirectly through
rising land values and rents in areas undergoing redevelopment.
Scale of the Problem
Since January 2021, the City’s Building Services Division received 130 applications, each
representing a site, to demolish a total of 297 units. However, we don’t know how many were
considered affordable or if they resulted in actual loss of units (the application identifies units but
does not specify affordability nor do all applications lead to actual development and/or
demolition of the units). Of the 130 applications submitted, about 80% identified a single unit on
the site, and only eight identified eight or more units on the site, including one with 61 units
(however that project did not ultimately proceed with demolition of the units).
If the full 297 units had been demolished (which we know is not the case), that would have
represented only 0.4% of the city’s housing stock. While that scale of impact is relatively small,
the impact on tenants living in units to be demolished is profound, and therefore providing a
meaningful response to that impact is important. However, it is also important to keep in mind
that rising rents are by far the largest driver of displacement in Salt Lake City, and largely due to
a shortage of housing overall, and affordable housing specifically. “Fixing” the HLM ordinance
will address only a small fraction of the City’s displacement challenges and does not effectively
protect or create more affordable units. It is imperative that work continues to expand the city’s
affordable housing supply even as we work to mitigate the loss of existing housing due to new
development and address the impact on affected tenants.
Proposed Response: Overview
There are two main displacement concerns associated with the demolition of housing units due
to redevelopment:
1. The potential loss of the unit, especially if it’s an affordable unit (whether through
deed restriction or because it is an older unit and “naturally affordable” due to a below-
market rent); and
2. The displacement impact on renter households that were living in demolished units.
With regard to the potential loss of a unit the proposed strategy to replace the HLM ordinance
would:
● Document existing units and their affordability on proposed redevelopment sites; and
● Offer incentives for the preservation or replacemen t of those units at similar levels of
affordability. Because they cannot be required to act on these incentives under state law,
the use of the incentives would be voluntary.
With regard to the displacement impact on renter households due to demolition of units on
redevelopment sites, the proposed strategy would:
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
● Provide relocation assistance to affected households to help them find new housing
(whether interim or longer term) to meet their needs.
● Give displaced renter households priority in returning to the site or neighborhood
when new affordable housing units are available. These may be units created on-site as a
result of the incentives program, or in the neighborhood, created through other means.
To support these strategies, the proposed set of actions also recommends methods for improved
data tracking through changes to the City’s business licensing for rental units (via the voluntary
Landlord Tenant Initiative).
The proposed changes to policies and practices that would replace the existing HLM ordinance
are illustrated below and explained in more detail in the text that follows.
Proposed Response, Part 1: Mitigating the Loss of Units
There are two parts of the proposed strategy to address the potential loss of affordable housing
units when a property is being redeveloped.
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
● Document the presence and affordability of housing units on proposed redevelopment
sites, as well as any impacted tenants.
Under current practice, the HLM ordinance and its provisions are triggered in response to a
demolition permit, a conditional use for a surface parking lot, or a zoning map amendment
for a residential zoning district to a zoning district that permits non-residential uses. The
trigger does not address the loss of affordable housing, but rather the net loss of a unit due to
one of those conditions. Under the proposed practice, the presence of housing units on a site
and their affordability would need to be documented along with tenant contact information
when applicable (see discussion below).
Documentation of affordability could be in the form of copies of signed lease agreements for
residential units on the site over the past five years, accompanied by information on the unit’s
size (approximate square footage and number of bedrooms) and occupancy. If a deed
restriction (affordable housing agreement) was in place on any affected unit, that information
would also be required. Affordability would be determined based on the deed restriction or
on recent rent levels in relation to unit size.
● Incentivize the preservation or replacement of existing housing units at similar levels of
affordability.
State code section 10-9a-535 states that a municipality may only require the development of
a certain number of moderate-income housing units as a condition of approval of a land use
application if there are incentives offered or if a voluntary agreement between the two parties
is in place. It is this preemption that makes it challenging to enforce the existing HLM
ordinance even if changes to the existing triggers and fee calculations are made. The City can
only require the preservation or replacement of an existing housing unit, including the
payment of a fee to mitigate the loss of such a unit, through an incentive-based approach or if
a voluntary agreement is enacted.
For redevelopment proposals consistent with the established zoning and underlying master
plan, the developer could proceed with demolition and redevelopment without any mitigation
requirements even if residential units are being lost. However, the City could offer an
incentive in the form of increased development intensity in return for mitigat ing the loss of
the affected units. Incentives would be defined through a code change that would define
community benefits when an applicant is proposing a modification to an adopted plan. For
developers opting into the incentive, the resultant development agreement would define the
agreed-upon form of unit mitigation: preservation, replacement (on- or off-site), or fee
payment (set at a level commensurate with the cost of replacing the unit on-site).
For redevelopment proposals seeking to demolish an affordable unit and requesting an
increase in intensity or change of use beyond what is allowed under existing zoning and the
underlying master plan, the City can request a housing loss mitigation plan that addresses
how the unit will be preserved or replaced. The proposed framework would give an applicant
the option to preserve or replace the affordable unit by:
o Maintaining existing units at affordable rents;
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
o Building new affordable units on the site; or
o Paying into a housing fund to create new affordable units elsewhere (linked to a
requirement that the funds be used by the City or its partners to support housing
affordability within an established period of time).
Details regarding the levels of incentive offered and parameters for how the mitigation
requirements would be agreed to, documented, and enforced will need to be developed.
Proposed Response, Part 2: Assisting Displaced Tenants
The second part of the proposed strategy is focused on helping the tenants who are impacted by
the demolition of affordable housing units due to property redevelopment. It consists of two key
components:
● Document the presence of impacted tenants on proposed redevelopment sites and
provide relocation assistance to those living in affordable units lost due to property
redevelopment.
While the incidence of direct displacement of tenants due to property redevelopment is small,
the impact on those tenants can be significant. While rental assistance programs are in place
and proposed to be expanded as part of the TIP strategy (actions 1c and 4a), current policies
and programs to provide relocation assistance are limited to redevelopment projects that
involve federal funding or in situations where tenants are displaced due to a building closure
enacted by the City (SLC Code Section 18.99).
The draft proposal for supporting tenants displaced by redevelopment includes:
● Identifying impacted tenants as part of the demolition permitting process and/or
development entitlement process. This will require collecting tenant information as
well as notification of tenants by the City and/or its community partners. Proactive tenant
outreach and education should also be prioritized in areas facing redevelopment pressure,
recognizing that in many situations tenants might be displaced prior to a demolition
application or entitlement process.
● Revising Code Section 18.99.040 - Tenant Relocation Fee to include tenants displaced
due to redevelopment/demolition of private development as well as City-led housing
closures, update the fee, and link to potential incentives-based developer contribution. In
cases where no incentive-based fee payment is made, the assistance would need to be
provided from City funds. Based on activity of the past two years, and assuming
assistance of approximately $4,000 per qualifying household, the potential budget impact
is likely in the range of $150,000 to $250,000 per year. A funding source will need to be
identified, which could be partially offset by voluntary developer contributions in
response to opt-in incentives; and
● Providing relocation assistance, as well as ongoing rental assistance, when needed,
working with and through designated partners.
● Provide the opportunity to return to the site or neighborhood when new affordable
housing units become available.
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
When new affordable housing units are created, they are made available to income-qualified
households to provide secure, long-term affordable housing that can help them remain in the
neighborhood. Under Fair Housing Laws, these units must be made available without
discrimination. Salt Lake City has a strong commitment to ensuring compliance with Fair
Housing Laws in the city.
To help ensure that new affordable units help mitigate displacement impacts on existing
residents, many cities have adopted “community preference policies” that provide priority for
income-qualified households that have been displaced from a property or neighborhood due
to redevelopment, rising rents, or other factors. These policies do not restrict new affordable
units to only these households; rather, they give first priority (through a preference point
system) to displaced households.
Another aspect of the proposed approach for replacing the HLM ordinance with something
more effective is to adopt a Community Preference Policy in Salt Lake City. The details of
recommendations for best ways to frame the local policy, put it into practice, and manage it
over time will be included in the final report.
Related Efforts to Support Action 1a
The proposed Anti-Displacement Strategy includes other actions which will help reinforce the
changes to policy and practice outlined above that would replace the existing HLM ordinance.
These are listed below and described in more detail in the subsequent section of this memo:
● Action 1c: Improve and Expand Tenant Resources, Access to Legal Services, and
Landlord Training and Incentives. Part of this effort would improve data tracking by
collecting rent data as part of the rental business license application and equip landlords
through the Landlord Tenant Initiative to be partners in mitigating displacement. This will
require additional staffing in the Business License Division to enact the tenant portion of the
Landlord Tenant Initiative and to increase the scope of the division’s work.
● Action 2a: Factor Displacement Impacts in Master Plans, Rezonings, and Development
Agreements. This action works to implement mitigation of units lost through redevelopment,
as described above, but applies more broadly to proactively consider displacement impacts
during master planning processes and establish displacement factors for consideration in
evaluating zoning amendments. This effort would include defining mitigation and anti-
displacement measures that can be incorporated in master plans, zoning amendments, and
development agreements to address both the direct and indirect displacement of residents
through redevelopment.
● Action 3a: Incentivize Creation and Preservation of Affordable Housing. This action is
currently being developed by the City through the Affordable Housing Incentives program.
While different from the specific application of incentives to mitigate units lost due to
property redevelopment (action 1a), its mechanisms are similar, and consideration will need
to be given to how the two policies work in relation to each other.
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
● Action 3d: Prioritize and Invest in Community Ownership and Housing Integrated with
Support Services. Like Action 2b, this expands upon an existing area of action by the City
and its partners and provides a highly suitable near-term opportunity for applying affordable
housing funds collected as the result of mitigation plans and related fee payments.
● Action 4a: Develop New and Increased Funding Sources. This action calls for an increase
in funding for both development of new affordable housing and expansion of tenant support,
including expanded rental assistance, to help alleviate near-term displacement pressures and
the provision of relocation assistance under Action 1a.
These policy and programmatic recommendations will require funding resources , code
amendments and prioritization of said amendments, staffing increases in Business Licensing and
other departments, collaboration across City departments, political capital at the legislature to
remove state preemption, and partnerships with the development community and residents. The
policy changes will need to be phased and layered upon one another to be impactful for the
residents who are being involuntarily displaced.
Overview of Other Near-term Priority Actions
While the focus of this briefing is on outlining the proposed strategies to replace the HLM
ordinance, there are also ten other near-term priority actions included in the Draft Anti-
Displacement Strategy that staff would like to highlight. They are briefly described below.
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
PROTECT TENANTS
1b Create a one-stop shop resource to help prevent evictions and provide easy access to services. This action will be led by the
Housing Stability team, requiring additional staffing resources, to:
● Create a single web portal and hotline where tenants can access all services to help them respond to potential eviction (legal
services, rental assistance, etc.).
● Incorporate easy access to other tenant resources that can help people live more affordably (reduced transit fares, utility bill
assistance, etc.).
● Partner with community organizations and others to improve awareness of and access to resources and services.
This action is focused on how tenant-focused resources and services are accessed, responding to community feedback that sometimes
those most in need are unaware of resources that are available, and that it can be time-consuming and frustrating to navigate the
array of resource providers and service agencies. While this action does not in itself expand the pool of resources available (that is
covered in Action 1c), it helps to leverage all of the resources available (not just from the City, but from partners, too) to ens ure
maximum benefit for those most in need, especially low-income tenants who are at-risk of eviction and displacement.
1c Improve and expand tenant resources, access to legal services, and landlord training and incentives to help keep tenants in their
housing when faced with rising rents and other financial hardships that can lead to displacement.
● Increase funding for tenant services (see 4a). Work to head-off the impact of losing $2 million/month in current rental funding
support from ARPA.
● Work with partners to innovate on how legal services are delivered , so that services can be provided in a more timely and
lower-cost manner.
● Provide tenants with support for lease application fees, by providing funds to cover the fees and/or by establishing a master
lease application that can be used as a standard for multiple applications.
● Improve the Good Landlord program so that managers know about available tenant resources/services and best practices.
● Incentivize landlords to minimize rent increases through the Landlord Tenant Initiative (Good Landlord Program) or other
means.
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
This action will also be led by the Housing Stability and Business License teams in close coordination with partners and will require
an expansion in funding. The level of proposed budget increase is being developed for consideration with adoption of the stra tegy in
2023 and the upcoming budget process. See also action 4a.
PRESERVE + PRODUCE AFFORDABILITY
2a Factor displacement impacts in master plans, rezonings, and development agreements to help ensure that development-related
decisions are considering and responding to potential displacement impacts and putting in place appropriate mitigation measur es.
This action will be led by the Planning team.
Context
● Master plans establish long-term vision and framework for site-specific decision making. They should prioritize affordable
housing development and preservation, as well as retention of existing communities even as planning for growth and change.
While many master plans were developed years ago, before displacement was an issue, an approach is needed to en able the
application of mitigation strategies in development decision making without having to wait for master plan updates . As identified
in the displacement analysis, areas of particular concern include most of the Westside, as well as Ballpark, Central City, and the
Liberty Wells area.
● Voluntary development agreements create opportunities to preserve and create affordable housing and/or take other anti-
displacement actions (such as preserving or creating affordable commercial space or needed community service facilities like
daycare or health clinics). Due to state preemption, the City cannot require affordable housing contributions. This limitation
shapes the proposed approach to replacing the HLM Ordinance (outlined previously in this memo). In short, developers must opt-
in to an incentives-based program that provides additional development capacity (or in some cases, potentially, a financial
contribution or other form of incentive from the city) in return for preserving or creating affordable housing or committing to
other displacement mitigation actions. See also the discussion under 3a.
Mechanisms
● Integrate displacement factors and mitigation measures as a formal part of master plans, master plan and zoning amendments,
and, when possible, development review (through use of incentives).
● Define and monitor displacement indicators (see action 5a) and adjust land use plans and policies when possible (especially in
high-risk areas) to help counter displacement pressures.
Action Steps
● Formalize displacement analysis and mitigation in master plan processes.
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
● Add language to “purpose and intent” section of code for zoning amendments (21A.02.030).
● Add list of displacement factors and potential mitigation measures to be considered in zoning amendments and development
agreements (TBD as part of Housing SLC plan).
Example Displacement Factors
● Population/Household Vulnerability as measured by proportion of renter households, cost-burdened households, people of
color, low-income households, etc.
● Affordable Housing Vulnerability as measured by expiring deed restrictions, pre-WWII housing, rent rates below city average,
etc.
● Demand Drivers: new/planned transit or parks, increased private investment, desirable schools, etc.
Example Mitigation Measures
● Create or preserve deed-restricted affordable housing in return for increased development capacity, City/partner investment,
or other incentives.
● Provide relocation assistance and rental assistance or other tenant-focused services (e.g., mediation/legal services).
● Invest in job training programs, cultural institutions, affordable commercial space, etc.
Considerations / Challenges
● Allocating the necessary resources to develop workable strategies, update plans/policies and oversee implementation.
● Establishing clear and objective evaluation criteria (factors), achievable mitigation measures, and clear processes that lead
to outcomes that counter displacement impacts.
● Ensuring consistency in how evaluation criteria are interpreted and applied by staff, developers, and decision-makers.
● Enforcing implementation of policies and agreements in both the near- and long-term.
2d Partner with impacted communities to coordinate action and investment, creating a cross-departmental team to coordinate
investments and work in partnership with community organizations and representatives to counter displacement, focusing on
Westside communities and in the Ballpark, Central City, and Liberty Wells areas. This action will be led by Community and
Neighborhoods in partnership with the Mayor’s Office and partner departments.
● Recognize that displacement impacts are particularly hard felt in lower income areas and focus attention and resources in
those areas.
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
● Define area-specific anti-displacement priorities in partnership with the community and in neighborhoods experiencing high
displacement risk.
● Form a City team to coordinate investment (housing, transit, parks, services, food access, etc.) in these areas and identify
funding priorities.
● Meet regularly with community organizations and representatives to communicate priority actions, identify emerging needs,
define opportunities for collaboration, monitor progress, and build trust over time.
● Invest in community-defined priorities that may fall outside of traditional funding streams and/or require a shift from systems-
defined priorities, including non-housing priorities to help support the goal of keeping communities in place and helping them
thrive.
3a Incentivize the creation and preservation of affordable housing in areas throughout the city. CAN is the lead for this action.
● Allow developers to opt-in for increases in development capacity and in return commit to creating affordable housing units.
● The City is working on an Affordable Housing Incentives policy that is based on this concept. Specifics of how the policy will
be structured and implemented are currently being developed. This will offer capacity increases on qualifying residential
properties in return for creating affordable units.
● Create flexibility whenever possible to maximize community benefit: on-site units, off-site units, land donation, and/or in-lieu
fees (set at a level commensurate with the cost of creating a new unit and linked to an implementation strategy and schedule).
● Distribute new affordable housing throughout the city to avoid an over-concentration in any single area.
● Long-term: Establish linkage fees to ensure contributions toward affordable housing from all new development, creating
options for non-residential development (commercial, institutional, etc.) to contribute toward affordable housing, recognizing that
many types of development create more affordable housing needs. This will require changes to state law.
3d Prioritize and invest in community ownership and housing integrated with support services, utilizing publicly owned land and
partnering with nonprofits and mission-driven developers to build long-term social equity. Community and Neighborhoods is the lead
for this action in partnership with the RDA.
● Focus on creating housing that will be affordable in perpetuity and managed as a long-term community asset.
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
● Partner with mission-driven nonprofits, faith-based groups, and others to create high quality housing in multiple forms,
including developments that create ownership and other wealth -building opportunities for lower income residents.
● Create affordable housing with integrated support services, including childcare, health services, counseling, etc.
● Grow the Community Land Trust model (see 4c).
● Contribute public lands to achieve community goals (affordable housing and other desired amenities) (see 2d, 3c and 4c).
EXPAND FUNDING / PARTNER + COLLABORATE
4a Develop new and increased funding sources to better meet the level of need related to both tenant support and affordable housing
development and preservation. Community and Neighborhoods is the lead for this action in collaboration with Finance and the
Mayor’s Office.
● Identify and evaluate options and potential revenue generation. This may include reallocation of existing funds to support
higher priority anti-displacement investments as well as new revenue generation.
● Ensure funding from multiple sources that can position the City to advance affordable housing, even during economic
downturns.
● Continue to compete for state and federal funding and look for opportunities to advance multiple community priorities
simultaneously (e.g., seeking energy efficiency funds for affordable housing, thereby helping to provide healthier, more
comfortable, and lower cost living for affordable housing residents).
● Partner with community organizations to leverage different funding sources, including philanthropic and private sources.
Also partner with them to distribute resources and services to those in need to help overcome trust issues and combine
resources for greatest impact.
4c Expand and invest in Community Land Trust models to support long-term affordable housing, community ownership, and social
equity goals. Community and Neighborhoods is the lead for this action in collaboration with the RDA.
● Grow the portfolio of CLT properties and expand investment in land that can help achieve affordable housing goals and shared
equity housing.
● Partner with community organizations to define priority uses for CLT assets and manage them over time.
● Provide support for cultural institutions and affordable commercial space in mixed-use buildings.
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
5a Be bold, accountable, and transparent in establishing goals and monitoring impact, while remaining nimble in response to
changing conditions and new challenges. Community and Neighborhoods will be the lead for this action.
● Establish goals by housing type, income, and area, coordinating between Housing SLC and Thriving in Place.
● Align goals and priorities with partners to achieve goals and leverage resources.
● Establish easy-to-implement data collection systems on key metrics to better know what is happening in as real-time as
possible and help quantify the impact of anti-displacement strategies and investments.
● Measure progress over time and provide regular reports to the community and City Council.
5c Create an SLC Anti-Displacement Coalition to bring together key partners from across agencies and sectors for regular meetings to
align on priorities, coordinate action, and monitor implementation of the Anti-Displacement Strategy (this is the group that will
“own” the strategy). Community and Neighborhoods will be the lead for this action in partnership with the Mayor’s Office. Def ine
the group’s membership and formally convene it by invitation of the Mayor in partnership with the City Council.
● Clarify the Coalition’s authority and ability to follow through on actions (give it teeth).
● Define shared priorities for near-term action and clarify roles and responsibilities as well as implementation timelines and
clear objectives for measuring outcomes.
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
Next Steps and Timeline
December
City Council TIP briefing on 12/13/22.
January
A draft of Housing SLC, including the TIP policy recommendations, ready for public comment
in early January 2023. This will commence the 45-day public comment period.
Housing SLC and TIP will be presented to the Planning Commission for a briefing on January
25.
February
Housing SLC and TIP will be presented at a Planning Commission meeting for public hearing on
February 22.
March
Once a recommendation is received from the Planning Commission, Housing SLC and TIP will
be presented again to the Council and Council will set a date for a public hearing.
Attachments
Appendix 1 - Draft Anti-Displacement Framework
Appendix 2 - Transmittal to City Council on “Update on the Status of the Thriving in Place plan
and the Housing Loss Mitigation (18.97) ordinance”, April 12, 2022
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
Appendix 1
Draft Anti-Displacement Framework
THRIVING IN PLACE / SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY REVISED DRAFT / NOV 25, 2022
DRAFT Anti-Displacement Framework at-a-glance
From the Phase 1 Report:
Displacement in Salt Lake City is
significant and getting worse.
There are no “more affordable”
neighborhoods in Salt Lake City
where families can move once
displaced.
Salt Lake City is growing and
there aren’t enough affordable
units for low-income families.
Plus a shortage of units overall is
creating more competition for
lower cost units
Almost half of Salt Lake City
households are rent burdened.
More than half of all families
with children live in
displacement risk
neighborhoods.
Latinx and Black households
have median incomes that are
lower than what is required to
afford rent in the city.
Displacement affects more than
half of White households in Salt
Lake City and disproportionately
affects households of color.
Many areas experiencing high
displacement risk were redlined
in the past and are still highly
segregated today.
Community members are very
concerned about displacement
and its impacts. They want more
affordable housing and support
for those being impacted.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES: prioritize tenant protections / partner with those most impacted / increase housing everywhere / focus on affordability / build an eco-system for action
1 PROTECT tenants from
displacement, especially the
most vulnerable
1a Replace the Housing Loss
Mitigation Ordinance
1b Create a one-stop shop resource
to help prevent evictions and
provide easy access to services
1c Improve and expand tenant
resources, access to legal services,
+ landlord training and incentives
1d Help tenants become owners
1e Promote more affordable living,
better jobs, and fair wages
Caveats: there are no magic fixes (it will be hard work) / we will build on what we are already doing / state pre-emption creates limits on what we can do / we have finite resources + things we don’t control / we must work together
2 PRESERVE the affordable
housing we have
2a Factor displacement impacts in
master plans, rezonings +
development agreements
2b Expand investment in acquisition
+ rehabilitation of existing
affordable housing
2c Address short-term rental
impacts on rental housing
2d Partner with impacted
communities to coordinate action
+ investment to preserve
affordability and counter
displacement
3 PRODUCE more housing,
especially affordable housing
3a Incentivize creation and
preservation of affordable
housing
3b Make affordable housing easier
and less expensive through
streamlined review
3c Create more housing choices
3d Prioritize and invest in
community ownership + housing
integrated with support services
4 EXPAND FUNDING for tenant
support + affordable housing
4a Develop new and increased funding
sources to better meet the level of
need
4b Coordinate + leverage affordable
housing investments
4c Expand and invest in Community Land
Trust models
5 PARTNER + COLLABORATE
5a Be bold, accountable + transparent –
set aspirational goals + metrics; report
on progress
5b Continue community leadership,
partnership + engagement
5c Create an SLC Anti-Displacement
Coalition
5d Strengthen regional coordination
6 ADVOCATE for tenants
at the state level
6a Work to strengthen tenant
rights and resources at the
state level
Near-Term Action Priorities
Protect Tenants
1a Replace the Housing Loss
Mitigation Ordinance
Focus on affordable housing;
incentivize unit preservation or
replacement; provide relocation
assistance; support tenant return;
improve rent data tracking
1b Create a one-stop shop resource
Partner to create a web portal and
hotline for tenants to access anti-
displacement and “affordable
living” resources
1c Improve and expand tenant
resources, access to legal services
+ landlord training and incentives
Strengthen and increase rental
assistance + other resources;
improve access to legal services;
provide lease application support;
improve the Good Landlord
program to include tenant
supports
Preserve + Produce Affordability
2a Factor displacement impacts in master
plans, rezonings + development
agreements
Establish code criteria for assessing
displacement impacts and mitigation
measures and when/how they apply
2d Partner with impacted communities
to coordinate action and investment
Create cross-dept. team to coordinate
investments and work in partnership
with community, focusing on Westside
communities and in the Ballpark /
Central City / Liberty Wells area
3a Incentivize creation and preservation
of affordable housing
Capture value from increases to
development capacity to create/
preserve affordable housing; provide
flexibility for max benefit; work toward
enabling linkage fees
3d Prioritize and invest in community
ownership + housing integrated with
support services
Focus on long-term affordability and
social equity
Expand Funding + Partner
4a Develop new and increased funding
sources
Identify and establish multiple funding
mechanisms to expand resources for
affordable housing and tenant
assistance
4c Expand and invest in Community Land
Trust models
Identify public lands for affordable
housing; partner/invest to create long-
term community-owned affordable
housing
5a Be bold, accountable + transparent
Establish clear, quantified goals;
ensure alignment with partners;
define, track and report on key metrics
5c Create an SLC Anti-Displacement
Coalition
Convene regularly with key partners,
including reps from impacted
communities, to agree on / coordinate
action and monitor progress
SIX INTERRELATED GOALS
3 OUTCOME GOALS: Protect – Preserve – Produce
3 SUPPORTING GOALS: Expand Funding – Partner + Collaborate – Advocate
ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS
Blake Thomas
Director
Appendix 2
Transmittal to City Council on “Update on the Status of the Thriving in Place plan and the
Housing Loss Mitigation (18.97) ordinance”, April 12, 2022
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: March 28, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods
__________________________
SUBJECT: Update on the status of the Thriving in Place plan and the Housing Loss
Mitigation (18.97) ordinance.
STAFF CONTACT: Blake Thomas, Director, Community and Neighborhoods, 385-270 -4638 ,
blake.thomas@slcgov.com
Angela Price, Policy Director, Community and Neighborhoods, 385-315 -9024 ,
angela.price@slcgov.com
Susan Lundmark, Project Manager, Transportation Division, 801-535 -6112,
susan.lundmark@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Information item
RECOMMENDATION: No action needed
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In December 2020, the Department of Community and
Neighborhoods (CAN) presented The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable
Salt Lake City to the City Council. The intent of that presentation was to discuss various housing
policy topics identified as goals in Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan. These included the
vision for an equitable and holistic city, data analysis, a summary of comprehensive solutions
and policies including the Gentrification Mitigation Plan and the Housing Loss Mitigation
(HLM) ordinance, among other equitable housing concepts, and identification of next steps for
moving forward various housing policies.
Since the policy briefing in 2020, the Administration has selected Baird and Driskell to oversee
the Gentrification Assessment and Displacement Mitigation Plan or Thriving in Place (TIP). In
addition to a robust, community-driven planning process, data analysis and mapping, and policy
recommendations to mitigate displacement, the Baird Team will also guide policy changes to the
City’s Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss ordinance (18.97).
This summary will provide the City Council with an update on:
• An overview of Thriving in Place including information on the engagement activities that
are currently underway and next steps;
• 2022 legislative requirements that are applicable to housing loss mitigation; and
• A detailed analysis of the Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss ordinance (18.97),
including the history of the ordinance, a summary of the current ordinance, adopted
ordinance constraints, technical discrepancies, policy considerations, next steps, a legal
analysis of common questions, and an HLM project summary.
The TIP Plan and HLM ordinance both address the goal of “increasing housing opportunities for
cost burdened households” in Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan and meet several
objectives outlined in the plan.
The Administration welcomes the opportunity to work with the City Council to present the data
and engagement efforts that are happening in the TIP Plan and seek guidance on policy
directives to mitigate involuntary displacement and create a more equitable Salt Lake City.
The TIP Plan will inform the update to Growing SLC, which will be underway shortly. Both
plans will be brought before the City Council throughout the process and will be presented for
adoption when completed.
Thriving In Place
In June 2020, the City Council allocated FY21 funding for a Gentrification Assessment and
Displacement Mitigation Plan to understand the breadth and depth of involuntary displacement
and formulate policies and programs to mitigate any such displacement that might occur. After a
Request for Proposals (RFP) process was initiated and completed, a consultant team was retained
in September 2021, which consists of the following researchers and thought leaders in the fields
of gentrification and displacement:
• Baird & Driskell Community Planning (led by David Driskell);
• Urban Displacement Project, University of California Berkeley (UDP; led by Dr. Tim
Thomas); and
• University of Utah Department of City and Metropolitan Planning (CMP; led by Dr. Ivis
Garcia and Dr. Alessandro Rigolon).
Together with the consultant team, City staff (together, the Team) are guiding the Plan, now
called Thriving in Place, using the following overarching actions:
• To understand gentrification pressures in Salt Lake City;
• To document patterns of involuntary displacement, including those related to housing
costs, eviction, and demolition; and
• To find policy solutions to help people choose to stay, live, and thrive in Salt Lake City
even as the city grows and changes.
This briefing will provide an overview of TIP and what the Team has learned from early
community engagement. It is the intent of the Administration and the Consultant team to come
back to the City Council in a future meeting with an in-depth analysis of the Listening and
Learning phase and to seek guidance before the Crafting Collaborative Solutions phase.
• Phase 1: Listening and Learning – Focuses on defining and understanding the problem
and includes extensive community engagement and data collection.
o Quantitative data collection and analysis is led by UDP.
o Qualitative data collection through numerous community engagement activities.
o Information gathered in this phase provides context on experiences of
displacement, community asset mapping, and neighborhood challenges to ensure
policies are aligned to mitigate displacement pressures specific to Salt Lake City
neighborhood needs.
• Phase 2: Crafting Collaborative Solutions – Develops a Displacement Mitigation Plan
that includes actionable policy recommendations.
o Recommendations will include a shared framework that can guide action across
sectors, including the City, other governmental agencies, and community-based
organizations and partners.
o Recommendations will be informed by Phase 1 engagement and a review of
existing policies, programs, and practices. A second round of input from
community and stakeholders will inform priorities for action and
recommendations for policy changes.
Phase One - Community Engagement
From the outset, there has been an effort to have a community-led process that includes extensive
and equitable community engagement. The Team is listening to residents and partners through a
variety of engagement methods, including online and in-person. The Team reviews engagement
efforts and statistics weekly to ensure equitable representation and recalibrates outreach tactics if
needed. TIP is currently in the Listening and Learning phase. Details of engagement efforts are
outlined below:
• City Steering Committee – This committee consists of City staff and includes
representatives f rom various departments to ensure collaboration and impactful policy
development.
• Community Working Group – This 22 -member advisory group was formed to guide
the community engagement process and ensure inclusion, provide input and feedback on
the process design, outreach materials, and draft strategies as they emerge, and serve as
liaisons to groups and organizations in which they are involved. The group has met twice
so far, with notes from the meetings posted here.
• Project Launch Interviews – These confidential one-on-one interviews with 15 key
community representatives helped shape the Team’s engagement strategy and refinement
of the Plan’s goals. Interviews were completed in late Fall 2021 and are summarized
here .
• Public Website and Online Survey – The Thriving in Place website, available in
English and Spanish, was launched in February 2022 to provide educational information
for residents and to serve as an online engagement tool. To date , the website has seen
3,100 visits from 2,600 unique visitors, 46% of which have been via mobile device. An
online survey (English and Spanish) was launched in conjunction with the project website
and to-date has been completed by over 1,000 individuals.
• Intercept (in-person) Surveys – Two CMP classes are conducting in-person “intercept”
surveys at various locations throughout the city , with an emphasis on Westside
neighborhoods. The demographics of these survey respondents tend to be younger, more
diverse, and more likely to be renters than the population that has responded to the online
survey. To date, over 300 interview surveys have been completed. We anticipate over
700 in-person intercept surveys will be conducted.
• Community Liaisons – The project team has hired six community liaisons with
experience and connections in communities of color, non-English speakers, and lower
income neighborhoods to help ensure equitable engagement and input. The liaisons are
conducting in -person engagement with small groups in culturally appropriate formats,
touching on the same themes and questions as the survey but in a more formal way.
While the methodology will not engage as many residents, the value of the input will be
significant.
• Youth Workshops – The CMP classes have hosted numerous engagement activities for
youth to discuss change in their neighborhoods and their perspectives and ideas related to
gentrification and displacement.
• Community Events - The project team has been participating in a variety of community
events (e.g., Neighborhood House Family Fun, tabling with Ventanilla de Salud, and
Sunday Mass at Our Lady of Guadalupe Church, among others). They will also be
hosting a mural-painting event at Three Creeks Confluence Park on April 16th.
• Other engagement efforts by the Team to help ensure people are aware of the project
and opportunities for engagement include:
o CMP students discussing TIP at Westside Community Council meetings in
February and March 2022;
o Introducing and discussing TIP at board meeting for University Neighborhood
Partners in March 2022;
o Presenting at Salt Lake City Human Rights Commission (HRC) and Salt Lake
Community Network (SLCN) meetings;
o CMP students distributing hundreds of flyers, door hangers, and sidewalk stencils;
and
o Sending out City Council citywide mailer for housing related efforts to all
residential addresses in Salt Lake City during the first week of April 2022.
Phase Two - Mapping and Data Analysis
Data gathered from the project’s community engagement efforts will be complemented with in-
depth analysis of the city’s neighborhoods through a mapping and analysis led by UDP. UDP is
developing a map using advanced statistical analysis to identify where the highest rates and risk
of displacement are currently occurring in Salt Lake City by analyzing hundreds of variables.
These variables include housing markets, property types, population demographics, changes over
time, administrative data, and many other variables (see UDP’s Housing Precarity Risk Model as
an example of this type of modeling). UDP then maps the model’s output values to identify areas
that need the most support and protection. The final map will show four distinct characteristics:
areas with low displacement risk, elevated risk, high risk, and extreme risk.
Timeline and Next Steps
The project is in the final stages of Phase One, Listening and Learning. In May 2022, the Team
will summarize the community input received and connect it with the results of UDP’s mapping
and data analysis. Phase Two , Crafting Collaborative Solutions, includes the Team working with
the Community Working Group and members of the City Steering Committee to share results
and identify key take-aways, as well as identify areas for policy recommendations. Phase Two ,
Craftin g Collaborative Solutions, will run from May through August 2022. A few key dates are
outlined below:
• April 16 - Mural painting at Three Creeks Confluence Park.
• April 18 - Conclusion of Phase One engagement activities.
• April 26 - Student presentations (from the two CMP classes) on outreach efforts at
Glendale Community Learning Center.
• May - Summary of Phase One findings and UDP’s displacement analysis presented to the
Team.
• May/June - Presentation to Planning Commission on TIP.
• May/June - Small group work sessions to distill Phase One findings and agree on
direction for Phase Two (we expect to return to City Council in mid to late June to share
results).
• June/July - Phase Two begins with preliminary policy options and near-term
recommendations.
• July/August - Evaluation of policy options and refinement of recommendations.
• July/August - Presentation to Planning Commission on TIP.
• August/September - Planning Commission and City Council process for TIP.
Housing Loss Mitigation
History
In 1994, the City Council commissioned an independent economic evaluation to analyze the
impact and loss of affordable housing and potential mitigation measures. The impetus of the
study was a substantial shortage of affordable housing in the Central City, University, and
Capitol Hill neighborhoods. The driving forces behind the shortage were the demolition of
housing stock for commercial and institutional purposes or assemblage of land by speculators.
Since inception, the policy has been centered around a land-use transition from residential to
commercial or a petition to expand parking. A Housing Mitigation Plan and Statement is
required before final approval of a parking conditional-use is granted or a zoning change is
approved that would allow commercial use on properties that currently have residential dwelling
units (1995 ordinance does not contemplate land use changes but rather demolition of units). The
initial plan required an analysis of adverse impacts, dwelling units that will be demolished, fair
market value for demolished units, square feet of land to be rezoned, and a mitigation plan that
addresses the loss of residential zoned land, residential units, or residential character. To mitigate
the identified loss, developers can replace the housing within two years of the entitlement
application approval, pay a fee that is the difference between the fair market value and the
replacement cost, or pay a flat fee of $3,000 per dwelling unit to be demolished.
Adopted Ordinance
The c urrent ordinance, Chapter 18.97 Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss, was adopted in
2012, and states: “The purpose of the chapter is to mitigate the loss of affordable housing stock
due to new development with due consideration for vested or protected property rights.” The
ordinance requires a Housing Mitigation Plan for:
• Any application for a demolition permit that will result in a loss of one or more
residential units in a residential zone;
• A request for a conditional use permit to expand parking in a residential or mixed -use
zone; and
• Any petition for a zoning change that would permit a non-residential use of land that
includes residential dwelling units within its boundaries.
A Housing Mitigation Plan and Housing Impact Statement shall be submitted unless the
applicant meets certain provisions such as a non-conforming use, a master plan calling for non-
residential use, or proposed demolition because of health and safety issues. The Housing Impact
Statement must identify adverse impacts on the residential character of the neighborhood, the
address of units targeted for demolition, fair market value and state of repair of units targeted for
demolition, square footage of land that will be impacted, and a mitigation plan to address the loss
of residential zoned land, units, or residential character. Permitted mitigation measures include
replacing the lost housing units or paying a fee to the Housing Trust Fund that equals the
difference between the fair market value of the housing units to be eliminated or demolished and
the replacement cost of building new units of similar square footage.
Adopted Ordinance Constraints
• Affordability - The adopted ordinance does not include an assessment of the loss of
affordable housing in the Housing Impact Statement nor does it require replacement of
affordable units.
• Purpose - The purpose statement of the Chapter is to mitigate the loss of affordable
housing, but the policy does not analyze or mitigate demolition of affordable units.
• Trigger - The ordinance is triggered by a demolition permit, a parking conditional use
permit, or a zoning amendment from residential to commercial. The trigger does not
address the loss of affordable housing. The Housing Impact Statement is required during
the e ntitlement process which is challenging because a parcel may be rezoned and not see
development or the fee for many years.
• Formula - The formula takes the current fair market value of the building (excluding
land value) from the Salt Lake County Assessor and subtracts the International Code
Council (ICC) square foot replacement costs of the building. The structure of this formula
typically yields a negative number and, therefore, the City is not receiving funding to
mitigate the loss of residential units.
• Process – Currently, an application is submitted to Building Services, then passed to the
Planning Division, which creates the report, and is then reviewed and approved by the
Director of Community and Neighborhoods. There is no clear ownership over the process
as it touches multiple divisions at different stages in the project timeline.
2022 Legislative Requirements
There are two new statutory requirements that are applicable to the establishment of a Housing
Loss Mitigation f und and the City’s ability to require moderate-income housing units in a land
use decision. Those bills are:
• HB 462 Utah Housing Affordability Amendments - authorizes the City to establish a
Housing Loss Mitigation fund to preserve existing, subsidized, and new moderate-income
housing (lines 708-710).
• HB 303 Local Land Use Amendments - states that a city may only require moderate
income housing units as a condition of approval of a land use application if:
o The developer and the city enter into a written agreement (does not specify
development agreement); or
o The city provides incentives that are agreed to by the developer (lines 828-838).
Additionally, HB 303 prohibits a city from approving or denying a land use application based on
a developer’s decision to incorporate moderate-income housing units in their development.
HB 462 and HB 303 define moderate income housing as 80% AMI or below. These two policies
are compatible with the adopted Housing Loss Mitigation ordinance as well as the proposed
Affordable Housing Zoning Incentives, RMF-30, Shared Housing, Parking Reduction, and
Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinances.
Technical Discrepancies
• Section 18.64.050 Residential Demolition Provisions does not align with 18.97
Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss. The City Attorney’s Office has done a legal
analysis and drafted amendments to clean up technical discrepancies between 18.64.050
and 18.97.
• The purpose statement to mitigate the loss of affordable housing in 18.97 does not align
with the policy or the mitigation plan as there is no data collected on affordability of units
nor is there a requirement to replace the demolished housing with affordable units.
• Housing Loss Mitigation touches multiple chapters in the code rather than being
contained within a demolition or development section. HLM could be contained within a
development code, but this would require substantial amendments to various chapters
within the Municipal Code.
• If a payment is collected, ordinance 18.97 directs that payment to the Housing Trust
Fund. The Housing Trust Fund is being moved from Community and Neighborhoods to
the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and is being changed to the Housing Development
Loan Program.
• 18.97.040 requires a report to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board (HAAB) but
does not give the HAAB authorizing power to deny the report, mitigation plan, or
petition.
• The current formula does not yield a positive number and needs to be amended to
mitigate the loss of residential units. A fee justification study and an amendment to the
consolidated fee schedule to include the HLM will be required.
Policy Considerations
• Is the policy objective to mitigate the loss of all housing or just affordable housing? If the
objective is targeted at affordable housing, the ordinance will need to be amended so the
policy is reflective of that objective.
• Does the fee constitute an impact, linkage, or flat fee? A fee justification study will need
to be conducted to amend the mitigation formula to yield a positive number.
• When should the plan be required and the fee collected? Is it beneficial to have the plan
during the entitlement process for upzoning legislative decisions? HLM is a demolition -
focused ordinance, should this be the policy objective?
• What are the policy objectives of the fee? Should the fee be paid to the Housing
Development Loan Program, held in the RDA, or another funding source that can be used
for the mitigation of displacement?
• Should the amended ordinance require affordable units for an upzone?
• What constitutes naturally occurring affordable housing? Currently the City does not
track affordable housing units unless the units have been subsidized by city, county, state,
or federal funds. Is it the intention of the City Council to start tracking affordable units
through the entitlement process or business license rental application?
• The current ordinance is focused on the loss of housing and does not contemplate the loss
of local businesses for the development of housing. Is this a policy objective that should
be considered in the amendment to the ordinance?
Next Steps
The Administration understands the frustration of the public to amend the Housing Loss
Mitigation ordinance to preserve and develop affordable housing. The following actions are
recommended:
• The City Council, working in conjunction with the Administration, can assist in the
development of the policy objectives of the new HLM ordinance.
• The City Attorney’s Office has conducted a thorough review of the code and has drafted
proposed amendments to clean up the technical issues. This does not address the policy
considerations outlined above; rather, it cleans up technical inconsistencies. If preferred
by the Council, the technical changes to HLM could be transmitted while the TIP study is
being completed. The Administration recommends waiting to make any policy changes
due to the robust engagement process happening within the TIP Plan.
• The Zions Public Finance study that was conducted in Summer 2021 did not produce a
specific enough outcome for the City to rely on. The Administration is going to go to bid
in Spring 2022 for a consultant to conduct a fee justification study. This study will be
running concurrently with TIP.
• The TIP study that is currently underway is analyzing displacement metrics and will
develop mitigation measures in addition to policy changes to the current HLM ordinance.
These policies will need to be adopted by the City Council after they go through the
engagement process.
• Once the policy considerations are determined, the City Attorney’s Office will draft
amendments to the relevant ordinances.
Housing Loss Mitigation Legal Analysis of Common Questions
• Can the City institute a rent control policy?
o Utah Code Section 57-20-1 prohibits the City from enacting an ordinance or
resolution that would control rents or fees on private residential property unless it
has the express approval of the Legislature. Lease agreements are a contractual
matter between private parties and the City does not have jurisdiction to halt an
eviction.
• Should the City issue a moratorium on development?
o A temporary land use regulation, or “moratorium”, can be imposed by the City
Council to prohibit a development activity if the Council finds a compelling,
countervailing public interest to do so. This is a policy decision that the Council
would have to make. However, the temporary regulation cannot exceed six
months. The purpose of a temporary land use regulation is to halt (or, in some
cases, allow) a development activity immediately for a temporary period while
more permanent regulations are developed, presented to the public and the
planning commission, and transmitted to the Council for action. Prohibiting
development activity while waiting for a study to be produced could possibly be
justified by the Council, but it seems unlikely that land use regulations could be
ready for adoption within the six -month moratorium period, especially when the
findings of the TIP study are not yet known.
• Why is the City not requiring the development of affordable units in all new housing
projects?
o Utah Code Section 10-9a-535 as outlined in HB 303 states that a city may not
require moderate income housing units in the approval of a project unless the
developer agrees to the incentives. This provision does permit cities to adopt
incentive-based policies for the inclusion of moderate-income housing in a new
development, though this cannot be a requirement.
• Does the current h ousing loss mitigation ordinance protect affordable housing?
o The current housing loss mitigation ordinance (18.97.010) states that the “purpose
of this chapter is to mitigate the loss of affordable housing stock due to new
development with due consideration for vested or protected property rights.” The
conditions upon which an applicant would need to comply with the HLM
ordinance outlined in 18.97.020 and develop a mitigation plan are when a
residential unit (does not state affordable unit) is demolished to expand vehicle
parking in a residential zone or when a land use transitions from residential. This
ordinance does not prohibit the demolition of affordable housing units but simply
protects against the loss of a residential unit. Additionally, it does not prohibit a
developer from increasing the number of units on a parcel, nor does it consider
the affordability of the existing or new units. These are policy considerations for
the amendments to the new ordinance.
Housing Loss Mitigation Best Practices
There are few analogous ordinances in other municipalities. Most ordinances and fees in other
cities are Housing Mitigation Fees, meaning that they are applied to new developments that do
not include a minimum percentage of affordable units. The most similar policy to Salt Lake
City’s housing loss mitigation ordinance (18.97) is a demolition permit surcharge, which is a
current pilot project in Chicago, Illinois. This surcharge, along with other fees from around the
country, are outlined below.
Chicago, IL
Demolition Permit Surcharge
• A temporary surcharge (March 29, 2021 - April 1, 2022) in a pilot area.
o Applied in addition to other demolition fees, surcharges, and taxes imposed by
City, State, or other political subdivisions.
o Ordinance requires a written report no later than 150 days prior to expiration
identifying:
The amount of revenue generated through the surcharge;
Its observed effect on development activity in the applicable pilot area;
and
Any other information that the committee reviewing the surcharge’s
impact may require.
• A flat fee of $15,000 for the demolition of detached houses, townhouses, or two-flats.
• A flat fee of $5,000 per dwelling unit for the demolition of multi-unit residential
buildings.
• Exemptions:
o If replacement development designates 50% of units as affordable at 60% AMI or
lower; or
o Demolition is determined to be necessary to remedy conditions imminently
dangerous to life, health, or property.
• Funds from this surcharge are deposited into an Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund.
Somerville, MA
Project Mitigation Contribution or Linkage Fee Program for Affordable Housing
• Requires that linkage fees be collected on any project that:
o Requires zoning relief; and
o Contains a single-use or combination of uses exceeding a square-foot threshold
(30,000 sq ft) set by the Board of Alderman (City Council).
• Project mitigation contributions are made to the Somerville Affordable Housing Trust
Fund for the purpose of the creation of affordable rental and homeownership units.
• The rate per square foot was $10.75 for FY 2021-2022.
• The Project Mitigation Contribution is adjusted on March 1 of each year based on the
change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers over the previous calendar
year.
Berkeley, CA
Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee
• Similar to an inclusionary zoning policy.
• The Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee per unit of market-rate rental housing is $39,746.
o The fee is offset if affordable units are included in the project and is waived if at
least 20% of units in a project are affordable.
50% of affordable units must be affordable at 30% AMI with the
remaining affordable units affordable at 50% AMI.
Avon, CO
Employee Housing Mitigation Linkage Fee
• The purpose is to create housing for workers generated by new development.
• Applies to new multi-family residential (3+ units), commercial, accommodation units,
industrial, and other non-residential development within the Town.
• A formula is used to calculate the fee. The fee is based on the number of workers
required per square foot of new space.
Aspen, CO
Affordable Housing Impact Fee
• A 2012 study suggested calculating the fee for their program by taking the difference
between the market price of housing and the price that is affordable to households at
targeted income.
Seattle, WA
Affordable Housing Incentive Program (Chapter 23.58C)
• Ordinance applies to development in Seattle that requests extra floor area and includes
dwelling units in the following cases:
o new construction;
o addition to existing structure that increases number of units;
o alterations within an existing structure that increases total number of units; and
o change of use that increases the total number of units.
• In return for extra floor area, ordinance provides a performance option (directly
supplying affordable housing units as allowed by code) or a payment option.
Performance option must satisfy median income requirements listed in the ordinance.
• Payment option includes a fee per square foot (SF) of new construction (units). Fee
amount varies by zoning code of the construction. Fee amounts are listed in tables in the
ordinance and range from $5.50/SF to $20.75/SF in the downtown zones and from
$7.00/SF to $32.75/SF in certain zones outside of downtown.
• Payments are deposited into an account managed by the Seattle Director of Housing to
support the development of affordable housing.
PUBLIC PROCESS: Briefing
EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1 – Zions Public Finance Study
One South Main Street, 18th Floor, Salt Lake City UT 84133-1904 Telephone: 801.844.7373 Fax: 801.844.4484
23 September 2021
Angela Price
Policy and Project Manager
Department of Community and Neighborhoods
Salt Lake City Corporation
Re: Housing Loss Mitigation Analysis
Zions Public Finance (ZPFI) examined a sample of 207 properties in and around Salt Lake City and compared
the market value determined by the Salt Lake County Assessor to asking prices as currently listed on various
real estate services. Results indicate that list prices on for-sale properties are significantly higher than
assessed values on the Assessor’s tax rolls.
The computed difference seems higher than most would expect. Traditionally, assessors tend to value
homes at somewhere between 90 and 110 percent of market value and prefer the lower end of this
range. In the graph below, that would be in the first column representing only a small percentage of
homes, where the listed value is 11 percent higher than market value. However, market values overall are
currently a lot higher than expected.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
H
o
m
e
s
Amount Above Assessed Market Value
Homes Above Assessed Market Value
2
Zions Public Finance, Inc. | September 2021
Housing Loss Mitigation Analysis | Salt Lake City, Utah
Recent migration to Salt Lake County, among other factors, has contr ibuted to a substantial housing
shortage, prompting many owners to try to sell for significantly more than prices seen a few years ago.
Due to the lack of housing inventory, buyers were more willing to buy at high prices.
Additionally, many of the listed homes that ZPFI studied had been on the market for some time. This is
evidence that the sellers priced their homes much higher than what the actual market value would be.
The assessor’s database is based off the 2020 tax year, where officials likely calculated market value
during the year 2019. In 2020, realtors at slrealtors.com report that home prices increased by 11.8
percent. In 2021, Deseret News reported an increase of 17 percent. Together, this represents a potential
increase of 30.8 percent since the 2020 tax roll was calculated. As a comparison, if the tax rolls were
thirty percent higher, many of the houses sampled fall in the range expected.
ZPFI has calculated that the average house on the market is listed $268,701 higher than its assessed value.
This translates to a 70.8 percent markup on assessed values. The increase in selling price varies by house
price – for homes listed at less than $250,000, listings are at a 58 percent premium. For houses above $1
million, the premium increases to 103 percent above assessed value. Between $250,000 and $1 million,
there is a gradual increase from 58 to 103 percent. The following three graphs show the distribution of
homes listed at between $250,000 and $500,000, between $500,000 and $1,000,000, and those homes
listed above $1 million.
0
5
10
15
20
25
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
H
o
m
e
s
Amount Above Assessed Market Value
Homes Above Assessed Market Value
Listed Between $250,000 and $500,000
3
Zions Public Finance, Inc. | September 2021
Housing Loss Mitigation Analysis | Salt Lake City, Utah
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
H
o
m
e
s
Amount Above Assessed Market Value
Homes Above Assessed Market Value
Listed Between $500,000 and $1,000,000
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Nu
m
b
e
r
o
f
H
o
m
e
s
Amount Above Assessed Market Value
Homes Above Assessed Market Value
Listed Above $1,000,000
4
Zions Public Finance, Inc. | September 2021
Housing Loss Mitigation Analysis | Salt Lake City, Utah
Other noteworthy findings include that the difference is much smaller for condos, which are on average
47 percent more expensive compared to the 75 percent increase in price for non-condos (including
townhomes and single-family homes). Additionally, larger homes are priced 74 percent higher than the
assessor’s database while smaller homes (less than 1500 square feet) are priced 63 per cent higher.
Despite the difference, larger homes are listed at $120 higher per square foot compared to the database
while the increase is $140 for smaller homes.
Page | 1
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Council Staff Analysts
DATE:December 13, 2022
RE: Potential Council Oversight Audit Topics
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Part of the Council’s role in the City is to provide financial and management oversight for City Departments. As
such, the Council has an ongoing budget to perform this function. The Council Office has standing contracts with
three firms that specialize in this function so that the Council doesn’t have to go out to an Request for Proposal
(RFP) for each project. Based on recent Council discussions and interest areas, Council Staff has put together the
following list as a brainstorm of potential study areas. The goal of the discussion is to prioritize areas of Council
interest, at which point staff will coordinate with the Administration to gauge workload/capacity to participate.
City Functions
1. Evaluate whether there are like functions that are funded in more than one City Department and, if so,
whether there may be opportunities to consolidate like functions and reduce administrative overhead costs,
free up resources or enhance efficiency.
2. Evaluate the State, County, City statutory role in providing services to individuals who are without housing
and who need support related to substance abuse; mental health; job training; public health; aging and
adult services; protective services for youth, adults and seniors; support to manage disabling conditions;
basic health services & medical care; dental care; shelter; warmth; rehabilitation, habilitation; hospice;
medications; medical supplies; physical therapy an occupational therapy; hearing and vision support; case
management; etc. Identify the extent to which individuals who are without housing are typically eligible for
Medicaid services, identify any barriers that exist to individuals without housing seeking Medicaid services
and being granted those services. (Note: this could build on work previously done by the Gardner Policy
Institute to mapping and identifying gaps in the homeless services system in Utah).
Grants/Loans
1. Comprehensive review of all City and Redevelopment Agency (RDA) grant and loan programs - including
program clarity of purpose, structure, criteria, payback expectations, and alignment with City goals &
priorities. Evaluate opportunities to standardize and/or streamline. Evaluate outreach and equity
opportunities.
2. Review grant application/approval process, including balancing early Council input and open meetings
requirements with rapid processing.
Community and Neighborhoods (CAN)
1. Evaluate the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Process to identify bottlenecks/efficiencies, particularly
as it relates to Engineering. Note that at the time of publishing this staff report CIP was proposed to be
Page | 2
moved from CAN to the Finance Department and the Engineering Division was recently moved from CAN
to the Public Services Department.
o Potentially related topic - Design process for complete streets, including department opportunities
for input to resolve conflict with construction plans, communication of complete streets ordinance
to the public. Evaluate opportunities to adjust City policy to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety.
2. Public Safety and Traffic - Identify best practices for traffic safety/management including speeds on
arterials, stoplight timing, etc.
3. Boarded Building Fee - Fully loaded boarded building fee to reflect unique emergency services visits to
vacant properties; consistent tracking of costs on a per property basis to inform future policy decisions.
(Staff understands the Administration may be close to recommending something to the Council).
4. City real estate practices and management – Evaluate the City’s current model and identify best practices
for managing City owned properties, including recommendations for managing leases and leveraging City
assets. Evaluate whether there are efficiencies related to enhanced coordination between the City and RDA
and City Library.
o Potentially related topic – condition assessment of City properties. The Facilities Division has a
condition assessment system for properties used by the City; however, staff understands it does not
cover all city owned properties such as those leased to third parties.
Public Safety - Police/Fire
1. Review of the City’s Commission on Racial Equity in Policing (REP) recommendations as well as the
operational audit by Matrix Consulting findings, and identify implementation status, barriers and next
steps.
2. Contract with an outside agency to conduct thorough and random evaluation of all PD bodycam footage
throughout the year.
3. Evaluate the City’s “Fix the Bricks” program – identify ways to improve equity, leverage existing
department skills, address the very long waiting list, streamline and standardize the process, etc.
4. Evaluate Police Department equipment receiving and reporting procedure, particularly as it relates to
equipment that might be perceived as military equipment.
5. Diversified Response Models (potential topic for 2024). - Evaluate the effectiveness of diversified response
models recently created by the City. Metrics could include – call response time, police overtime, mental
health/housing diversions, etc. (Staff note: it may be premature to evaluate these models at this time, as
some models are still actively hiring and refining their procedures)
Parks/Public Lands
1. Regional athletic complex – review best practices for managing similar facilities and evaluate opportunities
for synergy with other City/State facilities.
Public Services/Public Utilities (these may also overlap with the Sustainability Department)
1. City facility water usage management – evaluate systems for controlling watering at City properties and
facilities to ensure up to date water measurement and rain sensitive controllers.
2. General Public Water conservation measures – Evaluate department water conservation programs for
metrics and efficacy.
Recorder’s Office
1. Review City boards and commissions for uniform and lawful policies and compliance with the State Open
and Public Meeting Act (OPMA), for example – public comment, posting of minutes and recordings, etc.
Identify best practices that could be established as City policy or ordinance.
Sustainability
1. Sustainability Division Role – follow up from recent annual budget discussions about the need to clarify the
role of, and scope policy goals for the Sustainability Division (educator/convenor/facilitator/funder?),
including potential overlaps or opportunities with other City Departments, other governmental entities, and
community partners.
2. Electric Vehicle (EV) infrastructure comprehensive review – evaluate EV charging infrastructure with
details like date of installation, annual cost to operate in terms of electricity and maintenance, maintenance
schedule, plans for replacement or future management, geographic equity considerations, philosophy of the
City’s role, etc.
Page | 3
Library
1. Review of Library processes/procedures as they relate to fiscal oversight and compliance with State law.
Other
1. Interlocal Agencies and Administrative costs to the City – Evaluate the costs to the City as a result from
staff participating and sometimes running point on various intergovernmental efforts (Central Wasatch
Commission, Community Renewable Energy Agency, Utah Performing Arts Center Agency). Identify
opportunities to standardize the process and expectations for involving elected policy-makers.
2. City Donations Process – Evaluate best practices to optimize philanthropic engagement with needed City
projects.
3. Special events – Evaluate best practices for balancing cost recovery with encouraging community events.
4. Youth and Family Division and Other City Youth Programs – follow up from recent annual budget
discussions about the need to clarify role and policy goals – including identifying overlaps/opportunities
with other community partners.
5. Evaluate the landfill interlocal with a focus on administrative cost to the City.
Item E1
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 13, 2022
RE: Naming the Salt Lake City Justice Court Building the “John L. Baxter Justice Court”
MOTION 1 (adopt)
I move that the Council adopt a resolution naming the Salt Lake City Justice Court Building the “John L. Baxter
Justice Court.”
MOTION 2 (not adopt)
I move that the Council not adopt the resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. _______ OF 2022
Naming the Salt Lake City Justice Court the “John L. Baxter Justice Court”
WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Code 3.65 creates a process for the naming of major City assets,
which includes a City-owned structure or facility.
WHEREAS, under City Code 3.65, the Mayor must provide the City Council with fifteen
business days’ notice of her intent to name a major asset, and the City Council may either allow
the fifteen days to pass, at which point the Mayor may name the major asset, or the City Council
may determine that the major asset should be named through a legislative process.
WHEREAS, Mayor Erin Mendenhall provided the City Council notice of her intent to name the
Salt Lake City Justice Court the “John L. Baxter Justice Court” in recognition of Judge John L.
Baxter’s over twenty years of service as a Salt Lake City Justice Court Judge and his service to
some of the most traditionally underserved people in Salt Lake City.
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the naming of the Salt Lake City Justice
Court should be done pursuant to a legislative process, and finds that there is good cause to name
the Salt Lake City Justice Court the “John L. Baxter Justice Court”.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SALT LAKE CITY
COUNCIL:
1. That the Salt Lake City Justice Court shall be named the “John L. Baxter Justice
Court”.
Passed by the Salt Lake City Council, this ____ day of December 2022.
________________________________
Dan Dugan, Council Chair
Attest:
______________________________
Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder
Approved as to form:
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: November 1, 2022
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: November 1, 2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: November 1, 2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Naming the Salt Lake City Justice Court building the “John L. Baxter Justice Court”
STAFF CONTACT: Rachel Otto
DOCUMENT TYPE: Informational item
RECOMMENDATION: Notify Council of the proposed building naming, per City Code
Chapter 3.65
BUDGET IMPACT: New signage is estimated to be approximately $35,000; the administration plans to
cover this amount through current departmental budgets.
BACKGROUND:
Mayor Mendenhall proposes naming the Salt Lake City Justice Court after former Salt Lake City
Justice Court Judge John L. Baxter.
Naming city assets is addressed in City Code Chapter 3.65. Section 3.65.020 states that the naming
of major assets requires City Council approval, while the naming of minor assets requires only the
Mayor’s approval. A major asset includes a structure or facility, including a portion of structure or
facility. Under City Code, the Justice Court building is a major asset. The Council may choose to
approve the name change through legislative process or defer the approval to the Mayor’s Office.
Chapter 3.65 allows the Council 15 business days after receipt of this notice to determine whether
it wishes to use a legislative process for the naming of the Justice Court building. If, at the
conclusion of those 15 business days, the Council has not responded to this notice, the naming
decision and process reverts to the Mayor’s Office to use the minor asset approval process.
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
Judge Baxter served Salt Lake City for over 20 years as a Justice Court Judge. Judge Baxter was dedicated to
serving some of the most traditionally underserved people in Salt Lake City, making sure that they were not
just processed through the justice system, but that they received the support they needed to be successful in
society.
Some of the highlights in Judge Baxter’s career include:
• Serving as Presiding Judge from July 2014 to 2019, and in that capacity acting as liaison from the
Court to the Office of the Mayor and the City Council. Also responsible for developing and
implementing policy at the Court.
• Developing and presiding over the Salt Lake Justice Homeless Court and the Salt Lake City Veterans’
Court. Additionally, he presided over the Salt Lake City Drug Court and the Salt Lake City Domestic
Violence Court.
• Training newly appointed District Court judges regarding interactions with self-represented parties
and training new Justice Court judges in criminal procedure.
• Working as a Trial Attorney for the Salt Lake Legal Defender Association, Salt Lake City, from 1997-
2002.
• Acting as Legal Defender Association liaison to the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympic Winter Games
safety committee and organizing and supervising public defender assignments during the Games.
• Participating as Legal Defender Association liaison in developing and implementing the Third
District Mental Health Court and serving as the public defender assigned to that court.
COMMITTEE POSITIONS
• 2003 – 2005 – Utah Judicial Council Committee on Privacy and Access to Public Court Records,
reviewing, developing and submitting to the Council recommendations for privacy and access to
court records.
• February 2004 to September 2013 – Supreme Court of Utah Advisory Committee on
Professionalism – Drafting and submitting to the Utah Supreme Court the Utah Standards of
Professionalism and Civility (for attorneys) and the Utah Standards of Judicial Professionalism and
Civility. Initiating review of attorneys applying to become mentors for new attorneys.
• 2005 – Present – Salt Lake County Criminal Justice Advisory Council – Developing and
implementing policies and procedures for appropriate jail use, developing community alternatives to
incarceration and exploring options for treatment and reintegration into the community of those
charged or convicted of crimes.
• February 2005 to February 2014 – Chair, Utah Judicial Council Committee on Access to Resources
for Self-Represented Parties – Developed and implemented a virtual Self-Help Center through the
Utah State Courts which presently receives thousands of calls, texts or emails per year for individuals
seeking legal guidance.
• 2005 – 2011 – Utah Judicial Council Committee on Judicial Outreach – Developing and supporting
efforts to engage the Judiciary with the public including Law Day activities and judge for a day
programs.
• 2011 – 2017 – Supreme Court of Utah Advisory Committee on the Rules of Civil Procedure –
Review and submit changes to the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure to the Utah Supreme Court.
• 2011 – 2013 – Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice Mental Health Initiative –
Investigate and expand mental health courts throughout the state.
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
• 2013 – Present – Utah State Bar New Lawyer Training Program Committee – develop and review
training materials for new lawyers and contact and interviewing references for attorneys applying to
become new lawyer mentors.
• 2014 – 2017 – Utah Judicial Council Uniform Fine and Bail Committee – review and submit to the
Judicial Council any changes in fine and bail for the State of Utah.
PROFESSIONAL AWARDS
• 2004 – Salt Lake Area Domestic Violence Coalition Peace on Earth Award
• 2005 – Utah State Courts Quality of Justice Award
• 2011 – Salt Lake Area Domestic Violence Coalition Peace on Earth Award
• 2017 – Utah Minority Bar Association Jimi Mitsunaga Excellence in Criminal Law or Pro Bono
Award
• 2019 – Justice Court Service Award
• 2019 – Utah State Bar Judge of the Year
COMMUNITY TESTIMONIALS
Chief Justice Matthew Durrant: I’ve always looked to Judge Baxter as the perfect example of just how
much good a genuinely compassionate and concerned judge can do. Thank you, Judge Baxter, for your truly
extraordinary service.
Court of Appeals Judge Gregory Orme: I had recollected that John served with me on the Judicial Council
during my second stint on the Council, roughly 2010-2016. I recalled him as one of my favorites on the
Council during that time and one of our most important and influential members. He was not one to
dominate the meeting, but when he spoke, he always had such insightful and important things to say. Well, I
was mistaken. John was not actually on the Council as near as I can reconstruct. He may have filled in
occasionally for an absent justice court judge, but apparently he was just such a frequent presenter, both as
the long-time chair of our access to justice committee and in connection with his pioneering work on two of
our early problem-solving courts, that his regular participation with the Council during that time won him a
promotion to the Council, albeit only in my mind's eye.
I always enjoyed sitting by him and basking in his wisdom during lunch and breaks. He is truly among the
very finest judges I have known during my 35 years with the Utah judiciary.
District Judge Patrick Corum: When I was asked to write down a few things about John Baxter, I had no
idea how hard it would be. Because how can I put into just a few sentences how much and why I admire the
person who represented everything I always wanted to be as a public defender and everything I strive to be as
a judge? John was, and is, both.
First, John was an amazing attorney and mentor to an entire generation of public defenders. His compassion
for his clients, his charisma, and his skill made him a great trial lawyer. Truly, John absolutely commanded
the courtroom as a lawyer. I first met John over 20 years ago when he was the Misdemeanor Chief at LDA
and I was a brand new public defender. As a supervisor and mentor, John had no peers and he absolutely
inspired all of us to represent people with everything we had. I remember being called into his office after a
particularly contentious day in court because the city prosecutor was calling and literally screaming at him
about whatever it was that I had done. John listened calmy, put down the phone, smiled at me, and told me
to keep up the good work.
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
Remembrances of John as a lawyer would be incomplete without some small mention of his court attire. He
had coat rack in the corner of his office that was full of some of the most hideous pattern and color
combinations known to humanity. On his way out the door to court, the jackets would be “matched” with
his equally abhorrent ties. He dressed like that, not because he was color blind (and I sincerely hope he is
because that would have partially shielded him from the horror that these jackets clearly were), but because
one particularly difficult and harsh judge absolutely loved the outfits. As soon as he came in the door, this
judge would interrupt whatever browbeating was being delivered to call John up in front of the packed
courtroom, make him turn around, and just delight in whatever combo he had chosen that day – in my
mind’s eye it is perhaps a green tie with little tabasco bottles on it with a red plaid jacket. John would then
call his cases and the judge would do whatever he asked for on behalf of his clients before going back to
yelling and sending everyone else’s clients to prison.
Second, John is a great judge. In addition to just being very good at the daily work of a judge, I think John
redefined what it is to be a judge. Ultimately, he was there to weigh facts and apply the law, but he also
brought a level of innovation, compassion, and understanding of people that was truly remarkable. John was
on the ground floor of nearly every type of specialty court that we have in this state. Mental Health Court,
Veteran’s Court, and Homeless Court all owe a large part of their existence and success to John’s hard work,
dedication, and courage to try new ideas. I have followed John my entire career. I followed him running the
viaduct legal clinic, as a misdemeanor chief at LDA, and to the bench. At each stop, I have tried to live up to
his example and hoped to become a fraction of what he was. Thank you for everything you have done for
all of us John!
Presiding Third District Justice Court Judge Brendan McCullagh: I have been in denial of John’s
retirement for several years. I will miss him personally, as he is a dear friend. But we collectively will miss him
more, as John has consistently over twenty years, provided us with clear-eyed, moral conscientious
leadership. I'm loud and brash, he just showed all of us by his example how all who appear before us are
entitled to respect, dignity and a chance to be heard.
Nick Mecham, CJAC Policies and Projects Coordinator: I first met Judge Baxter when my neighbors,
who were his parents, connected me with him as I was applying to law school. During my first year of law
school I pestered him enough that he took pity on me and offered me an opportunity to work in his
courtroom over the summer. I eagerly jumped at the opportunity. I’m happy I did because at that point in my
life, in my late 20s, I thought I’d made up my mind on what justice was and what it meant. Working and
interacting with Judge Baxter on a daily basis helped change my mind and reshape my value and
understanding of justice. Realizing that there were real people behind each decision was an invaluable
experience. His deft handling of the dynamic circumstances of his courtroom was a sight to behold. It was
great to watch the kindness with which he treated those whose lives had been touched by the criminal justice
system, maybe for the first time, maybe dozens of times, and the time he took to ensure that each person
understood what was happening and what they were doing. His kindness fostered respect and wasn’t to be
mistaken for weakness. He handled every situation I saw him come across with ease.
He gave me several opportunities to help in many different ways including in homeless court, drug court, and
in research of certain statutes and/or cases. He made me want to work hard for him and I could tell that his
crew felt the same way. He worked hard and his example made each of us want to work hard as well. I felt,
and still feel, that is a quality of a fantastic leader. His humility wouldn’t allow him to relish in accolades or
praise. I aspire to that type of humility. In the 14 years since then, probably much to his chagrin, I’ve
attempted to stay in contact with him and speak with him on a regular basis. I value his opinion and his
advice and I seek both. He is fun to talk to, easy to relate to, and just a genuinely good person. He is a mentor
to me of the highest value and I consider him a friend. I hope he considers me a friend as well and I aspire to
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
treat people the way he has always treated me and the way he’s treated those that have come into his
courtroom.
Kim Russo: I first met Judge Baxter after I was transferred to Operation Rio Grande in downtown Salt Lake
City. My office, along with the other agencies, were upstairs at the Weigand Center. I distinctly remember
after my first week, that the following Friday, Judge Baxter and his team arrived to conduct homeless court.
I was intrigued and stepped in to observe. Immediately, I was in awe of the work that the Court was doing
with our homeless population. Yet, even more affected by the way Judge Baxter dealt with the clients. He
was informative with them, letting them know of their rights, but he also showed empathy and compassion
for their difficult life circumstances.
I soon was able to work with Judge Baxter doing his assessments on the clients that the City Prosecutor
requested. What an honor this has been for me. I thank Judge Baxter for bringing me into the Court
program. I also want to thank him for teaching me the value of the human spirit. The value of each human
being and how precious life can be.
Kele Griffone, CJS: Judge Baxter, From your friends and colleagues at Salt Lake County Criminal Justice
Services, Happy Retirement. Your capacity to listen, passion for fairness, and dedication to our homeless
population has been an inspiration to those around you. Many clients have expressed how you treated them
with respect and they truly felt cared about when appearing before you.
Your ideas, advocation for better processes to serve the community, tell it like it is, and willingness to roll up
your sleeves and get things done has been valuable for the Criminal Justice Advisory Council. We need more
advocates and visionaries like you.
Comments made by clients in the homeless community concerning their experiences with Judge
Baxter:
----I remember walking into his court downtown, it was homeless court. He did not make me feel ashamed or
dumb because of my crime. Judge Baxter worked with me and found me community service so that I would
not have to pay a fine. I have no money. I worked in the pantry with Crossroads Urban Center. I made many
friends. But, Judge Baxter will always be my friend.
Willie
----I really think that I was tired laying in the street, so sick because I was coming down from my drug use. It
was homeless court, and I knew I just had to get in. Judge Baxter made a call, he had a lady call, and they got
me right in to a treatment center. I wanted to go. I have been sober for four years now thanks to Judge
Baxter.
Fred B.
----Judge Baxter gave me a real break, allowing me to do a assessment. I believe that’s what they call it. The
person doing the assessment, said I have good skills, and told mesome of the skills. I got job leads. I then told
Judge Baxter about my leads. I went to the next homeless court and told Judge Baxter I g ot a job. He got up
and shook my hand. Judge Baxter believes in me. I am keeping this job. In a month, I will have the deposit
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
ready and my first month’s rent. An apartment building accepted me. I thank Judge Baxter for believing in
me.
John L.
---Judge Baxter always stops and talks to me when he walks through the Weigand Center. He talks to me with
respect. He is a kind man who always remembers what I tell him. When I see him the next time, he
remembers what I told him and asks if things are getting better for me. He does care about people.
Marsha D.
---I was so sad to hear that Judge Baxter is retiring. I could always count on him. I don’t think anyone in my
life will ever be that nice to me. He never judged me because I was homeless. Someday, I won’t be homeless,
and I hope Judge Baxter will know that I got housing for me and in his honor. I am going to miss him.
Jesse V.
---I got my housing because Judge Baxter worked with me in court to look at my charges and figure out what
I could do to close those cases. I went to do my community service, came back when it was over, and Judge
Baxter connected me with housing. My voucher is active, and we think that my housing will come in August.
I am going to get a job to with Advantage. I couldn’t do this without Judge Baxter’s help.
Trisha W.
---Judge Baxter never judged me. I hear voices so much. He got me some help with people that I now trust.
But he never made fun of my voices, like most people do. Judge Baxter was my safe person in the world. I
just don’t want him to leave.
Carlos V.
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: 10/28/2022
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 10/28/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 10/28/2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Arts Council Board
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
April.Patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Arts Council Board
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Kate Jarman Gates as a member
of Arts Council 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 28, 2022
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Dugan,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to Arts Council.
Kate Jarman Gates to be appointed for a three year term, ending three years from 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: 11/23/2022
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 11/23/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 11/23/2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Bicycle Advisory Committee
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
April.Patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Bicycle Advisory Committee
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Ben Trueman as a member of
the Bicycle Advisory Committee.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
November 23, 2022
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Dugan,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Bicycle Advisory
Committee.
Ben Trueman 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: 11/23/2022
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 11/23/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 11/23/2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Bicycle Advisory Committee
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
April.Patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Bicycle Advisory Committee
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Laura Lewis as a member of the
Bicycle Advisory Committee.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
November 23, 2022
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Dugan,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Bicycle Advisory
Committee.
Laura Lewis 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: 11/23/2022
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 11/23/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 11/23/2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Bicycle Advisory Committee
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
April.Patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Bicycle Advisory Committee
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Maxwell McLeod as a member
of the Bicycle Advisory Committee.
ERIN MENDENHALL
Mayor
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
P.O. BOX 145474
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474
WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM
TEL 801-535-7704
November 23, 2022
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Dugan,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Bicycle Advisory
Committee.
Maxwell McLeod 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: 10/31/2022
Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Date Sent to Council: 10/31/2022
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 10/31/2022
Dan Dugan, Chair
FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff
Office of the Mayor
SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Historic Landmark Commission
STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson
April.Patterson@slcgov.com
DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Historic Landmark
Commission
RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the
recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Emoli Kearns as a member of
Historic Landmark Commission
.
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 31, 2022
Salt Lake City Council
451 S State Street Room 304
PO Box 145476
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
Dear Councilmember Dugan,
Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to Historic Landmark
Commission.
Emoli Kearns to be appointed for a four year term, ending four years from 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
City Council Announcements
Tuesday, December 16, 2022
For Your Information
A. Final Draft of 2023 Annual Calendar (attached)
The final 2023 annual meeting calendar is attached based on
Council review last week. Each year, an annual calendar of the
Council meeting dates must be posted for the public on the State’s
website. The annual calendar is posted ahead of time, however
times or meetings may change throughout the year as unexpected
needs arise.
2023 MEETING SCHEDULE FOR SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL,
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RDA), & LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY (LBA)
DATE
12/07/2022
1
Public Notice is hereby given that the 2023 Annual Meeting Schedule of the City Council,
Redevelopment Agency (RDA) & Local Building Authority
(LBA) of Salt Lake City, Utah, shall be as follows:
The Board of Directors will hold regular meetings from time to time as the Board deems necessary.
When held, regular meetings will be on the same dates and at the same times and places as regular
meetings of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah.
Council Meetings generally include a 2 p.m. WORK SESSION and a 7 p.m. FORMAL SESSION
All meetings of the City Council are open to the public unless closed pursuant to Sections 52-4-204,
52-4-205 and 78B-1-137, Utah Code Annotated. Notice of each meeting is given at least 24 hours in
advance of the meeting as required by State law. An agenda of each meeting is posted at:
• Salt Lake City Council website www.slccouncil.com
• State of Utah Public Notice website www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html
Meetings in addition to those listed below may be held or canceled as circumstances may require,
subject to applicable public notice requirements.
Notice:
• The City & County Building is an accessible facility with a street-level entrance located on
the east side of the building 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.
• In accordance with State statute, City ordinance, and Council policy, one or more Council
Members may be connected via speakerphone.
2023 MEETING SCHEDULE FOR SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL,
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RDA), & LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY (LBA)
DATE
12/07/2022
2
January Meetings
• Tuesday, January 3 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting
• Tuesday, January 10 RDA Meeting, Council Work Session
• Tuesday, January 17 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting • Tuesday, January 31 Council Retreat
February Meetings
• Tuesday, February 7 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting
• Tuesday, February 14 RDA Meeting & Council Work Session
• Tuesday, February 21
Council Work Session & Formal Meeting
March Meetings
• Tuesday, March 7 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting
• Tuesday, March 14
RDA Meeting & Council Work Session
• Tuesday, March 21
Council Work Session & Formal Meeting
April Meetings
• Tuesday, April 4
Council Work Session & Formal Meeting
• Tuesday, April 11 RDA Meeting & Council Work Session
• Tuesday, April 18
Council Work Session & Formal Meeting
• TENTATIVE Tuesday, April 25
Work Session Only
May Meetings
• Tuesday, May 2
Council Work Session & Formal Meeting
• Tuesday, May 9
RDA Meeting & Council Work Session
• Tuesday, May 16
Council Work Session & Formal Meeting
• TENTATIVE - Thursday, May 18
Council Work Session Only (as needed for
budget)
• Tuesday, May 23
Council Work Session Only
• TENTATIVE - Thursday, May 25
Council Work Session Only (as needed for
budget)
• Tuesday, May 30
Council Work Session only
June Meetings
• Thursday, June 1
Council Work Session Only
• Tuesday, June 6
Council Work Session & Formal Meeting
• Thursday, June 8
Council Work Session Only
• Tuesday, June 13
RDA Meeting, Council Work Session &
Formal Meeting
• TENTATIVE - Tuesday, June 20
Formal (as needed for budget)
2023 MEETING SCHEDULE FOR SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL,
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RDA), & LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY (LBA)
DATE
12/07/2022
3
July Meetings
• Tuesday, July 11
RDA Meeting, Council Work Session &
Formal Meeting
• Tuesday, July 18
Council Work Session & Formal Meeting
August Meetings
• Tuesday, August 8
RDA Meeting, Council Work Session &
Formal Meeting
• Tuesday, August 15 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting
September Meetings
• Tuesday, September 5 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting
• Tuesday, September 12 RDA Meeting & Council Work Session
• Tuesday, September 19 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting
October Meetings
• Tuesday, October 3 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting
• Tuesday, October 10 RDA Meeting & Council Work Session
• Tuesday, October 17
Council Work Session & Formal Meeting
November Meetings
• Tuesday, November 14
RDA Meeting, Council Work Session &
Formal Meeting
• Tuesday, November 21
Council Work Session, Formal Meeting,
and Board of Canvassers
December Meetings
• Tuesday, December 5 Council Work Session & Formal Meeting
• Tuesday, December 12
RDA Meeting, Council Work Session, &
Formal Meeting
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING
I, Dan Dugan, acted as the presiding member of the Salt Lake Council, which met on December 13, 2022 in a hybrid
meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Proclamation.
Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202.
A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of
the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following:
§52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of anindividual;
§52 -4-205(1)(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining;
§52-4-205(l)(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation;
§52-4-205(l)(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;
§52-4-205(l)(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) if 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;
§52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and
§52-4-205(1)(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 andPublic Meetings Act.
Other, described as follows: _____________________________________________________________
The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the
meeting was closed.
With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded, and entered on the minutes of the
open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved:
(a)the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting;
(b)the location where the closed meeting will be held; and
(c)the vote of each member of the public body either for or against the motion to hold the closed meeting.
The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include:
(a)the date, time, and place of the meeting;
(b)the names of members Present and Absent; and
(c)the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality
necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting.
Pursuant to §52-4-206(6), a sworn statement is required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by
electronic recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by electronic recording
and/or detailed written minutes is required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g):
A record was not made.
A record was made by: : Electronic recording Detailed written minutes
I hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Presiding Member Date of Signature
X
X
X X
Daniel Dugan (Dec 13, 2022 21:46 MST)Dec 13, 2022
December 13, 2022 Closed Meeting Sworn
Statement
Final Audit Report 2022-12-14
Created:2022-12-14
By:DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slcgov.com)
Status:Signed
Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAVNq4fysBEFRQTzYAYkGbXtw9yMNIm7rQ
"December 13, 2022 Closed Meeting Sworn Statement" History
Document created by DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slcgov.com)
2022-12-14 - 1:16:09 AM GMT
Document emailed to Daniel Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com) for signature
2022-12-14 - 1:16:46 AM GMT
Email viewed by Daniel Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com)
2022-12-14 - 4:46:08 AM GMT
Document e-signed by Daniel Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com)
Signature Date: 2022-12-14 - 4:46:15 AM GMT - Time Source: server
Agreement completed.
2022-12-14 - 4:46:15 AM GMT