Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/20/2022 - Formal Meeting - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FORMAL MEETING   September 20, 2022 Tuesday 7:00 PM   Council Work Room 451 South State Street Room 326 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com   CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Dan Dugan, Chair District 6 Darin Mano, Vice Chair District 5 Victoria Petro-Eschler District 1 Alejandro Puy District 2 Chris Wharton District 3 Ana Valdemoros District 4 Amy Fowler District 7   Generated: 13:21:50 The Council has returned to a hybrid meeting approach. The hybrid meeting enables people joining remotely or in-person to listen to the Council meeting and participate during public comment items. Public Comments: The public can give comments to the Council during the meetings online through Webex or in-person in Room 326 of the City and County Building. In-person attendees can fill out a comment card and online participants will register through Webex in order to be added to the comment queue. Agenda & Registration Information: For more information, including Webex connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. (A phone line will also be available for people whose only option is to call in.) Public Health Information: Masks are no longer required in City Facilities, but are welcome for any attendees who prefer to continue using them. We will continue to monitor the situation take any reasonable precautions for the public and staff. Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES   A.OPENING CEREMONY: 1.Council Member Chris Wharton will conduct the formal meeting. 2.Pledge of Allegiance. 3.Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. B.PUBLIC HEARINGS:   1. Ordinance: Green Street Alley Vacation The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would vacate a City-owned alley situated in the Marion Park Subdivision between 1300 South and Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East. The alley exists on paper only and the abutting property owners have encroached on the alley and incorporated it into their properties. Petition No.: PLNPCM2020-00903    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 13, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 6, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   2. Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 16 South 800 West The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of property at approximately 16 South 800 West from Transit Station Area District - Urban Neighborhood Station - Transition (TSA- UN-T) to Transit Station Area District - Urban Neighborhood Station - Core (TSA-UN-C). The ordinance would also amend the North Temple Boulevard Plan. The proposed amendments are intended to allow the property owner to build a mixed-use building with a possibility of a maximum height of 75 feet. No development plans have been submitted by the applicant at this time. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No.: PLNPCM2021-01242 and PLNPCM2021-01202    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 13, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 6, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   3. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.2 for Fiscal Year 2022-23 The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2022-23. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes funding a 16 gate expansion of Concourse B at the Salt Lake City International Airport, designs for utility expansion at the Tooele Valley Airport, and market based salary adjustments for non-represented airport employees among other things.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 13, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 6, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   4. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No. 3 for Fiscal Year 2022-23 The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2022-23. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes $6 million for deeply affordable housing, purchasing waste and recycling packer vehicles, and a federal grant for retrofitting the City Creek Water Treatment Plant among other items.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 6, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   5. Ordinance: Growing SLC Implementation Plan Amendment The Council will accept public comment and consider an ordinance that would adopt an implementation plan to “Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan 2018- 22.” The proposed ordinance would ensure that the City is in compliance with State Code requirements for this item by October 1, 2022.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 13, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 6, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). Items B6 & B7 regarding The Other Side Village will be heard as one public hearing.   6. Resolution: Reviewing the Public Benefits Analysis for The Other Side Village Pilot Project at 1850 West Indiana Avenue and Considering a Resolution to Authorize the Lease Rate and Term The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution that would authorize the Lease Rate and Term for The Other Side Village Pilot Project at 1850 West Indiana Avenue. This would allow the City to enter into a 40-year below-market ground lease agreement with The Other Side Academy, a Utah nonprofit corporation, in order to facilitate the construction of a tiny home village with approximately 54 units of affordable housing.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 6, 2022 and Tuesday, September 20, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Monday, August 29, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   7. Ordinance: Rezoning to Facilitate Development of The Other Side Village at 1850 West Indiana Avenue The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning map to portions of City-owned properties at 1850 West Indiana Avenue and 1965 West 500 South to rezone the parcels from PL (Public Lands) to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood). The proposed uses on the approximately 37.1-acre site would include permanent supportive housing for homeless individuals as well as services and resources to include on-site healthcare, medical services, and community gathering spaces. This request only relates to the zoning designation of the property. No specific site development proposal has been submitted or is under consideration at this time and the Westside Master Plan is not being changed. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No.:PLNPCM2021-00787    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 13, 2022 and Tuesday, September 20, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Monday, August 29, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   C.POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS:   1. Ordinance: Rezone at 1330 South 700 West The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning map pertaining to a parcel of property at 1330 South 700 West to rezone the parcel from R-1/7,000 (Single-Family Residential District) to CB (Community Business). Although a specific development is not being proposed at this time, the rezone is in anticipation of future neighborhood-scale mixed-use development. The request did not require a master plan amendment. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No.: PLNPCM2021-00257    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, August 16, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, August 16, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   D.COMMENTS: 1.Questions to the Mayor from the City Council.   2.Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.)     E.NEW BUSINESS: 1. Advice and Consent: Salt Lake City Engineer – Mark Stephens The Council will consider approving the appointment of Mark Stephens as the Salt Lake City Engineer.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Suspend the rules and consider motions.     F.UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Ordinance: Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund (EDLF) – Kahve Cafe The Council will consider adopting an ordinance that would approve a $50,000 loan for Kahve Café, LLC from the Economic Development Loan Fund. This loan will assist in the creation of five new jobs in the next year and retention of five current jobs.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 6, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).   2. Resolution: Budget Contingency for the Department of Sustainability The Council will consider adopting a resolution that would release a budget contingency on $125,000 for a Community Food Assessment, part of the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Department of Sustainability budget. The Sustainability Department requests the City Council authorize release of funds to initiate the Community Food Assessment.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 13, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s).     G.CONSENT: 1. Ordinance: Ballpark Station Area Plan The Council will set the date of Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 7 p.m. to accept public comment and consider an ordinance that would adopt the Ballpark Station Area Plan. The Ballpark Station Area Plan is intended to set a framework to help guide growth-related issues and to capitalize on the Ballpark as the neighborhood’s central public asset. The Ballpark Station Area Plan will encompass the area that runs roughly between 900 South to 1700 South, and State Street to I-15. The small area plan’s boundaries are within both the Central Community Master Plan and the Downtown Master Plan.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 13, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, October 18, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Set date.   2. Board Appointment: Housing Advisory and Appeals Board – Terressa Clark The Council will consider approving the appointment of Terressa Clark to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board for a term ending December 31, 2026.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Approve.   3. Board Reappointment: Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board – Heidi Steed The Council will consider approving the reappointment of Heidi Steed to the Community Development and Capital Improvement Programs Advisory Board for a term ending June 2, 2025.    FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 20, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Approve.   H.ADJOURNMENT:   CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m. on September 15, 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. Item B1 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:September 20, 2022 RE: Green Street Alley Vacation PLNPCM2020-00903 MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:September 20, 2021 RE: Green Street Alley Vacation PLNPCM2020-00903 BRIEFING UPDATE Council Members did not express objections to the proposed alley vacation. They confirmed with Planning staff the alley property would be divided in half and deeded to abutting property owners if the alley vacation is adopted. The following information was provided for the September 13, 2022 Council briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will be briefed about a proposal to vacate a T-shaped alley between 1300 South and Harrison Avenue, and between Green Street (approximately 655 East) and 700 East. The alley was platted as part of the Marion Park Subdivision in 1890 and is adjacent to six residential properties on Green Street, property at the southwest corner of 1300 South and 700 East owned by Grace Gospel Church, and UDOT as shown in the image below. All abutting parcels are zoned R-1/5,000, with the exception of the UDOT property which, due to its ownership by the State, is not required to have a City zoning designation. Homes fronting 700 East existed on the east side of the alley until UDOT acquired the property in the 1960s for an expansion of 700 East and the homes were demolished. The alley has not been used in the decades since and exists only on paper. It is not a potential mid-block connection as is the case with some alleyways in the City. Abutting property owners to the west incorporated the alley into their properties and Item Schedule: Briefing: September 13, 2022 Set Date: September 6, 2022 Public Hearing: September 20, 2022 Potential Action: October 4, 2022 Page | 2 built fences and other encroachments. The petitioner, who is an adjacent property owner, discovered this issue when applying for a building permit to construct a shed on what they learned is alley property. When UDOT acquired land adjacent to the alley for the above referenced 700 East expansion, a subdivision amendment was not processed so that land is still considered by the City to be residential. It remained vacant for years until a community garden was recently created on a portion of the UDOT land as shown below. Section 14.52.040 Salt Lake City Code outlines the method of disposition of alley property if a petition is approved by the City Council. If abutting properties are zoned for low density residential use, the alley is merely vacated, divided in half and the owners are not charged. While the Gospel Grace Church property is not being used as residential, it is zoned R-1/5,000, (which is a conditional use in this zoning designation), so the Church would not be charged for abutting alley property if the Council approves the alley vacation. Similarly, UDOT would not be charged for the alley segment abutting its property since a subdivision amendment changing the land use was not processed when the property was acquired. Abutting Green Street property owners signed a petition supporting the alley vacation. Although a representative of Gospel Grace Church did not sign the petition, Planning staff stated the Church agreed to participate in the proposal. During City department and division review of the alley vacation petition, the Engineering Division expressed opposition for the following reasons: •Vacating the alley would give half ownership to the residential property owners west of the alley, and half to UDOT. (It is worth noting UDOT expressed a willingness to concede its half of the alley except for a small segment on the eastern side of the east/west portion of the alley.) If approved, the residential property owners and UDOT could complete that transaction without City involvement. •Illegal encroachment by adjacent property owners should not be the basis for an alley vacation. (Planning staff stated encroachment is not the reason for the vacation, rather it is lack of use.) •There should be a community benefit due to the vacation. No objections were received from other responding City departments or divisions. The Planning Commission reviewed this petition at its February 23, 2o22 meeting and held a public hearing. One person spoke at the hearing sharing concerns about the City not charging low-density residential property owners for abutting alley property but charging adjacent commercial and higher density residential owners when alleys are vacated. The Commission followed Planning staff’s recommendation and forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation to the Council for the alley vacation. Included in the recommendation is a condition that the entire width of the north/south alley segment should be deeded to the abutting residential property owners on the alley’s west side. The Attorney’s Office recommends half of the alley is deeded to abutting property owners on each side of the alley as outlined in City Code if the Council adopts the alley vacation. Owners can work with each other without City involvement to transfer ownership. Goal of the briefing: To review the proposed alley closure, address questions Council Members may have and prepare for a public hearing. POLICY QUESTION 1. If the Council is supportive of this alley closure request, does it prefer to divide the alley property between the abutting property owners, or deed the entire width to residential property owners to the west? Page | 3 Image courtesy Salt Lake City Planning Division Page | 4 Community garden at the corner of Harrison Avenue and 700 East Image courtesy of Google ADDITONAL INFORMATION Alley vacation requests receive three phases of review, as outlined in section 14.52.030 Salt Lake City Code (see pages 6-8 below). Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council. The Planning Commission staff report provides information relating to the following three key considerations connected to this alley vacation. A short description of each issue is provided below for reference. Please see pages 5-6 of the Planning Commission staff report for full analysis of these issues. Issue 1: Alley Vacation Request The petitioner originally requested vacating only the alley segment abutting properties between 1331 South Green Street and 669 East Harrison Avenue. It was discovered the alley segments abutting Gospel Grace Church were also absorbed into its property. The Church agreed to be included in the proposed alley vacation. Planning staff noted the alley stopped having a purpose or use after abutting homes east of the alley were demolished in the 1960s. It is Planning’s opinion the alley is not useful as a public right-of-way and satisfies the “Lack of Use” policy consideration required in Section 14.52.02 of Salt Lake City Code. Issue 2: Alley Ownership Initially it was unclear if the City or UDOT owned the alley. Planning staff worked with UDOT and determined the alley was not part of the right-of-way acquired by UDOT. The petitioner provided a survey of their property that shows the alley at the rear of their property. Issue 3: Alley Disposition As discussed above, disposition of vacated City alleys is outlined in Section 14.52.040 Salt Lake City Code. For vacated alleys abutting low-density residential properties, the alley is divided in half and property owners on either side receive half the alley. As all abutting properties are designated as low-density Page | 5 residential, each will receive half the alley property adjacent to their properties if the Council adopts the proposal. Planning reviewed the proposed alley vacation against standards required for alley vacations and believes City policies and the relevant master plan do not include any policies opposed to the vacation. The Council has expressed an interest in retaining ownership of alleys that have future potential for mid-block connectivity or trail usage. This alleyway does not appear to have that potential future use. Attachment D (pages 24-26 of the Planning Commission staff report) is an analysis of factors City Code requires the Planning Commission to consider for alley vacations (Section 14.52.030 B Salt Lake City Code). In addition to the information above, other factors are summarized below. Planning staff found the proposed alley vacation complies with the factors below. For the complete analysis, please refer to the staff report. •City Code required analysis: The City Police Department, Fire Department, Transportation Division and all other relevant City departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property. Finding: Planning staff believes it complies. As noted above, City Engineering objected to the alley vacation. According to Engineering staff, the division opposes giving UDOT half the alley segment abutting its property. Engineering also stated encroachment should not be the basis for vacating an alley. Planning staff stated Lack of Use is the basis, not encroachment. Community purpose is one policy consideration for alley vacations, however, as noted above, Lack of Use is the policy consideration for the subject petition. Other City departments and divisions had no issues with the proposal or did not provide comments. •City Code required analysis: The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations for closure, vacation or abandonment of City owned alleys (Lack of Use, Public Safety, Urban Design, Community Purpose). Finding: Complies. Planning staff determined the proposed alley vacation satisfies the Lack of Use policy consideration. •City Code required analysis: The petition must not deny sole access or required off-street parking to any adjacent property. Finding: Complies. The subject alley does not functionally exist, so no abutting properties use it for required off-street parking. •City Code required analysis: The petition will not result in any property being landlocked. Finding: Complies. All abutting properties have public street access. No property would be landlocked because of this alley vacation request. •City Code required analysis: The disposition of the alley property will not result in a use which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the City, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses. Finding: Complies. Plan Salt Lake promotes increased connectivity through mid-block connections. However, the alley is not needed for this purpose. The Central Community Master Plan calls for the linear parkway on the west side of 700 East to be improved. The recently opened community garden on the property between the alley and 700 East improved the parkway. Planning staff stated the proposed alley vacation will not have an impact. •City Code required analysis: No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within 12 months of issuance of the building permit. Page | 6 Finding: Complies. No abutting property owners expressed opposition to the proposed alley vacation. •City Code required analysis: The petition furthers the City preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it. Finding: Complies. The proposal would vacate the entire alley. •City Code required analysis: The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Finding: Complies. None of the properties abutting the subject alley use it for rear access. PUBLIC PROCESS December 15, 2020-Petition received by Planning Division. January 11, 2021-Petition assigned to Katia Pace, Principal Planner. March 16, 2021-Confirmed alley belongs to Salt Lake City. April 8, 2021-Notice of the alley vacation request and request for comments sent to the Liberty Wells Community Council and East Liberty Park Community Organization Chairs. No comments were provided from either organization prior to the May 23, 2021 45-day recognized organization comment period expiration. June 1, 2021-Verbal approval received from Gospel Grace Church to include its property in the application. June 15, 2021-Early notification announcement sent to residents and owners within 300 feet of the subject alley. The notice included information about the project and how to provide public input. November 3, 2021-Received confirmation UDOT would relinquish its right to half the north/south alley segment. February 10, 2022-Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed. Public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division listserv. February 13, 2022-Public hearing notice signs posted on property. February 24, 2022-Planning Commission review and public hearing. One person spoke in opposition to the proposal. The Commission closed the hearing and unanimously voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. March 21, 2022-Draft ordinance sent to the Attorney’s Office. August 1, 2022-Signed ordinance sent to Planning Division from Attorney’s Office (some questions arose about the proposal which created a delay). August 2, 2022-Transmittal received in City Council Office The process for closing or vacating a City-owned alley is outlined in Section 14.52 Salt Lake City Code. Page | 7 14.52.010: DISPOSITION OF CITY'S PROPERTY INTEREST IN ALLEYS: The city supports the legal disposition of Salt Lake City's real property interests, in whole or in part, with regard to city owned alleys, subject to the substantive and procedural requirements set forth herein. 14.52.020: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR CLOSURE, VACATION OR ABANDONMENT OF CITY OWNED ALLEYS: The city will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: A. Lack Of Use: The city's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an onsite inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right of way; B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity, unsafe conditions, public health problems, or blight in the surrounding area; C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element; or D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002) 14.52.030: PROCESSING PETITIONS: There will be three (3) phases for processing petitions to dispose of city owned alleys under this section. Those phases include an administrative determination of completeness; a public hearing, including a recommendation from the Planning Commission; and a public hearing before the City Council. A. Administrative Determination Of Completeness: The city administration will determine whether or not the petition is complete according to the following requirements: 1. The petition must bear the signatures of no less than seventy five percent (75%) of the neighbors owning property which abuts the subject alley property; 2. The petition must identify which policy considerations discussed above support the petition; 3. The petition must affirm that written notice has been given to all owners of property located in the block or blocks within which the subject alley property is located; 4. A signed statement that the applicant has met with and explained the proposal to the appropriate community organization entitled to receive notice pursuant to title 2, chapter 2.60 of this code; and 5. The appropriate city processing fee shown on the Salt Lake City consolidated fee schedule has been paid. B. Public Hearing and Recommendation From The Planning Commission: Upon receipt of a complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the planning commission to consider the proposed disposition of the city owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the planning commission shall make a report and recommendation to the Page | 8 city council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors: 1. The city police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant city departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property; 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; 3. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off street parking to any property adjacent to the alley; 4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked; 5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the city, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; 6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within twelve (12) months of issuance of the building permit; 7. The petition furthers the city preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and 8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. C. Public Hearing Before The City Council: Upon receipt of the report and recommendation from the planning commission, the city council will consider the proposed petition for disposition of the subject alley property. After a public hearing to consider the matter, the city council will make a decision on the proposed petition based upon the factors identified above. (Ord. 58-13, 2013: Ord. 24-11, 2011) 14.52.040: METHOD OF DISPOSITION: If the city council grants the petition, the city owned alley property will be disposed of as follows: A. Low Density Residential Areas: If the alley property abuts properties which are zoned for low density residential use, the alley will merely be vacated. For the purposes of this section, "low density residential use" shall mean properties which are zoned for single-family, duplex or twin home residential uses. B. High Density Residential Properties And Other Nonresidential Properties: If the alley abuts properties which are zoned for high density residential use or other nonresidential uses, the alley will be closed and abandoned, subject to payment to the city of the fair market value of that alley property, based upon the value added to the abutting properties. C. Mixed Zoning: If an alley abuts both low density residential properties and either high density residential properties or nonresidential properties, those portions which abut the low density residential properties shall be vacated, and the remainder shall be closed, abandoned and sold for fair market value. (Ord. 24-02 § 1, 2002) Page | 9 14.52.050: PETITION FOR REVIEW: Any party aggrieved by the decision of the city council as to the disposition of city owned alley property may file a petition for review of that decision within thirty (30) days after the city council's decision becomes final, in the 3rd district court. 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 2, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Green Street Alley Vacation – PLNPCM2020-00903 STAFF CONTACT: Katia Pace, Principal Planner, katia.pace@slcgov.com (801) 535-6354 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve an Ordinance to vacate the alley. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Nicholas Lumby, property owner residing at 1343 S Green Street, is requesting Salt Lake City to vacate a “T” shaped alley adjacent to his property and running between 1300 South and Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East. The property abutting this alley is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District). The alley exists in paper only and the abutting property owners have encroached the alley into their properties. UDOT is an abutting property owner of the alley, it owns land in this block that was acquired when 700 East was expanded in the 1960s. This alley was plated as part of the Marion Park Subdivision in 1890. In the early 1960s, 700 East was expanded and the homes on the east of this block were demolished to give way for the road expansion. The alley was absorbed into the abutting properties to the west, but it was never vacated. The issued was discovered recently when the applicant requested a building permit for a garage on land that is part of the alley. 8/2/2022 8/2/2022 Lisa Shaffer (Aug 2, 2022 12:35 MDT) 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 8 Proposed alley vacation – red line Abutting property owners: 1. Gospel Grace Church (yellow dotted line): 662, 664, 666 E 1300 South & 1319, 1325 S Green Street 2. 1331 S Green Street 3. 1337 S Green Street 4. 1343 S Green Street (Petitioner) 5. 1347 S Green Street 6. 1351 S Green Street 7. 669 E Harrison Avenue 8. UDOT acquired land for expansion of 700 East According to Section 14.52.040 of Salt Lake City Code, the City’s method of disposition for a vacated alley, that abuts property zoned for low density residential use, is to split the alley in half and deed each respective half back to the abutting property owners. The Gospel Grace Church property is within the R-1/5,000 (single-family residential), therefore the alley abutting the church and the residential properties would be deeded and not sold. According to the disposition method listed above, UDOT will receive half of the alley abutting its property. That means that part of the property generally occupied by the west property owners, will be owned by UDOT. UDOT has stated that it’s willing to give up its half portion of the north/south alley. If the alley is vacated the property owners will work with Real Estate Services and UDOT to exchange properties as needed. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chair of the Liberty Wells Community Council and East Liberty Park Community Organization on April 8, 2021. • Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners located within 300 feet of the project site on June 15, 2021, providing notice about the project and information on how to give public input on the project. • No formal comments were submitted by the Liberty Wells Community Council or the East Liberty Park Community Organization. • No public comments were submitted in relation to this proposal. • A Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on February 23, 2022. • The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to City Council for the alley vacation with the condition that the alley be deeded in its entirety to the west abutting property owners. EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Hearing 3. Planning Commission Record a) Planning Commission Notice and Postmark of February 23, 2022 b) Planning Commission Agenda of February 23, 2022 c) Planning Commission Minutes of February 23, 2022 d) Planning Commission Staff Report of February 23, 2022 4. Original Petition 5. Mailing List SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2022 (Vacating a city-owned alley situated in the Marion Park Subdivision between 1300 South Street and Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East Street) An ordinance vacating an unnamed city-owned alley situated in the Marion Park Subdivision between 1300 South Street and Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East Street, pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00903. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on February 23, 2022, to consider a request made by Nicholas Lumby (“Applicant”) (Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00903) to vacate an unnamed city-owned alley; and WHEREAS, the petition demonstrates that the alley has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right of way; and WHEREAS, at its February 23, 2022, hearing, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation on said petition to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds after holding a public hearing on this matter, that there is good cause for the vacation of the alley and neither the public interest nor any person will be materially injured by the proposed vacation. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Vacating City-Owned Alley. That an unnamed, city-owned alley situated in the Marion Park Subdivision located between 1300 South Street and Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East Street, which is the subject of Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00903, and which is more particularly described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto, is hereby vacated and declared not presently necessary or available for public use. SECTION 2. Reservations and Disclaimers. The vacation is expressly made subject to all existing rights-of-way and easements of all public utilities of any and every description now located on and under or over the confines of this property, and subject to the rights of entry thereon for the purposes of maintaining, altering, repairing, removing or rerouting said utilities, including the city’s water and sewer facilities. Said vacation is also subject to any existing rights-of-way or easements of private third parties. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication and shall be recorded with the Salt Lake County Recorder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this _______ day of ______________, 2022. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2022. Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: __________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney August 1, 2022 EXHIBIT “A” GREEN ALLEY VACATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 29, BLOCK 1 OF THE MARION PARK SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 14, 5 ACRE PLAT “A”, BIG FIELD SURVEY; AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 10 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 15, SAID BLOCK 1; THENCE EAST 109.8 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 45°00’00” EAST 7.07 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 366 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2, SAID BLOCK 1; THENCE EAST 10 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, SAID BLOCK 1; THENCE NORTH 366 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45°00’00” WEST 7.07 FEET; THENCE EAST 109.8 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 16, SAID BLOCK 1; THENCE NORTH 10 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 37, SAID BLOCK 1; THENCE WEST 239.6 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2020-00903 December 15, 2020 Petition received by the Planning Division. January 11, 2021 Petition assigned to Katia Pace, Principal Planner. March 16, 2021 Got confirmation that alley was Salt Lake City property and not UDOT’s property. Couldn’t move forward without this confirmation of alley ownership. April 8, 2021 Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the chairs of the Liberty Wells Community Council and East Liberty Park Community Organization. Neither chair provided response to the request for comment. June 1, 2021 Got verbal approval from the Gospel Grace Church to include their property to the application. June 15, 2021 Sent notice of application to property owners and tenants of property within 300 feet of the alley. Received no response. November 3, 2021 Got confirmation that UDOT relinquished their right to get half of the north/south portion of the alley. February 10, 2022 Planning Commission hearing notice mailed to owners and tenants of property within 300 feet of the alley. February 24, 2022 Planning Commission reviewed the petition and conducted a public hearing. The commission then voted to send a positive recommendation to the City Council. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2020-00903 – Green Alley Vacation – The owner at 1343 S Green Street, Nicholas Lumby, has requested Salt Lake City to vacate a "T" shaped alley running between 1300 South and Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East. The alley exists on paper only and the abutting property owners have incorporated the alley into their properties. The property abutting this alley is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TBD PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Katia Pace at 801-535-6354 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at katia.pace@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2020-00903. 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 make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD a) Notice and Postmark of February 23, 2022 3. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD b) Planning Commission Agenda of February 23, 2022 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA February 23, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. (The order of the items may change at the Commission’s discretion) ATTENTION: This meeting will not have an anchor location at the City & County Building based on the following determination by the Planning Commission Chair: I, Amy Barry, Chair of the Planning Commission, hereby determine that with the ongoing COVID -19 pandemic conditions existing in Salt Lake City including, but not limited to, the elevated number of cases, that meeting at an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who would be present. Commission Members will connect remotely. We want to make sure everyone interested in the Planning Commission meetings can still access the meetings how they feel most comfortable. If you are interested in watching the Planning Commission meetings, they are available on the following platforms: • YouTube: www.youtube.com/slclivemeetings • SLCtv Channel 17 Live: www.slctv.com/livestream/SLCtv-Live/2 If you are interested in participating during the Public Hearing portion of the meeting or would like to provide general comments, email; planning.comments@slcgov.com or connect with us on Webex at: • https://bit.ly/slc-pc-02232022 Instructions for using WebEx are provided on our website at SLC.GOV/Planning PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 5:30 PM REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2022 PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. ADU Conditional Use at Approximately 1532 South Green Street - Dorian Rosen, the property owner, has requested conditional use approval for a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to be situated in the rear, west side of the property located at the above-stated address. The ADU will be 14’8” tall and 650 square-feet. To meet the requirements to allow the ADU to reach the maximum 650 square feet a 425 square foot addition to the main dwelling will be built. The subject property is zoned R-1 /5,000 (Single-Family Residential) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Marino. (Staff contact: Grant Amann at 801-535-6171 or grant.amann@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-01273 2. Green Street Alley Vacation - Sara Koenig, the property owner at approximately 1343 S Green Street, is requesting Salt Lake City to vacate a "T" shaped alley running between 1300 South and Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East. The alley exists on paper only and the abutting property owners have incorporated the alley into their properties. The property abutting this alley is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at 801-535-6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00903 3. Dooley Court Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision at approximately 122 S Dooley CT and 126 S Windsor Street - Warren Crummett, the property owner, is requesting planned development and preliminary subdivision approval to divide an existing lot into two lots for a new twin home. The proposal includes retaining the existing single-family home on-site and building a new twin home on the newly created lots. Planned Development approval is requested to modify the required twin home lot area from 1,500 square feet to approximately 1,367 square feet and for an approximate 2-inch reduction to the front yard setback in the southwest area of the lot fronting Dooley Court. The project is located in the SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) zoning district. a. Planned Development – Planned Development request to waive lot area and setback requirements in the SR-3 zone. Case number PLNPCM2021-00958 b. Preliminary Subdivision – Creation of two new lots to accommodate a twin home. Case number PLNSUB2021-01151 The subject property is within Council District #4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Krissy Gilmore at 801-535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) 4. Glendale Townhomes at approximately 1179 S Navajo Street - Pierre Langue of Axis Architects, representing the property owners, is requesting approval from the City to redevelop the property with 57 townhomes, 24 of which would include a live/work option. The buildings would be three stories tall with internal garages for each unit. Currently, the land is occupied by Tejedas Market and is zoned CB (Community Business). This type of project must be reviewed as a Planned Development as four of the buildings would not have frontage on a public street. The subject property is located within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. (Staff contact: Eric Daems at 801-535-7236 or eric.daems@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-00378 5. Pacific Yard Design Review & Planned Development - KTGY Architects, representing Urban Alfandre, are requesting a Planned Development and Design Review approval for a mixed-use multifamily building at approximately 443 W 700 South, 720 S 400 West, and 704 S 400 West. The proposed 7-story building is 88-feet in height and includes 292 units and 202 parking stalls. It has 12,000 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor. The applicant is requesting relief from all required setbacks and landscaping through the Planned Development process and requesting an additional 28 feet of building height through Design Review. The project site is in the General Commercial (CG) zoning district. In the CG zone, new buildings taller than sixty feet (60') but less than ninety feet (90') may be authorized through Design Review. The proposed project incorporates a public mid-block pedestrian walkway along the western property line a. Planned Development – Planned Development request to waive setback and landscaping requirements in the CG zone. Case number PLNPCM2021-00822 b. Design Review – Design Review request for 28 feet of additional height. Case number PLNPCM2021-00835 The property is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: Laura Bandara at 801-535-6188 or laura.bandara@slcgov.com) 6. Hoyt Place Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 858 W & 860 W Hoyt Place - Bert Holland, representing Hoyt Place Development LLC, is requesting a zoning map amendment for the properties located at the above-stated address. The proposal would rezone the properties from R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District. The two lots are approximately .39 acres or 16,988 square feet. Future development plans were not submitted with this application. The property is located within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at 801-535-7660 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-01073 7. Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment – Stephen Pace, the applicant, is requesting a zoning text amendment to permit the restoration or reconstruction of a historic carriage house for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit, located within the reconstructed or restored historic carriage house, would not be required to meet density, lot coverage, setbacks of the applicable base zoning district, or the accessory structure footprint or height limitations. The proposed language requires eligible properties to be both a Salt Lake City Landmark and listed as a National Register Site of Historic Places and located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), I (Institutional) or SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential). (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist at 385-226- 7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00106 For Planning Commission agendas, staff reports, and minutes, visit the Planning Division’s website at slc.gov/planning/public- meetings. Staff Reports will be posted the Friday prior to the meeting and minutes will be posted two days after they are ratified, which usually occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD c) Planning Commission Minutes of February 23, 2022 Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 1 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING This meeting was held electronically Wednesday, February 23, 2022 A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. The meeting was called to order at approximately 5:30 pm. Audio recordings of the Planning Commission meetings are retained for a period of time. These minutes are a summary of the meeting. For complete commentary and presentation of the meeting, please visit https://www.youtube.com/c/SLCLiveMeetings. Present for the Planning Commission meeting were: Vice-Chairperson Maurine Bachman, Commissioners Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Andres Paredes, Mike Christensen, Brenda Scheer, Adrienne Bell, and Aimee Burrows. Chairperson Amy Barry was excused. Planning Staff members present at the meeting were: Planning Manager John Anderson, Planning Manager Kelsey Lindquist, Senior City Attorney Hannah Vickery, Associate Planner Grant Amann, Principal Planner Katia Pace, Senior Planner Kristina Gilmore, Senior Planner Eric Daems, Urban Designer Laura Bandara, Principal Planner Amanda Roman, Administrative Secretary David Schupick, and Administrative Secretary Aubrey Clark. REPORT OF THE CHAIR & VICE-CHAIR REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FOR FEBRUARY 9, 2022 Brenda abstained. All other Commissioners voted “yes”. The motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS ADU Conditional Use at Approximately 1532 South Green Street - Dorian Rosen, the property owner, has requested conditional use approval for a detached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to be situated in the rear, west side of the property located at the above-stated address. The ADU will be 14’8” tall and 650 square-feet. To meet the requirements to allow the ADU to reach the maximum 650 square feet a 425 square foot addition to the main dwelling will be built. The subject property is zoned R-1 /5,000 (Single-Family Residential) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Grant Amann at 801-535-6171 or grant.amann@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021- 01273 Associate Planning Grant Amann reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff report. He stated that Staff recommends approval with conditions listed in the staff report. He reviewed the ADU size, parking location, ADU access, and neighborhood compatibility. Commissioner Aimee Burrows shared concern about condition number 3 being added in. She felt that it should not be added into the conditions because it is already part of City code. The Commissioners discussed how it was handled on previous cases. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 2 The Applicant Dorian Rosen stated that he was available for any questions but did not have a presentation. Commissioner Ghent asked the applicant if he was aware of the City not permitting rentals under 30 days. The applicant stated that he was aware. PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Bachman opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one wished to speak, Commissioner Bachman closed the public hearing. MOTION Commissioner Brenda Scheer stated, Motion to Approve with Modifications Recommended by the Planning Commission: Based on the findings listed in the staff report, the information presented, and input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use petition (PLNPCM2021-01273) as proposed, with the conditions listed in the staff report, with the following modifications: removal of condition 3. Commissioner Andra Ghent seconded the motion. Commissioners Andres Paredes, Mike Christensen, Adrienne Bell, Jon Lee, Andra Ghent, Aimee Burrows, and Brenda Scheer voted “yes”. The motion passed unanimously. Green Street Alley Vacation - Sara Koenig, the property owner at approximately 1343 S Green Street, is requesting Salt Lake City to vacate a "T" shaped alley running between 1300 South and Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East. The alley exists on paper only and the abutting property owners have incorporated the alley into their properties. The property abutting this alley is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District) and is located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Katia Pace at 801-535-6354 or katia.pace@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020- 00903 Principal Planner Katia Pace reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that Staff recommends a positive recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Aimee Burrows asked for clarification on if the property owners will have to buy t he land or if it will be deeded to them. Katia Pace stated that it will be deeded to them, based on single family residential zoning. Commissioner Burrows stated that she remembers another case in which the property owners had to purchase the land. Katia Pace stated that is the case for multifamily zoning districts or commercial properties. Commissioner Burrows asked if encroachment is a reason for vacant use of the alley. Katia Pace stated that in the past it functioned as an alley but since the demolition of the properties on the east side for the expansion of 700 East, it no longer functioned as an alley. Commissioner Burrows asked for clarification that the lack of use then caused the encroachment. Katia Pace stated that was correct. Commissioner Burrows asked if all the property owners have signed onto the project. Katia Pace stated that the applicant was looking for a building permit on top of the alley, and at that moment found the property was not theirs but the city’s property. She also stated that the five property owners have signed the form and the approval of the church for this application. Nicholas Lumby stated that he did apply for the application when he found out the land was not part of his property. He stated that one of his neighbors had tried to get the alley vacated before in the past. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 3 When speaking with other neighbors he found that they were all under the impression that the fence line was the end of their property line. PUBLIC HEARING Vice-Chairperson Maurine Bachman opened the public hearing. • Cindy Cromer stated disapproval for the project. Vice-Chairperson Maurine Bachman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Brenda Scheer stated concern of how the property is being deeded and not paid for since in the past property owners have had to pay. MOTION Commissioner Brenda Scheer stated, Based on the findings and analysis in the staff report, testimony, and discussion at the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the mayor to declare the alley surplus property and for the City Council to vacate the alley with the following condition: 1.That the alley is deeded the entire 10-foot width to the west abutting property owners. Commissioner Mike Christensen seconded the motion. Commissioners Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Andres Paredes, Mike Christensen, Brenda Scheer, Adrienne Bell, and Aimee Burrows all voted “yes”. The motion passed unanimously. Dooley Court Planned Development and Preliminary Subdivision at approximately 122 S Dooley CT and 126 S Windsor Street - Warren Crummett, the property owner, is requesting planned development and preliminary subdivision approval to divide an existing lot into two lots for a new twin home. The proposal includes retaining the existing single-family home on-site and building a new twin home on the newly created lots. Planned Development approval is requested to modify the required twin home lot area from 1,500 square feet to approximately 1,367 square feet and for an approximate 2-inch reduction to the front yard setback in the southwest area of the lot fronting Dooley Court. The project is located in the SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) zoning district. a. Planned Development – Planned Development request to waive lot area and setback requirements in the SR-3 zone. Case number PLNPCM2021-00958 b. Preliminary Subdivision – Creation of two new lots to accommodate a twin home. Case number PLNSUB2021-01151 The subject property is within Council District #4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff contact: Krissy Gilmore at 801-535-7780 or kristina.gilmore@slcgov.com) Senior Planner Krissy Gilmore reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that Staff recommends approval with the conditions listed in the Staff Report. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 4 Commissioner Burrows asked if a 2-inch setback modification request is common. Staff clarified that it is not, but felt it was best to include it in the application to be safe. The Applicant Warren Crummett stated that he is passionate about this project because it addressed the missing middle type housing that is needed. PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Bachman opened the public hearing. • Frederick Stagbrook – Central Community Council – in opposition to the petition • Cindy Cromer – in opposition to the petition • Jen Colby - in opposition to the petition • Keenan Wells – in opposition to the petition • Email read into the record from Steve Wilson – in opposition to the petition Seeing that no one else with to speak, Commissioner Bachman closed the public hearing. The applicant addressed some of the concerns brough up during the public hearing. Commissioners, Staff, and the Applicant discuss: • The size of other lots on the block. Staff clarifying that they are around 1500 square feet. • Whether there are other twin homes on the neighborhood. There are not but there is a duplex nearby. • Whether the lot would meet the lot size requirements for a single-family home. It would. • Who would complete the new construction? The applicant has hired an architect. MOTION Commissioner Adrienne Bell stated, Based on the findings listed in the staff report, the information presented, and input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission approve the Planned Development petition (PLNPCM2021-00958) and Preliminary Subdivision Plat (PLNSUB2021-01151) as proposed, subject to complying with the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Mike Christensen seconded the motion. Commissioners Brenda Scheer, Aimee Burrows, and Andres Paredes voted no. Commissioners Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Adrienne Bell, and Mike Christensen voted “yes”. The motion passed with 3 “no” and 4 “yes”. Glendale Townhomes at approximately 1179 S Navajo Street - Pierre Langue of Axis Architects, representing the property owners, is requesting approval from the City to redevelop the property with 57 townhomes, 24 of which would include a live/work option. The buildings would be three stories tall with internal garages for each unit. Currently, the land is occupied by Tejedas Market and is zoned CB (Community Business). This type of project must be reviewed as a Planned Development as four of the buildings would not have frontage on a public street. The subject property is located within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. (Staff contact: Eric Daems at 801-535- 7236 or eric.daems@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-00378 Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 5 Senior Planner Eric Daems reviewed the petition as outlined in the staff report. He stated that Staff recommends approval with the condition listed in the staff report. Commissioner Mike Christensen asked how many housing units could be built on this property. Eric Daems stated that there is not a standard set yet, but it is based off setback, building height, and parking. John Anderson stated that as the building grows larger it will have to come to the planning commission to go through design review. Pierre Langue stated he is the architect on the project. He stated that they worked based off the area, and the density of the area is not enough demand for a retail space. He stated they developed more streets to allow access. He also stated that the public amenities with this project will be beneficial for people in the area. Pierre Langue stated that they implemented a lot of guest parking. PUBLIC HEARING Vice-Chairperson Maurine Bachman opened the public hearing. • Kellie Tuiono stated her disapproval for the project. • Kristen Prosser stated her disapproval for the project. • Pachuco Lautaro stated his disapproval for the project. • Susie Estrada stated her disapproval for the project. • Violeta Rio stated her disapproval for the project. Vice-Chairperson Maurine Bachman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Brenda Scheer stated her empathy for the public and their comments. She did state that the Planning Commission cannot consider gentrification, traffic, who benefits, or what the community needs are in their decision. She stated that they must base their decision on if it matches the criteria. Commissioner Aimee Burrows stated that she has read the public comments and that she shares concerns that the community garden will not replace the grocery store as a food resource. She stated that the planning commission cannot require a grocery store. MOTION Commissioner Mike Christensen stated, Based on the findings listed in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission approve the Planned Development request for the Glendale Town homes project located at 1179 South Navajo Street for petition PLNPCM2021-00378, subject to complying with the following condition listed in the staff report: 1.The final approval for site and building lighting for the development be delegated to staff to review in accordance with adopted standards and ordinances. Commissioner Brenda Scheer seconded the motion. Commissioners Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Andres Paredes, Mike Christensen, Brenda Scheer, Adrienne Bell, and Aimee Burrows all voted “yes”. The motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 6 MOTION A break was taken. The meeting reconvened at 7:45 PM. Pacific Yard Design Review & Planned Development - KTGY Architects, representing Urban Alfandre, are requesting a Planned Development and Design Review approval for a mixed-use multifamily building at approximately 443 W 700 South, 720 S 400 West, and 704 S 400 West. The proposed 7-story building is 88-feet in height and includes 292 units and 202 parking stalls. It has 12,000 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor. The applicant is requesting relief from all required setbacks and landscaping through the Planned Development process and requesting an additional 28 feet of building height through Design Review. The project site is in the General Commercial (CG) zoning district. In the CG zone, new buildings taller than sixty feet (60') but less than ninety feet (90') may be authorized through Design Review. The proposed project incorporates a public mid-block pedestrian walkway along the western property line a. Planned Development – Planned Development request to waive setback and landscaping requirements in the CG zone. Case number PLNPCM2021-00822 b. Design Review – Design Review request for 28 feet of additional height. Case number PLNPCM2021-00835 The property is located within Council District 4, represented by Ana Valdemoros. (Staff Contact: Laura Bandara at 801-535-6188 or laura.bandara@slcgov.com) Urban Designer Laura Bandara reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that Staff recommends approval with the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Bell asked about the midblock walkway and where the second half of it is proposed. Staff clarified where it would be located to the south and the developer of that property would be responsible for its creation. Commissioner Scheer asked what concessions were being provided for no open space. Staff clarified that it would be the midblock walkway and street engagement, in compliance with the Downtown Plan. The applicant James Alfandre reviewed the work that Urban Alfandre have done to integrate into their neighborhood. He stated that they wish to increase housing stock in the Granary District and provide a walkway and missing or mid-rise housing and small local service retail to help make the granary a complete neighborhood. He reviewed the proposed project and why they are requesting the reduced setbacks and shared examples from the area that are similar to their request. Commissioner Bell asked if the applicant was comfortable with the conditions in the staff report. The applicant stated that they were committed to those conditions. Commissioner Scheer asked if the applicant they had presented their project to the community councils. The applicant stated that they presented to the local community councils back on January 10th and were only asked what the City regulations were on façade length. Commissioner Scheer asked if the applicant went before the community councils in advance to get their input on the design of the project. The applicant stated that they went to the community council meeting as previously mentioned. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 7 Commissioner Ghent asked for clarification on what was being asked for by the applicant versus what is being asked for by the community councils since there is so much dialog in the emails that came in after the staff report was completed and she got lost in the back and forth. She shared her concern about the back and forth and lack of support from the Community Councils. The applicant said that they were also confused because the Councils did not bring up their concerns during the joint Community Council meeting. Commissioner Burrows asked if the trees that they are adding are already required. The applicant confirmed that the trees are required. He stated that they are asking for ground floor commercial space in lieu of the 10-foot landscaping buffer which is not required by zoning. He said that they want to create better street engagement and pedestrian experience. Commissioner Ghent asked for clarification on whether the applicant is asking for less vegetation than what code requires. The applicant said that is correct. Commissioner Ghent asked if the vegetation could be made up by adding it to the roof or another location. The applicant stated that is something that they would be wiling to look into. Planning Manager John Anderson clarified to the Commission that while it wouldn’t meet the minimum standard of landscaping the Commission could decide if that was a good trade, they could make that decision through this process. Commissioner Jon Lee stated that he felt it was a good compromise and didn’t feel more greenery should be added when we are in a water shortage. He explained his view of the setback creating better street engagement. Commissioner Christensen agreed with Jon Lee. PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Bachman opened the public hearing. • Amy Hawkins – Chair Ballpark Community Council – has serious concerns about the proposal. They want to see more green space. • Emailed comment was read into the record from Geoffrey S. Kaessner – In favor of the petition Seeing that no one else wished to speak, Commissioner Bachman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ghent says she agrees that the setbacks are not useful. She has concerns of creating a heat island. She wondered if a rooftop garden would create a significant cost to the developer and how much it would raise the rents. The applicant stated that he didn’t know off the top of his head what it would cost. Commissioner Burrows asked what the Commission thought of the tabling the item to give them a chance to talk to the Community Councils and planning to build something the Commission would approve. Commissioner Scheer stated her concern regarding what the community is getting in exchange for less green space. Planning Manager John Anderson interjected that he wanted the Commissioners to be cautious using the terms “What are we getting?”, stating that they need to look at the project and say whether or not it meets the standards. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 8 Planning Manager Kelsey Lindquist reminded the Commission that other design review applications have come before the Planning Commission and have met design review standards without including a commercial component on the ground floor. Commissioner Burrows felt like the design was not finished. Commissioner Lee says this is an opportunity to decide as to whether this is a better use of the space. He feels there are amenities be added that would be a good addition to the neighborhood. Commissioner Burrows stated that she is concerned because three Community Councils had the concern of losing that green space, not just one person. Commission Scheer stated that she agrees with Jon Lee in regard to the 10-foot setback but does not want all of the open space requirements to be eliminated. She also stated that she is hoping for a better division of the frontage. She would like to see a little garden in the middle or a park in the back of the walkway. Commissioner Ghent said that plants adapted to the environment could be planted. She doesn’t feel she has enough experience to gauge whether the setbacks and added vegetation would improve air quality. Urban Designer Laura Bandara let the Commission know that the 700 South Façade is north facing so it will be in the shade much of the year. She also clarified that the minimum landscaping required by code is 1650 square feet in the landscape yard area if they did it to code. Commissioner Burrows said that they are not satisfied with the current design review the way it is proposed. She would like to make a motion to table. MOTION Commissioner Aimee Burrows motioned to table the petition asking that the applicant explore solutions on the setbacks and landscaping and vegetation relief with input from the public. Planning Manager Kelsey Lindquist asked for clarification on the motion and whether the Commission is expecting the applicant to return to the community councils. The commission clarified that was not an expectation of the applicant. Commissioner Mike Christensen seconded the motion. Commissioner Brenda Scheer, Aimee Burrows, Andra Ghent, Mike Christensen, and Andres Paredes voted “yes”. Commissioner Jon Lee and Adrienne Bell voted “no”. The motion to table passed with 2 “no” and 5 “yes” votes. Hoyt Place Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 858 W & 860 W Hoyt Place - Bert Holland, representing Hoyt Place Development LLC, is requesting a zoning map amendment for the properties located at the above-stated address. The proposal would rezone the properties from R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District. The two lots are approximately .39 acres or 16,988 square feet. Future development plans were not submitted with this application. The property is located within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at 801-535-7660 or amanda.roman@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2021-01073 Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 9 Principal Planner Amanda Roman reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that Staff recommends a positive recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Aimee Burrows asked if this rezone would prevent demolition of homes. Amanda Roman clarified that when it is brought to City Council, the applicant will enter into a development agreement with the city that will require them to maintain at least the same number of housing units. Amanda Roman also stated that she is not sure if that agreement will state that they cannot demolish and then rebuild the existing structures, but the applicant will be tied into their “replacement” housing choice as outlined in their housing mitigation plan. Aimee Burrows asked for clarification on if they will not necessarily be required to keep the two old existing houses. Amanda Roman stated that she doesn’t believe so. John Anderson stated that it is hard to require that outside of the historic districts. Bert Holland stated that he has already begun renovation and has families eager to move in. He also stated that he has already attracted a high number of diverse buyers seeking single-family workforce housing. PUBLIC HEARING Vice-Chair Maurine Bachman opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one wished to speak, Vice-Chair Maurine Bachman closed the public hearing. MOTION Commissioner Brenda Scheer stated, Based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to approve PLNPCM2021-01073. Commissioner Mike Christensen seconded the motion. Commissioners Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Andres Paredes, Mike Christensen, Brenda Scheer, Adrienne Bell, and Aimee Burrows all voted “yes”. The motion passed unanimously. Historic Carriage House Zoning Text Amendment – Stephen Pace, the applicant, is requesting a zoning text amendment to permit the restoration or reconstruction of a historic carriage house for the purposes of creating a dwelling unit. The dwelling unit, located within the reconstructed or restored historic carriage house, would not be required to meet density, lot coverage, setbacks of the applicable base zoning district, or the accessory structure footprint or height limitations. The proposed language requires eligible properties to be both a Salt Lake City Landmark and listed as a National Register Site of Historic Places and located in one of the following zoning districts: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi- Family Residential), RO (Residential Office), I (Institutional) or SR-1A (Special Development Pattern Residential). (Staff contact: Kelsey Lindquist at 385-226-7227 or kelsey.lindquist@slcgov.com) Case number PLNPCM2020-00106 Planning Manager Kelsey Lindquist reviewed the petition as outlined in the Staff Report. She stated that Staff recommends denial of the proposal because it does not meet the standards. She reviewed the text amendment background stating that the proposal originally went before the Historic Landmark Commission and received a negative recommendation. She shared some of the conflicts including the existing ADU ordinance which requires an owner occupancy requirement, but the applicant does not live on site. She listed other compliance issues as all principal structures require street frontage, lot minimums, and lot and bulk requirements. She stated that Staff has tried to work with the applicant on language solutions but was ultimately unsuccessful. Staff forwarded the amendment to the Historic Landmark Commission for review to receive direction for the applicant on the proposed language, but Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 10 the Commission forwarded a negative recommendation against the proposal. She stated that the HLC did not discuss potential solutions to improve the language. She said that the applicant, since going before the HLC in July of 2020, has yet to put the proposed language in an ordinance format, address Staff concerns about enforceability and administration, and requested to continue to the planning commission for recommendation to the City Council. She reviewed the criteria that included in the ordinance format as: purpose statement, definition of terms, applicability, process, and standards/criteria. She noted that the existing language does not include much of the criteria which is crucial for Staff and City Council. She reviewed the purpose of the text amendment and incentive to the text amendment. She reviewed the other eligible properties that the text amendment could affect. The applicant Stephen Pace shared a photo slide of the Beer estate. He stated, “Just above the left center of the photograph is the white topped buildings or carriage house and a 30-year-old older building referred to as the harness shop from 1867 you can see from the photograph that there I guess were no drones or aerial photographs being taken in salt lake but you can date it you know very securely. The city and county building is finished on the upper left-hand corner The catholic cathedral is under construction in the upper middle of the picture and so on so. If we could go one more okay this is working this is the block that's under this is the block that's under consideration we heard our stuff earlier in the evening that about the problems with people misunderstanding alleyways in the avenues this block is an excellent example if you look down on the lower right hand corner at property 225 of third avenue you can see that there's about six feet of that house that is on the neighbor's property and then if you look at 223 fourth avenue there's about a similar six feet of that house but or that apartment building that is on 225's property and the same thing with 217 and so on now these are not maps are not absolutely accurate but I had the properties surveyed and I know they're darn close if you go up to 222 which is the carriage house address you can see that there's a white roof building almost dead center in the photograph that I guess I own about six feet of that neighbor's garage and the whopper is if you go up to the northwest corner 4th avenue and a street you can see a under some trees there is a fake looking anyway carriage house built in 1990 with the Salt Lake City building permit where Salt Lake City gave the builder permission to just take the city land so about two-thirds of the garage there on the corner of that lot does not belong to the belongs to Salt Lake City and it was given away. I raised that issue with the city saying well if you're willing to part with that ground I’d like to get a few hundred feet can I do that oh no and the city the chief of staff then decided that they were going to start sending out bills to the people that owned that carriage house for a couple thousand dollars that take carriage house a couple of thousand dollars a year and I said you don't want to do that that's a hornet's nest and they sent out the first set of bills and then they chickened out they did not have the they just canceled the bills and decided that well we'll go we'll just give away the property because of our mistake so on the next page then this is the beer mansion the photograph that you were shown earlier by Miss Lindquist is about a 500 foot footprint of image of the carriage house or I'm sorry of the harness shop house which has nothing to do with the you know pretty imposing structure you can see there the cladding designed to serve the or cladding designed together with the carriage house to serve the William Beer family next slide these two buildings then the one in front outlined in red is the harness shop house about just about exactly 500 square feet of footprint and behind it outlined in blue is the carriage house as it was built in and this is the 1905 photo next one please so to give you a feeling for what that looks like if you take t he 222 fourth avenue this is just about dead center in the photograph or in the map the Sanborn Fire Map you can see a square darkish building yeah that has if well an analogy would be that if you were looking if you were taking god's view of the Washington monument looking down on the Washington monument you would see almost exactly that same profile a pyramid top that the only way you can get a building shaped like that fire like the fire map shows is for a ride a pyramid but instead of sitting on a 500 foot limestone base I believe it is for the Washington monument it's only on a 10-foot brick base so then we scanned that into the go ahead from the tower on 8th street and 6th avenue and so here is what the carriage house behind once again behind the harness shop house looks like in you know to within probably an inch maybe an inch and a half of resolution there's enough photographic evidence of remaining materials on site that we basically know Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 11 that what the building looked like was a 10 foot brick or a 10 foot high 35 foot wide brick cube with a pyramid on top of it and it's a right angle pyramid with all the faces looking to look the same now for some context most of what we talked about with the historic landmarks commission I had assumed an error that they were people a little closer to their high school geometry than they evidently were and that they would understand what we were proposing it's the Washington monument with a pyramid and a drip edge on it and that's what we're proposing to build or to rebuild and it's a design that is I believe about 4 500 years old it ain't new Greeks had it the Egyptians have it it's been around for a long time we got a lot of pushback from the landmarks commission with people saying that your design is speculative it's conjectural you don't know what the building looked like that was probably the biggest single thing we talked about in the landmarks commission hearing it turns out though that with the stuff that miss Lindquist has published last week the mention of concept of improper design conjectural design and so on that's all banished that's all gone someplace else so the city doesn't so what the main thing the city believed or that the landmark commission believed just was not true and it's disappeared from the record.” Vice-Chair Bachman interject to let the applicant know that he had one minute of presentation time remaining. The applicant stated “Okay well let's see is there um we're looking here if I just let me summarize it let's go to the last page okay let's look at this one I looked at four almost 400 dwelling units that have gone through landmark sites since January 2019 actually they went back a year past that so that's four years worth of data that produced 111 applications for dwelling unit review the pages of text that generated was just under eight thousand now the champion in terms of pages that were submitted to the landmarks commission is the beer carriage house which has 179 pages of stuff to go through the winner and still champion based on the planning commission submission is that it's now grown to 187.” Vice-Chair Bachman asked Mr. Pace to wrap up his presentation. Mr. Pace stated, “well yeah what I'd like to do would be to come back and talk since I’ve got 187 pages that I've got a report on here and we only talked about three pages three of those pages at the landmarks mission hearing I would like to be rescheduled to give to do justice to this and talk about what we've proposed what we haven't proposed and what the city has the planning staff has substituted for it's ill-considered and withdrawn older proposals.” Vice-Chair Bachman asked Mr. Pace if he would like to withdraw his application. Mr. Pace said no. Vice-Chair Bachman asked if the Commissioners had any questions for Mr. Pace. Commissioner Scheer asked if Mr. Pace understood that the text amendment that he was proposing would only affect him and a few other properties. The applicant stated yes it would affect 4 other properties. Commissioner Scheer stated that the text amendment which he has submitted has some deficiencies. She stated that the slides of the property that Mr. Pace shared had nothing to do with the text amendment he was requesting. PUBLIC HEARING Vice-Chair Bachman opened the public hearing. Seeing that no one wished to speak, Vice-Chair Bachman closed the public hearing. Salt Lake City Planning Commission February 23, 2022 Page 12 Commissioner Burrows asked if City Council voted on the text amendment after it was forwarded with a negative recommendation from the Historic Landmark Commission. Planning Manager Kelsey Lindquist said that it had not been voted on, HLC being the first step in the process and Planning Commission being the second step. MOTION Commissioner Andra Ghent stated, Based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council for the requested zoning text amendment for carriage house reconstruction. Commissioner Aimee Burrows seconded the motion. Commissioners Brenda Scheer, Aimee Burrows, Andra Ghent, Jon Lee, Adrienne Bell, Mike Christensen, Andres Paredes voted “yes”. The motion passed with a negative recommendation forwarded to the City Council. The meeting adjourned at 9:31 PM. 3. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD d) Planning Commission Staff Report of February 23, 2022 PLANNING DIVISION COMMUNITY & NEIGHORHOOD DEVELOPMENT Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Katia Pace, (801) 535-6354, katia.pace@slcgov.com Date: February 24, 2022 Re: PLNPCM2020-00903 – Green Alley Vacation - between 1300 South and Harrison Ave and Green Street and 700 East Alley Vacation ADDRESSES & PARCEL NUMBER OF PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THE ALLEY: 1.Gospel Grace Church: 662, 664, 666 E 1300 South & 1319, 1325 S Green Street (16-08-357-001, 16-08-357-002, 16-08-357-003, 16-08-357-004 16-08-357-005) 2.1331 S Green Street (16-08-357-006) 3.1337 S Green Street (16-08-357-007) 4.1343 S Green Street (16-08-357-008) 5.1347 S Green Street (16-08-357-009) 6.1351 S Green Street (16-08-357-011) 7.669 E Harrison Avenue (16-17-101-003) 8.UDOT (no parcel number) MASTER PLAN: Central City Master Plan ZONING DISTRICT: R-1/5000 Single Family Residential. APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Utah State Code, Section 10-9a-204 and 10-9a-609.5, Chapters 2.58 and 14.52 of Salt Lake City Municipal Code REQUEST: Nicholas Lumby, property owner residing at 1343 S Green Street, is requesting Salt Lake City to vacate a “T” shaped alley adjacent to her property and running between 1300 South and Harrison Avenue and Green Street and 700 East. The property abutting this alley is zoned R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential District). The alley exists in paper only and the abutting property owners have absorbed the alley into their properties. UDOT is an abutting property owner of the alley, it owns land in this block that was acquired when 700 East was expanded in the 1960s. An alley vacation means that Salt Lake City vacates its interest in the alley as City property. It deeds the property back to the abutting property owners if the abutting property is zoned for low density residential use. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings and analysis in this staff report, Planning Staff finds that the proposal meets the criteria for alley vacations, and therefore recommends that the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the mayor to declare the alley surplus property and for the City Council to vacate the alley with the following condition: 1.That the alley is deeded the entire 10-foot width to the west abutting property owners. 1 Proposed alley vacation – red line Abutting property owners: 1.Gospel Grace Church (yellow dotted line): 662, 664, 666 E 1300 South & 1319, 1325 S Green Street 2.1331 S Green Street 3.1337 S Green Street 4.1343 S Green Street (Petitioner) 5.1347 S Green Street 6.1351 S Green Street 7.669 E Harrison Avenue 8.UDOT acquired land for expansion of 700 East 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 8 2 ATTACHMENTS: A. Site Photographs B. Applicant Information C. UDOT Information D. Analysis of Standards E. Public Process and Comments F. Department Comments PROJECT DESCRIPTION & BACKGROUND: This alley was plated as part of the Marion Park Subdivision in 1890. In the early 1960s, 700 East was expanded and the homes on the east of this block were demolished to give way for the road expansion. The alley was absorbed into the abutting properties to the west, but it was never vacated. The issued was discovered recently when the applicant requested a building permit for a garage on land that is part of the alley. Marion Park Subdivision showing alley and UDOT property 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 8 Alley UDOT property 3 The property belonging to UDOT is being proposed to become the Harrison Garden, a community garden sponsored by Wasatch Community Gardens. This group is working with SLC Engineering Department, and the plans are to have the garden started by Spring of this year. View of the alley right of way looking from South end Aerial view of the alley 4 KEY ISSUES: The following key issues were identified: Issue 1: Alley Vacation Request The applicant originally requested that only the portion of the alley abutting the properties between 1331 S Green Street and 669 E Harrison Avenue be vacated. However, the portion of the alley abutting the Gospel Grace Church presented a similar situation, where the alley has been absorbed into the property. The Gospel Grace Church has agreed to be included along with the proposed alley vacation. Since the homes in the east half of the block were demolished, the alley stopped having a purpose or use. The properties on the west side of the block have absorbed the alley into their properties. Visually there is no alley. The alley property is not useful as a public right-of-way. The request satisfies policy consideration, “Lack of Use”, as required by Section 14.52.02 of the Salt Lake City Code. Issue 2: Alley Ownership First there was a question on the ownership of the alley, whether the alley belonged to Salt Lake City or UDOT. After staff received a drawing from UDOT (see Attachment C), it was confirmed that the alley was never part of the right-of-way acquired by UDOT and therefore the alley still belongs to Salt Lake City. Also, the applicant provided a survey of their property that shows the rear of their property as being a 10-foot alley (see Attachment B). Survey of 1343 S Green Street showing the alley in blue 5 Issue 3: Alley Disposition According to Section 14.54.040 of Salt Lake City Code, the City’s method of disposition for a vacated alley, that abuts property zoned for low density residential use, is to split the alley in half and deed each respective half back to the abutting property owners. The Gospel Grace Church property is within the R-1/5,000 (single-family residential), therefore the alley abutting the church and the residential properties would be deeded and not sold. Since UDOT abuts part of the alley, UDOT is eligible for their half of the alley. Staff got confirmation that UDOT is willing to give up the right to acquire its half portion of the alley except for the northeast horizontal portion of the “T” shape on the eastern portion of the alley which UDOT might be interested. It’s important that UDOT not request to acquire half of the alley because that would cause the property owners to move their fences and some accessory structures that have been in place for decades as the residential properties absorbed the entire 10 feet of alley right of way. DISCUSSION: The alley vacation has been reviewed against the standards for alley vacations located in Attachment D. In compliance with the applicable policies, the alley is not being used as a public alley and the vacation is supported by all the adjacent property owners. Further, City policies and the relevant Master Plan do not include any policies that would oppose the vacation of this alley. NEXT STEPS: Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code regulates the disposition of City owned alleys. Once the Planning Commission has reviewed the request, their recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The City Council has final decision authority with respect to alley vacations. Showing zoning on the block 6 ATTACHMENT A: SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Showing the rear yards and location of the alley behind the fences. North end. Showing the rear yards and location of the alley behind the fences. South end. 7 ATTACHMENT B: APPLICANT INFORMATION 8 9 10 11 12 Salt Lake City Planning Department 451 South State Street, Room 215 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Re: Request to Vacate Alley Dear Salt Lake City Council, and Salt Lake Planning Officials, We are writing to you to request the vacation of the alley segment that runs north-south at approximately 676 East from approximately 1316 South to Harrison Avenue {1370 South). The alley measurements are approximately, 305' x 10-15'. Please refer to the attached Sidwell map (page 16-08-31) on p.4 of this document, for locations. Reasons for this request include: • We are the owners of the parcel 16-08-357-008-0000 immediately to the west of the alley Lot numbers N 8 1/3 FT OF LOT 6 & ALL LOT 7 BLK 1 MARION PARK-the alley vacation will clean up the ownership of the strip of vacant land that has been assumed by the property owners. • The alley has been vacant for many years (50+). Maintenance has been taken care of the alley by the adjacent property owners. • Vacating the alley will not affect any of the properties along the line, nor will this be detrimental to the public as it is not accessed by traffic. • Vacating the alley could accommodate any future construction of structures by the abutting property owners including a 199 ft2 storage shed currently under construction by the petitioner. Assumptions • It is assumed that the alley running east-west at approximately 1316 South from 661 East to 676 East has previously been vacated as the Gospel Grace Church parking lot is located there. • It is assumed that the alley running north-south from 1300 South to 1316 South at approximately 676 East has been previously vacated as the Gospel Grace Church building is built across the potential alley location. Four other property owners abutting the alley include: • Rance Wilkins 1331 S Green Street Salt Lake City, UT, 84105 801.360.5203 Gerri West/ Kelly Favero 1337 S Green Street Salt Lake City, UT, 84105 801.467.4179/801.326.8750 13 • Sukeshinee Wilkins 1347 S Green Street Salt Lake City, UT, 84105 801.503.6373 *Signatures of the above are attached to the application. Adjacent Land Use The land uses surrounding the site include: • East: Vacant • West: Residential • North: Commercial (Church), Parking Lot • South: Residential, Road Petitioner Details Name: Nicholas Lumby + Sara Koenig Brett Markum/ Sheri Hohmann 1351 S Green Street Salt Lake City, UT, 84105 801.712.4585 Street Address: 1343 South Green Street, Salt Lake City, UT, 84105 Parcel Number: 16-08-357-008-0000 Lot Number: N 8 1/3 FT OF LOT 6 & ALL LOT 7 BLK 1 MARION PARK. Thank you for your consideration, Regards, \ 1u1J£~~0/zd I Y ( ~2fu/zo Nicholas LumbQ ate Links: Vicinity Map Sidwell Map -Alley Location Sidwell Map -Abutting Properties Photos Signatures -Abutting Propert i es Sara Koenig Date 14 15 Sidwell Ma~ -Alley Location I ~ ST 1300 S b7.30 50 50 82.11 57 .30 50 50 130_ I-> 25 -~ -~ i.. 25 . l-,3 2.30 32.30_ I-> 25 _,_. -,-.15 -3~ Q 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 29 30 31 32 33 34 co 41 2~14 1::: ,Q 821 01 co 357 bot !ii ,.._ ~ 482 t)02 N ~ 35i 002 48; '016 .... >--~ ,_ __ ------.._ 35i K:)03 I---.... N ~ j... 4,~20l 5 0 ~ "": ( 17 "' ~ 0 0 ,-...x:. 0 I Assumed vacated alley running I .-- 5 -~~=-~~ ~ &16 109.80 :e 15 I ,-.: :;: :e east -west co .,. A0'),.,44 g 0 -.------, ""' N ~~ '17 ---"' ' ...,,v,vv -4 11i_80 114 .80 14 18 "" 1 13357005 ,1-----I -·--0 0 1 ' ,, ___ 1 19 ·---,, "' "' I LJ. 1 2 12 1 20 ~ 11 357006 ,11-----1 I.---..... 0 0 • I ·v._v,.,_ f __..-___ ,..,,, "' "' T 10 ~ I Assumed current alley runn i ng 0 21 north -south 9 22 ::E 9 0 I i-J ' ,. _____ 1 ... _ _.,,..__J ,I 0 ~ g ,, _____ ·v ... vv~ 1 23 -v,_.,;,-r "' I ~ 8 - "' I 17 24 "' 7 er: 357JJ..08 • I Pe t it ioner Locatlon I -.-... _ : ·-·-0 c,i ◄ ·v.,.VIV '25 , ___ ,v "' "' ..J -s------~ :e "' ' "' ' ~ ---I (),. 1 .. --,.; I " ··--·-.. "' -----1 -----.-"' ~1 - ~ £.W£.IJV I 127 ·-"' 1"'-' 357011 .., 0 ,-: :e 4 ::i .... •I\ "' I ,-..: I <t-A.' 0 Qi ~--r--1 I' 0 o:e co 3 003 I , og,_4 I.( 28 N I I , 1 -I _ oJ.. , , LI. L ' ' ., .,..,_ . 16 I"' 'I 1 .. Sidwell Ma~ -Abutting Pro~erties L 1·½2 ST 1300S 57.30 50 50 82.11 57 .3 0 50 50 30_ ~25 _ ..... -'-,... 25 _ W2.3o 32.30_._,, 25 i----25 -37<:) -~ c -I 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 29 30 31 32 33 34 "' 41 2~14 r::: ,:::) 121 01 "' ~01 g r--~ 357 482 002 N ~ 35, 002 48~ 016 .... ~~ ---,_____, ,q 35i K)03 I---,_. ~ c I-'" 4,~20( 5 g i:,i.:i ~ 17 0 0 ,--r----0 .,.. 15 -~~:-~~ Q-0 116 109.80 :(l :(l 15 ,..: co N A-"'"""-' 0 0 ' ,..,----,. /'),, N ·-1 17 ---U') U') t 14-----14 11uio 114 .80 ' ..... I~ 18 13357005 .. ----.-I . --0 0 1 ' ----'19 -Y-'-""" I' U') U') I I.I.. 1 12 12 Property Owner: ~WIikins I 1 20 < 11 357006 1331 S Green Street, ,.-----j ,. ___ - 0 0 1 -Salt Lake City, UT, 84105 , ................ 1 21 "'TVA,._/.., U') >= U') • ~-0 10 :E Property Owner: Gerri West/ Kelly f.~ 9 22 9 0 1337 S Green Street, ,._ ----' . ---. ,,,. 0 ~ g ' .,,:,._7 Sa lt Lake Ci ty, UT, 84105 ·-----I 23 ·---"T U') I --·--8 8 --Property Owner: Petitioner I M 1343 S Green Street, 7 24 M 7o: 357~8 Salt Lake City, UT, 84105 ,,, __ -, .... I ,. ___ I- 0 ..; I , .... ,v,v 1 25 -ru'-Vllt.l U') M l-'-11----~--6 :(l ~ Property Owner: Sukeshinee Wilkins ' i q-... ---1347 S Green Street, ~ "' --..; I r --"'191"-Sa lt Lake City, UT, 84105 M -. I -~-~, .... I ----'"'' f , ____ ~ ,--. 357~ "' Property Owner: Sheri Hohmann & Brett Mark m 4 27 i;; :(l 4 i:i 1351 5 Green Street, 0 .... -~ 1 Salt Lake City, UT, 84105 ~ I ' Qi >----'--=--, \) I)., 3 003 I I O<J..4 lie 28 A l 0 ' 3 I I N !' N ' I 1 ,/.. 1 n .... ,, I ----~ 17 Photos Assumed Alley Location: North-South {676 East/ 1316 S -Harrison) Assumed Vacated Alley: East-West {661-676 East/ 1316 S) 18 ATTACHMENT C: UDOT INFORMATION 19 From:Erick Shosted To:Pace, Katia Cc:Charles Hill; Diana Leka; Michael Timothy Subject:(EXTERNAL) Re: Ownership Confirmation - 700 East (between 1300 S & Harrison Ave) Date:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 11:18:33 AM Attachments:US-0140(2)_03_Plan.TIF Katia, The attached ROW map shows UDOT ownership in the area you are inquiring about. The following link is the website that explains UDOT's process for disposing of real property. https://www.udot.utah.gov/connect/business/surplus-property/ Thanks, On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:47 AM Diana Leka <dleka@utah.gov> wrote: Katia - meet Erick and Chip from the Region 2 office of UDOT. They should be able to help you through this process and request. On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 10:45 AM Pace, Katia <Katia.Pace@slcgov.com> wrote: Diana, Salt Lake City Planning Division is responding to a request to vacate an alley that runs north-south between 1300 South and Harrison Avenue (1370 South) and between Green Street and 700 East. This alley appears to be owned by UDOT. SLC Planning needs confirmation from UDOT that the alley is own by UDOT, or not. This confirmation is needed because SLC would not have the authority to vacate the alley if the property belongs to UDOT. The request comes from the owners of the parcel 16-08-357-008-0000, or 1343 S. Green Street, a property immediately to the west of the alley. The reason for the request is that the alley was assumed to be vacated and the property owners abutting the alley have incorporated the alley into their properties. I’m not sure who to contact at UDOT to give me this information. If you are not the person I need to contact, please let me know who that person would be. Also, it would really be helpful to know what is the process to request UDOT for the alley/property vacation and possible purchase. I’ve attached some additional information, please let me know if you have any questions. 20 21 From:Charles Hill To:Pace, Katia Cc:Erick Shosted; Diana Leka; Michael Timothy Subject:Re: FW: (EXTERNAL) Re: Ownership Confirmation - 700 East (between 1300 S & Harrison Ave) Date:Wednesday, November 3, 2021 8:21:06 PM Yes, we would take that from the existing fence line to the east towards SR-71. Thanks! Chip Charles (Chip) Mason Hill UDOT - Region Two Pre-Construction Engineer Cell: 801-910-2091 Email: cmason-hill@utah.gov On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 6:09 PM Pace, Katia <Katia.Pace@slcgov.com> wrote: Chip, I’m sending you a map of the location of the alley and I have a question for you: is UDOT’s interest on the horizontal portion of the yellow ‘T’ on the map? I’m pretty sure that the Planning Commission and City Council will ask me that and I want to be able to give them an answer. Thank you so much for your help. KATIA PACE Principal Planner Planning Division DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION CELL 385-226-8499 Email katia.pace@slcgov.com 22 WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights. From: Charles Hill <cmason-hill@utah.gov> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2021 2:16 PM To: Pace, Katia <Katia.Pace@slcgov.com> Cc: Erick Shosted <eshosted@utah.gov>; Diana Leka <dleka@utah.gov>; Michael Timothy <mtimothy@utah.gov> Subject: Re: FW: (EXTERNAL) Re: Ownership Confirmation - 700 East (between 1300 S & Harrison Ave) Katia, Apologies for the delay in this response. The only area that UDOT would be interested in would be the eastern portion of the T section at the north end. There is currently a study underway to provide an improved active transportation facility along 700 East and this was the only area that was concerning. Thanks and let me know what you need from my group moving forward. Chip Charles (Chip) Mason Hill UDOT - Region Two Pre-Construction Engineer Cell: 801-910-2091 Email: cmason-hill@utah.gov On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 9:41 AM Pace, Katia <Katia.Pace@slcgov.com> wrote: Charles, 23 ATTACHMENT D: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS SPECIFIC ZONING DISTRICT PURPOSE STATEMENTS 21A.24.070 R-1/5000 Single Family Residential District The purpose of the R-1/5,000 single-family residential district is to provide for conventional single-family residential neighborhoods on lots not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the city as identified in the applicable community master plan. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. RELATED MASTER PLAN ITEMS Central Community Master Plan, adopted 2005 The plan does not address alley vacations. On the Liberty neighborhood planning area section of the plan under the Streets and Circulation it says: • Improve the linear parkway along the west side of 700 East. Plan Salt Lake, adopted 2015 GUIDING PRINCIPLE/A beautiful city that is people focused. • Promote increased connectivity through mid-block connections. Salt Lake City Code, Section 14.52: Disposition of City Owned Alleys Chapter 14.52 of the Salt Lake City Code regulates the disposition of City owned alleys. When evaluating requests to vacate public alleys, the City considers whether or not the continued use of the property as a public alley is in the City’s best interest. Once the Planning Commission has reviewed the request, their recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for consideration. The City Council has final decision authority with respect to alley vacations. Section 14.52.020: The city will not consider disposing of its interest in an alley, in whole or in part, unless it receives a petition in writing which demonstrates that the disposition satisfies at least one of the following policy considerations: Factor Finding Rationale A. Lack of Use: The city's legal interest in the property appears of record or is reflected on an applicable plat; however, it is evident from an onsite inspection that the alley does not physically exist or has been materially blocked in a way that renders it unusable as a public right of way; B. Public Safety: The existence of the alley is substantially contributing to crime, unlawful activity, unsafe conditions, public health Complies - The alley property is not useful as a public right-of- way. The request satisfies one of the policy considerations as required by Section 14.52.02 of the Salt Lake City Code. Since the homes in the east half of the block were demolished, the alley stopped having a purpose or use. The properties on the west side of the block have absorbed the alley into their properties. Visually there is no alley. The proposed vacation satisfies consideration A- Lack of Use. The alley vacation would not interfere with access to the other abutting properties. The vacated alley would be compatible with surrounding development. 24 problems, or blight in the surrounding area; C. Urban Design: The continuation of the alley does not serve as a positive urban design element; or D. Community Purpose: The petitioners are proposing to restrict the general public from use of the alley in favor of a community use, such as a neighborhood play area or garden. Section 14.52.030B: Upon receipt of a complete petition, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the Planning Commission to consider the proposed disposition of the City owned alley property. Following the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a report and recommendation to the City Council on the proposed disposition of the subject alley property. A positive recommendation should include an analysis of the following factors: Factor Finding Rationale 1. The city police department, fire department, transportation division, and all other relevant city departments and divisions have no reasonable objection to the proposed disposition of the property; Complies Staff requested input from appropriate City Departments and Divisions. Engineering opposes the proposed alley vacation for the following reasons: • Per State code, vacating the alley will give ownership of west ½ of the alley to the property owners and the east ½ half to UDOT (on the segment #8 running parallel to 700 East). • The adjacent property owner’s illegal encroachment into the alley should not be the basis for the vacation. • There should be a community benefit due to the vacation. Staff addressed one of the concerns by requesting UDOT to concede its interest on their half of the alley (except on the northeast portion of the horizontal portion of the “T” shaped alley). Furthermore, the encroachment is not the reason for the alley vacation, it’s the “Lack of Use” that is explained above and it satisfies the consideration for the alley vacation. 2. The petition meets at least one of the policy considerations stated above; Complies The proposed alley vacation satisfies the “Lack of Use” policy consideration of 14.52.020. See the discussion and findings on the previous page. 3. Granting the petition will not deny sole access or required off street parking to any property adjacent to the alley; Complies The alley is not being used as an alley and has been absorbed by the abutting property owners. The property at 1351 S Green St does not have a garage, however, there is room for a parking pad on the side of the home, but there is no driveway from the street that can be used to access this potential parking space. 25 The alley vacation will not deny access or required off street parking to any of the abutting property owners. 4. Granting the petition will not result in any property being landlocked; Complies All properties have street access and will not be landlocked if the alley is vacated. 5. Granting the petition will not result in a use of the alley property which is otherwise contrary to the policies of the city, including applicable master plans and other adopted statements of policy which address, but which are not limited to, mid-block walkways, pedestrian paths, trails, and alternative transportation uses; Complies Plan Salt Lake promotes increased connectivity through mid-block connections. However, this alley is not needed for a midblock connection. The Central City Community Master Plan calls for the linear parkway along the west side of 700 East to be improved. The proposed community garden on the property abutting the alley is an improvement to the parkway. The alley vacation will not have an impact on the proposal. 6. No opposing abutting property owner intends to build a garage requiring access from the property, or has made application for a building permit, or if such a permit has been issued, construction has been completed within twelve (12) months of issuance of the building permit; Complies There are no opposing abutting property owners. 7. The petition furthers the city preference for disposing of an entire alley, rather than a small segment of it; and Complies The proposed alley would be disposed in its entirety. 8. The alley property is not necessary for actual or potential rear access to residences or for accessory uses. Complies The alley is not being used as an alley and has been absorbed by the abutting property owners. The property at 1351 S Green St does not have a garage, however, there is room for a parking pad on the side of the home, but there is no driveway from the street that can be used to access this potential parking space. Section 14.52.040: If the alley property abuts properties which are zoned for low density residential use, the alley will merely be vacated. For the purposes of this section, "Low Density Residential Use" shall mean properties which are zoned for single-family, duplex, or twin home residential uses. The Planning Commission must also make a recommendation to the mayor regarding the disposition of the property. If the Commission recommends that the alley property be declared surplus, the property should be disposed of according to Section 2.58 City-Owned Real Property of the Salt Lake City Code. Finding: The abutting properties are zoned R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential), therefore the alley would simply be vacated split in half and deeded to the abutting property owners. 26 ATTACHMENT E: PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENTS Public Notice, Meetings, Comments The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed project: • Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chair of the Liberty Wells Community Council and East Liberty Park Community Organization on April 8, 2021, to solicit comments. • No public comments have been submitted by the Liberty Wells Community Council or the East Liberty Park Community Organization. • Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners located within 300 feet of the project site on June 15, 2021, providing notice about the project and information on how to give public input on the project. No public comments were submitted. • The 45-day recognized organization comment period expired on May 23, 2021. Public Hearing Notice: • Public hearing notice mailed: February 10, 2022 • Public hearing notice signs posted on property: February 13, 2022 • Public notice posted on City & State websites & Planning Division list serve: February 10, 2022 27 ATTACHMENT F: DEPARTMENT COMMENTS CITY DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Public Utilities (Jason Draper): No public utility objections to the proposed vacation. Engineering (Scott Weiler): Engineering opposes the proposed alley vacation for the following reasons: • Per State code, vacating the alley will give ownership of west ½ of the alley to the property owners and the east ½ half to UDOT (on the segment #8 running parallel to 700 East). • The adjacent property owner’s illegal encroachment into the alley should not be the basis for the vacation. • There should be a community benefit due to the vacation. Planning’s response: Staff addressed one of the concerns by requesting UDOT to concede its interest on their half of the alley (except on the northeast portion of the horizontal portion of the “T” shaped alley). Furthermore, the encroachment is not the reason for the alley vacation, it’s the Lack of Use. Transportation (Michael Barry): There are no comments from Transportation. This alley appears to no longer function as an alley. Zoning (Alan Michelsen): No zoning comments regarding the proposed alley vacation. Fire (Ed Itchon): No comments Real Estate Services (Shellie Finan): The properties and the church sit on are zoned residential. UDOT The attached ROW map shows UDOT ownership in the area you are inquiring about. The following link is the website that explains UDOT's process for disposing of real property. https://www.udot.utah.gov/connect/business/surplus-property/ 28 4. ORIGINAL PETITION 5. MAILING LIST Name Address City State Zip ABBY SHERLOCK; ADAM SH 647 E HARRISON AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84105 ANN KRISTINE PENMAN LIV 623 E HARRISON AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84105 AUSTIN HARDY; JC HARDY 1326 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 BECKIE STEPHENSEN; MARC 1337 S TYLER ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 BRADLEY L BEACHAM; VALE 1343 S TYLER ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 BRENT J CHIDESTER; CHRIST 1331 S TYLER ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 BRYCE SCHULZKE TRUST 01 652 E HARRISON AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84105 CARLOS RIVERA 1378 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 CARRIE D MEHR PO BOX 233 MENDON UT 84325 CHARLENE WEIR 1344 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 CITY OF SALT LAKE PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CUT 84114 COURTNEY C GREEN 1350 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 Current Occupant 646 E 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84105 Current Occupant 1325 S TYLER ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84105 Current Occupant 664 E 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84105 Current Occupant 666 E 1300 S Salt Lake Ci UT 84105 Current Occupant 1319 S GREEN ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84105 Current Occupant 1325 S GREEN ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84105 Current Occupant 669 E HARRISON AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84105 Current Occupant 1351 S 700 E Salt Lake Ci UT 84105 Current Occupant 713 E HARRISON AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84105 Current Occupant 1349 S TYLER ST Salt Lake Ci UT 84105 Current Occupant 636 E HARRISON AVE Salt Lake Ci UT 84105 DANIELLE BAUM; PARKER B 1383 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 ERIC R MEAGAN; NICOLE LE 579 E SHERMAN AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84115 GOSPEL GRACE CHURCH 662 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CUT 84105 HARRISON TOWNHOMES H 717 E HARRISON AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84105 JALEE M JALALPOUR 1330 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 JASONE ROSE 636 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CUT 84105 JONATHAN L ALBRIGHT; SA 1381 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 KAREN EVANS LIVING TRUS 1318 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 KELLY FAVERO 1337 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 LISA MCAFEE 1338 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 MARY C MALONEY 1319 S TYLER ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 NICHOLAS A LUMBY; SARA 1343 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 NICHOLAS AMES 641 E HARRISON AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84105 PETER CAPUTO; HELOISA A 632 E 1300 S SALT LAKE CUT 84105 RANCE WILKINS; SUKESHIN 1331 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 SCOTT BUCCAMBUSO; MAR 1871 S WYOMING ST SALT LAKE CUT 84108 SETH J BOCKHOLT 1373 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 SHAWNA LEE VENABLE 661 E HARRISON AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84105 SHERI L HOHMANN; BRETT 1351 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 SUGARHOOD MANAGEMEN 1382 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 SUKESHINEE WILKINS 1347 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 TODD G CURTIS 631 E HARRISON AVE SALT LAKE CUT 84105 Owner or Resident 1314 S GREEN ST SALT LAKE CUT 84105 Owner or Resident 2870 E 3300 S MILLCREEK UT 84109 Item B2 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:September 20, 2022 RE: 16 South 800 West Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments PLNPCM2020-001242/-01202 MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:September 20, 2022 RE: 16 South 800 West Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments PLNPCM2020-001242/-01202 BRIEFING UPDATE At the September 13, 2022 briefing, Council Members were generally supportive of the proposed zoning map and master plan amendments. A desire for active uses facing the trail and street was expressed. This could include commercial space in the building that would serve the surrounding neighborhood as well as building residents. It was noted the proposed building’s proximity to the Folsom Trail and railroad tracks would reduce potential on-street parking. A desire to provide sufficient off-street parking was expressed. Planning staff stated the proposed building includes retail and parking. They also said a development agreement could include requiring the off-street parking requirements of TSA-UN-T. This would provide the desired additional density along with off-street parking. The following information was provided for the September 13, 2022 Council briefing. It is provided again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for the parcel at 16 South 800 West adjacent to the Folsom Trail in City Council District Two from TSA-UN-T (Transit Station Area Urban Neighborhood Transition) to TSA-UN-C (Transit Station Area Urban Neighborhood Core). Additionally, the proposal would amend the North Temple Boulevard Plan to list the subject property as “Core” rather than its current “Transition” designation. Under current TSA-UN-T zoning a building up to a maximum of 50’ high can be constructed. The proposed TSA-UN-C zoning would allow buildings up to 75’. Item Schedule: Briefing: September 13, 2022 Set Date: September 6, 2022 Public Hearing: September 20, 2022 Potential Action: October 4, 2022 Page | 2 The petitioner’s stated objective is to construct a mixed-use building on the vacant .88-acre parcel with five stories of residential units above a two-story podium of commercial space and parking. The proposed building is anticipated to have approximately 186 residential units. They believe additional density possible with the increased height is needed to include two-and three-bedroom units and to support ground floor retail establishments. It should be noted the TSA-UN-C zoning district does not require any on-premises parking. A development agreement or restrictive use agreement would be needed if the Council wishes to ensure larger residential units and off-street parking for the proposed building. Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council. The this is based on Planning’s evaluation that the additional height requested is not compatible with current and future buildings in the TSA-UN-T area. Planning found the proposed amendments do not meet the 2010 North Temple Boulevard Plan’s intent. This plan defined the railroad tracks as a boundary for the current TSA-UN-T zone, with the more intense TSA-UN-C zoning north of the tracks as shown in the area zoning map below. Additional information is found in the Key Considerations section below. Members of the Poplar Grove and Fairpark Community Councils provided comments to Planning related to the proposals. While there wasn’t significant opposition to the proposed building, a desire for more two- and three-bedroom units, commercial spaces, and sufficient on-premises parking to help reduce additional on-street parking congestion were expressed. The Planning Commission reviewed these proposed amendments at its April 13, 2022 meeting and held a public hearing. One person spoke at the hearing and was supportive of the amendments. Commissioners expressed general support for increased density in this neighborhood without displacing any residents, and for including two- and three-bedroom units in the building. They asked Planning staff for clarification of why they are recommending denial of the petitions. Planning staff again referenced the North Temple Boulevard Plan and its recommendation for this area to be a transition between TSA-UN-C and lower density neighborhoods. Commissioners noted the city is in a transition period and much has changed since the master plan was adopted 12 years ago. The petitioner spoke and stated approximately 25% of the units are anticipated to be two- and three-bedroom. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed amendments, despite Planning staff’s recommendation for denial. A condition was included recommending a development agreement “stipulating what conditions happen around the perimeter of the site concerning the trail, the adjacent roads, the railway, and that the unit configurations are at least twenty-five percent two- to three-bedroom units.” No specific details were included in the motion about what the Commission’s intent was regarding conditions around the perimeter of the site, so only the condition requiring a minimum percentage of two- to three-bedroom units is included for Council consideration. In its transmittal to the Council, Planning now recommends approval by the City Council. Page | 3 Area zoning map with subject parcel highlighted Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning and future land use map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask if any units in the proposed building will be affordable, and at what percentage of AMI. 2. The Council may wish to ask the developer if they are amenable to a development agreement specifying a percentage of housing units to be two- and three-bedroom and requiring a minimum number of on-site parking spaces. 3. The Council may wish to review comments from Public Utilities and discuss whether these should also be addressed in a potential development agreement. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and amend the future land use map. No formal site plan has been submitted to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s authority to review the plans. A development agreement could guide future development with this developer only. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified five key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 3-12 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1-TSA-UN-T and TSA-UN-C Zoning District Comparison Page | 4 Included in the Transit Station Area zoning district purpose statement is the following: The purpose of the TSA Transit Station Area District is to provide an environment for efficient and attractive transit and pedestrian oriented commercial, residential, and mixed-use development around transit stations. Redevelopment, infill development and increased development on underutilized parcels should include uses that allow them to function as part of a walkable, Mixed-Use District. Existing uses that are complementary to the district, and economically and physically viable, should be integrated into the form and function of a compact, mixed-use pedestrian-oriented neighborhood. Transit stations are categorized as either a Core Area or a Transition Area. Core areas are typically found closer to transit stations with intense transit-oriented development. Ground floor uses may include retail, office, commercial and residential. Transition areas have less dense development than Core areas and help buffer surrounding stable areas (those that are well established and likely to have minor development pressures of nearby transit stations) from the more intense Core area uses. The primary differences between Core and Transition areas are maximum height (75’ for Core, and 50’ for Transition), and parking requirements. Core areas do not require any off-street parking spaces, while Transition areas may have 50% of the spaces required in table 21A.44.030 found in Salt Lake City Code. Other differences between the zones are found in the table on pages 4-6 of the Planning Commission staff report. Consideration 2-Compatibility with Master Plan and Neighborhood Plan Policies Planning staff reviewed the requested master plan and zoning map amendments and how they relate to Plan Salt Lake (2015), North Temple Boulevard Plan (2010), Growing SLC (2017), Transit master Plan (2017), and Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan (2015). It was Planning’s opinion the existing zoning is appropriate. As noted above, Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the City Council, but the Commission forwarded a unanimous positive recommendation. Consideration 3-Zoning Compatibility with Adjacent Properties Planning staff found the additional 25’ height potential with the proposed TSA-UN-C zoning designation would not be compatible with surrounding TSA-UN-T zoned properties that are limited to 50’ height. Planning noted additional height would create potential for increased density. The petitioner stated additional density is needed to support ground level retail and parking. The petitioner also explained in their application additional 2- and 3-bedroom residential units would be an advantage for allowing more height. Both the Poplar Grove and Fairpark Community Councils expressed a desire for more of these larger units in the neighborhood. The petitioner stated he plans to provide sufficient parking for this project with a two-level parking structure that also includes commercial space. The Poplar Grove Community Council raised a concern about parking associated with the proposed project spilling onto neighborhood streets. Planning staff noted the TSA-UN-C zone does not require any off-street parking and there is no guarantee parking would be provided. A development agreement is a method to ensure off-street parking is provided at this location. Consideration 4-Folsom Trail as the Zoning District Boundary A freight rail line divides the Euclid neighborhood into north and south sections. This line is also the division between the TSA-UN-C and TSA-UN-T zoning designations as shown in the image above. Planning staff noted the subject parcel would be the only one south of the railroad tracks zoned TSA-UN-C if the proposed amendments are approved by the Council. They felt this might create a precedent for other properties between the freight line and Folson Trail to be rezoned and is not supported by the North Page | 5 Temple Boulevard Plan which calls for lower building heights to transition down as they approach the more residential areas. The petitioner believes the Folsom Trail would provide adequate buffering between the proposed project and the single-family neighborhood approximately a half block away. Consideration 5-Sustainability and Equity Planning staff found the proposal meets sustainability and equity goals for the city by providing more density in this area where high density is sustainable. They noted transit-oriented development supports active transportation in the community and improves health and well-being of building residents and patrons. It also potentially improves air quality in the city. In addition, more people on the street helps improve area public safety. It is Planning staff’s opinion the proposal meets sustainability and equity goals; however, they feel the current TSA-UN-T zoning would also meet these goals. ZONING COMPARISON The following table is an abbreviation of the one found on page 4 of the Planning Commission staff report. Other zoning requirements found in that table are the same for both zoning designations. TSA-UN-T TSA-UN-C Maximum Height 50’75’ Parking 50% of required in table 21A.44.030 Salt Lake City Code None required Open Space 1 square foot/10 square feet of land, up to 2,500 square feet 1 square foot/10 square feet of land, up to 5,000 square feet DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS In its department review of the proposals, Public Utilities stated redevelopment of the property may require additional utility improvements. The Fire Department outlined its requirements for a development at the subject location. These will be addressed during the development process if needed. Other departments had no objections to the proposals or did not provide comments. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • November 19, 2021-Petitions received by Planning Division • December 13, 2021-Petitions assigned to Katia Pace, Principal Planner • December 22, 2021-Notice sent to Poplar Grove and Downtown Community Councils • January 24, 2022-Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development provided early notification of the proposal. Project posted to the online open house webpage. • February 23, 2o22-Poplar Grove Community Council online meeting at which the proposals were discussed. Participant input included the following requests: o Don’t want parking to spill into the neighborhood o Provide commercial opportunities o Too many 1-bedroom and studio apartments. Would like more 2- and 3-bedroom units • March 24, 2022-Fairpark Community Council online meeting. (Note-this community council was not notified by Planning staff because it is not within 600 feet of the subject property. However, Page | 6 the community council requested an online meeting to discuss the proposals.) Participant input included the following requests: o Possibility for 2- and 3-bedroom units o Daylighting of City Creek along Folsom Trail (This is not part of the subject petitions and would be a separate request.) o Provide more commercial opportunities • March 31, 2022-Public hearing notice mailed, and public notice posted on City and State websites, Planning Division listserv. • April 2, 2022-Public hearing notice posted on the subject property. • April 13, 2022-Planning Commission public hearing. The Planning Commission voted unanimously in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments. • May 23, 2022-Draft ordinance information sent to Attorney’s Office. • July 27, 2022-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney’s Office. • August 2, 2022-Transmittal received in City Council Office. 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 2, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: TAG Sawtooth Master Plan PLNPCM2021-01242 and Zoning Map Amendments PLNPCM2021-01202 STAFF CONTACT: Katia Pace, Principal Planner, katia.pace@slcgov.com (801) 535-6354 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation from the Planning Commission and approve the requested zoning map amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This is a request by TAG SLC, to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map from Urban Neighborhood Station - Transition (TSA-UN-T) to Urban Neighborhood Station - Core (TSA-UN-C) and amend the North Temple Boulevard Plan to show the subject property as Core instead of Transition (see page 53 of the North Temple Boulevard Plan). The subject property is located at approximately 16 South 800 West. The proposed amendments are intended to allow the property owner to build a mixed-use building with a possibility of a maximum height of 75 feet. No development plans have been submitted by the applicant at this time. The Planning Commission reviewed the request at a public hearing on April 13, 2022. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council with the following condition: 1. To create a development agreement stipulating conditions for what happens on the periphery of the site concerning the trail, the adjacent roads, and the railway; and that the unit configuration be at least 25% with 2- and 3-bedroom units. 8/2/2022 8/2/2022 Lisa Shaffer (Aug 2, 2022 12:35 MDT) Existing Conditions The site for the is in the Euclid neighborhood, on the corner of 800 West and the freight rail line tracks on South Temple. This freight rail line is the boundary between the TSA-UN-T in the South, and TSA-UN-C in the North. It’s surrounded by manufacturing and light industrial uses, it’s adjacent to the Folsom Trail to the south and approximately ¼ mile from the 800 West Station TRAX station. The site is approximately .88-acre (38,333 square feet) parcel and is currently vacant. Proposed Project According to the applicant, the purpose of this request is to provide a project with more density suitable for families, more retail and parking, and a project that would engage with the Folsom Trail. The applicant is proposing a mixed-use building with a 2-floor podium ground floor parking and retail along with a 5- floors with approximately 186 residential units above. No plans were submitted along with these applications. Zoning Amendment The current Urban Neighborhood Station – Transition (TSA-UN-T) zoning would allow for a project 50 feet high. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning to Urban Neighborhood Station - Core (TSA-UN-C) which would allow for a maximum height of 75 feet. Vicinity Map – 16 South 800 West Master Plan Amendment The master plan for this area is the North Temple Master Plan. The plan talks about creating compatibility between existing neighborhoods and transit‐oriented developments by locating taller buildings close to the transit stations and gradually stepping down buildings heights to create compatibility. The North Temple Boulevard Plan shows the subject property as Transition. Please see page 53 of the North Temple Boulevard Plan. PUBLIC PROCESS: • December 22, 2021 – The Poplar Grove and Downtown Community Councils were sent the 45-day required notice for recognized community organizations. No formal comments were received by the Downtown Community Council. • January 24, 2022 - Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the development were provided early notification of the proposal. • January 24, 2022 - The project was posted to the Online Open House webpage. • February 23, 2022 – The Poplar Grove Community Council held an online meeting where the TAG Sawtooth project was discussed. The following were comments from participants of this meeting: − Parking – don’t want parking to spill into the neighborhood − Provide commercial opportunities − Too many 1-bedroom and studio apartments. Would like more 2-and 3-bedrooms − Allow for more retail • March 24, 2022 – The Fairpark Community Council, was not notified by Planning Staff because it’s further than 600 feet from the subject property. However, the Fairpark Community Council found out about this project and requested an online meeting where the TAG Sawtooth project was discussed. The following were comments from participants of this meeting: − Possibility for 2- and 3-bedrooms − Daylighting of City Creek along Folsom Trail − Provide more commercial opportunities • March 31, 2022 - Public hearing notice mailed, and public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve. • April 2, 2022 - Public hearing notice sign posted on the property. • April 13, 2022 - Planning Commission reviewed the petition and conducted a public hearing. Planning Staff recommended denial to the Planning Commission because Staff found that the proposed amendments did not meet the intent of the North Temple Boulevard Plan. Planning Staff found that the purpose for the location of the zoning district boundary was to create compatibility in the neighborhood by locating taller buildings close to the transit stations and gradually stepping down building heights. The Planning Commission found that the request met the goals of the master plan to increase density particularly surrounding the existing infrastructure. Therefore, the commission voted to send a positive recommendation to the City Council. Planning Commission Records 1. Planning Commission Agenda of April 13, 2022 (Click to Access) 2. Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 2022 (Click to Access) 3. Planning Commission Staff Report of April 13, 2022 (Click to Access) SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2022 (Amending the zoning of property located at approximately 16 South 800 West Street from Transit Station Area District - Urban Neighborhood Station - Transition (TSA-UN-T) to Transit Station Area District - Urban Neighborhood Station - Core (TSA-UN-C), and amending the North Temple Boulevard Plan) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at approximately 16 South 800 West from Transit Station Area District - Urban Neighborhood Station – Transition (TSA-UN-T) to Transit Station Area District - Urban Neighborhood Station – Core (TSA-UN-C) pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-01202 and amending the North Temple Boulevard Plan to show the subject property as Core instead of Transition pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-01242. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 13, 2022 on applications submitted by TAG SLC (“Applicant”) the property owner, to rezone property located at 16 South 800 West Street (Tax ID No. 15-02-226-010) (the “Property”) from Transit Station Area District - Urban Neighborhood Station - Transition (TSA-UN-T) to Transit Station Area District - Urban Neighborhood Station - Core (TSA-UN-C) pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-01202, and to amend the North Temple Boulevard Plan to change the land use designation of the Property from Transition to Core pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020- 01242; and WHEREAS, at its April 13, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said application; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be and hereby is rezoned from Transit Station Area District - Urban Neighborhood Station - Transition (TSA-UN-T) to Transit Station Area District - Urban Neighborhood Station - Core (TSA-UN-C). SECTION 2. Amending the North Temple Boulevard Plan. The North Temple Boulevard Plan shall be and hereby is amended to change the land use designation of the Property from Transition to Core in the graphic on page 53 of that plan. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 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: . APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: __________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney July 27, 2022 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of Property 16 South 800 West, Salt Lake City, UT Tax ID No. 15-02-226-010-0000 Beginning at the Northeast Corner of Lot 8, Block 51, Plat C and running South 0^14’30” West, along the East line of said Lot 8, 232.21 feet; thence South 89^58’36” West 165.57 feet to the Westerly line of said Lot 8; thence North 0^10’35” East, along said Westerly line, 232.21 feet to the Northwest Corner of said Lot 8; thence North 89^58’36” East, along the Northerly line of Lot 8, 165.81 feet to the point of beginning. EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Hearing 3. Notice Letter to Recognized Community Organizations 4. Notice Letter to Neighbors 5. Original Petition 6. Mailing List 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petitions: Master Plan Amendment PLNPCM2021-01242 & Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2021-01202 November 19, 2021 Petitions received by the Planning Division. December 13, 2021 Petitions assigned to Katia Pace, Principal Planner. December 22, 2021 Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the chairs of the Poplar Grove and Downtown Community Councils. January 24, 2022 Sent notice of application to property owners and tenants of property within 300 feet of the project. January 24, 2022 The project was posted to the Online Open House webpage. February 23, 2022 The Poplar Grove Community Council held an online meeting where the TAG Sawtooth project was discussed. March 24, 2022 The Fairpark Community Council held an online meeting where the TAG Sawtooth project was discussed. March 31, 2022 Public hearing notice mailed, and public notice posted on City and State websites and Planning Division list serve. April 2, 2022 Public hearing notice sign posted on the property. April 13, 2022 Planning Commission reviewed the petition and conducted a public hearing. The commission then voted to send a positive recommendation to the City Council. 2. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2021-01202 and PLNPCM2021-01242 – TAG Sawtooth Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments – TAG SLC, property owner, is requesting a master plan and a zoning map amendment to allow the development of a mixed-use building, the Sawtooth TAG, located at approximately 16 South 800 West. On April 13, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to recommend approval to the City Council for the following applications: a. Zoning Map Amendment – To change the zoning from Urban Neighborhood Station - Transition (TSA-UN-T) to Urban Neighborhood Station - Core (TSA-UN-C) which would allow a maximum height of 75 feet. Case number PLNPCM2021-01202 b. Master Plan Amendment - the change the North Temple Boulevard Plan to show the subject property as Core instead of Transition. Case number PLNPCM2021-01242 As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TBD TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Katia Pace at 801-535-6354 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at katia.pace@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2021-01202 and PLNPCM2021-01242. 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 make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. NOTICE LETTER TO RECOGNIZED COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/PLANNING PO BOX 145480, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5480 1 TEL 801-535-7757 Recognized Organization Input Notification Proposed Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment TO: Poplar Grove Community Council, Esther Stowell (esther.stowell@poplargroveslc.org, or info@poplargroveslc.org) Downtown Community Council, Bryan Hill (bhill@vestar.com) FROM: Katia Pace, Principal Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division (katia.pace@slcgov.com or 801-535-6354) DATE: December 22, 2021 RE: Sawtooth TAG, at 16 South 800 West • Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2021-01202) • Master Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2021-01242) The Planning Division has received the following request and is notifying your organization to solicit comments on the proposal: Request Type: Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment Location: 16 South 800 West Zone: Transit Station Area – Urban Neighborhood – Transition (TSA-UN-T) Proposed Zone: Transit Station Area – Urban Neighborhood – Core (TSA-UN-C) Request Description: TAG SLC, owner under contract, is requesting a master plan and a zoning map amendment to allow the development of a mixed-use building, the Sawtooth TAG, located at approximately 16 S 800 West. The proposed project would have 5-floors with 186 units of living-space over 2-floors of retail and parking. The proposed project is subject to the following applications: a. Zoning Map Amendment –additional height is needed from what is allowed in the current zoning district, Urban Neighborhood Station - Transition (TSA-UN-T), with a maximum height of 50 feet. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning to Urban Neighborhood Station - Core (TSA-UN-C) which would allow a maximum height of 75 feet. Case number PLNPCM2021-01202 b. Master Plan Amendment - the Future Land Use Map of the North Temple Boulevard Plan (see Page 53 of the plan) shows the subject property as Transition. To allow for the zoning map to be changed, the master plan will need to show the parcel to be in Core area. Case number PLNPCM2021-01242 I have attached information submitted by the applicant relating to the project to facilitate your review. The full plan with details about the “future land use” designations can be accessed here: http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/NTMP.pdf (see page 53). Request for Input from Your Recognized Organization As part of this process, the applicant is required to solicit comments from Recognized Organizations. The purpose of the review is to inform the community of the project and solicit comments/concerns they may have with the project. The Recognized Organizations may also take a vote to determine whether there is support for the project, but this is not required. Per City Code 2.60.050 - The recognized organizations have forty-five (45) days to provide comments, from the date this notice was sent. A public hearing will not be held, nor will a final decision be made about the project within the forty-five (45) day notice period. This notice period ends on the following day: February 5, 2022 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/PLANNING PO BOX 145480, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5480 2 TEL 801-535-7757 Please contact me to let me know if you would like the applicant to attend and present their proposal at one of your meetings within this 45-day period. Please indicate the day and time of your meeting and staff will coordinate with the applicant to attend your meeting. Planning staff will be available at the meeting to answer any questions related to decision standards or the decision-making process. Open House The Planning Division will hold an Online Open House to solicit comments on this project. Information on the Open House will be placed on the Salt Lake City website at www.slc.gov/planning. Comment Guidance Public comments will be received up to the date of the Planning Commission public hearing. However, you should submit your organization’s comments within 45 days of receiving this notice for the comments to be included in the staff report. We ask that you address the following in your comments: • Issues that were raised at the meeting and whether any suggestions were made to address the issues. • Number of persons that attended the meeting (not including those with the applicant or City Staff). • Whether a vote was taken on the matter and if so, what the vote tally was. Standards for Zoning Map Amendment (21A.50.050) 1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and 5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Effect of Adopted Master Plans or General Plans (21A.02.040) All master plans or general plans adopted by the planning commission and city council for the city, or for an area of the city, shall serve as an advisory guide for land use decisions. Amendments to the text of this title or zoning map should be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the applicable adopted master plan or general plan of Salt Lake City. Comment Submission Address You may submit your written comments via e-mail to katia.pace@slcgov.com. 4. NOTICE LETTER TO NEIGHBORS Notification of a Project in Your Neighborhood SAWTOOTH TAG @ 16 S 800 WEST Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2021-01202) Master Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2021-01242) January 24, 2022 Salt Lake City has received an application for a master plan and zoning amendment in your neighborhood and is notifying you to ask public comments on the proposal. Zone: Urban Neighborhood Station - Transition (TSA-UN-T) Proposed Zone: Urban Neighborhood Station - Core (TSA-UN-C) Request Description: TAG SLC, owner under contract, is requesting a master plan and a zoning map amendment to allow the development of a mixed-use building, the TAG Sawtooth, located at approximately 16 S 800 West. The applicant would like to build a project with 5-floors and 186 units of living-space over 2-floors of retail and parking and that would require the zoning to be changed. The proposed master plan and zoning amendment are subject to the following applications: a. Zoning Map Amendment – additional height is needed from what is allowed in the current zoning district, Urban Neighborhood Station - Transition (TSA-UN-T), with a maximum height of 50 feet. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning to Urban Neighborhood Station - Core (TSA-UN-C) which would allow a maximum height of 75 feet. Case number PLNPCM2021-01202 b. Master Plan Amendment - the North Temple Boulevard Plan shows the subject property as Transition. To allow for the zoning map to be changed, the master plan will need to show the parcel to be in the Core area. Case number PLNPCM2021-01242 NEXT STEPS • Planning Commission will hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council (Date TBD). • City Council will hold a public hearing and decide (Dates TBD). The City Council is the final decision maker. NEED MORE INFORMATION? 1. Go to the SLC Citizen Access Portal: https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/Citizen/Default.aspx 2. Click “Planning Check or Research Petitions” 3. Type the petition number PLNPCM2021-01202 or PLNPCM2021-01242 4. Click on “Record Info” 5. Select “Attachments” from the drop-down menu to see the submitted plans. CONTACT INFORMATION You may submit written comments or questions on the proposal to Katia Pace, Principal Planner at katia.pace@slcgov.com, or 801 535-6354. Yellow line shows the proposed site to be rezoned 5. ORIGINAL PETITION Updated 8/16/2021 Master Plan Amendment  Amend the text of the Master Plan  Amend the Land Use Map OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project #: Name of Master Plan Amendment: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): Name of Applicant: Phone: Address of Applicant: E-mail of Applicant:Cell/Fax: Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property:  Owner  Contractor  Architect  Other: Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): E-mail of Property Owner:Phone: Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION Planners are available for consultation prior to submitting this application. Please email zoning@slcgov.com if you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application. REQUIRED FEE Filing fee of $1008 plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre. $100 for newspaper notice. Plus, additional fee for mailed public notices. Mailing fees will be assessed after application is submitted. SIGNATURE If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: SA L T L A K E C I T Y P L A N N I N G 16 S 800 W, Salt Lake City, UT 84104 TAG SLC, LLC (312) 550-6381 Jake@tagslc.com 4 PO Box 520697, Salt Lake City, UT 84152 Under Contract4 12/3/2021 | 11:47 AM MST Updated 8/16/2021 St a f f R e v i e w SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1.Project Description (please attach additional sheets electronically.) Describe the proposed master plan amendment. A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. Declare why the present master plan requires amending. Is the request amending the Land Use Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the master plan? If so, please include exact language to be changed. WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED ______ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. 4 4 4 4 Updated 8/21/2021 Zoning Amendment  Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance  Amend the Zoning Map OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project #: Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): Name of Applicant: Phone: Address of Applicant: E-mail of Applicant:Cell/Fax: Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property:  Owner  Contractor  Architect  Other: Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): E-mail of Property Owner:Phone: Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City Planning Counter at zoning@slcgov.com prior to submitting the application. REQUIRED FEE Map Amendment: filing fee of $1,075 plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre Text Amendment: filing fee of $1,075, plus fees for newspaper notice. Plus, additional fee for mailed public notices. Noticing fees will be assessed after the application is submitted. SIGNATURE If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: SA L T L A K E C I T Y P L A N N I N G TAG SLC, LLC 801-478-0662 Jake@tagslc.com 312-550-6381 4 16 S 800 W PO Box 520697 4 HAP, LLC 11/18/2021 | 2:33 PM MST Updated 8/21/2021 St a f f R e v i e w SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1.Project Description (please electronically attach additional sheets. See Section 21A.50 for the Amendments ordinance.) A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED ______ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. X X X X 6. MAILING LIST Name Address City State Zip 11N800W, 1878 W 12 RIVERTON UT 84065 51 SOUTH J 318 W 255 OREM UT 84058 ADAIR HOM PO BOX 16 BOUNTIFULUT 84011 BOLIVAR SA5061 S 113 TAYLORSVI UT 84123 CRAIG L BO 3527 S CRE SALT LAKE CUT 84109 Current Oc 817 W EME Salt Lake Ci UT 84116 Current Oc 27 N 800 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84116 Current Oc 844 W SOU Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 840 W SOU Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 838 W SOU Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 19 N 800 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84116 Current Oc 15 N 800 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84116 Current Oc 828 W SOU Salt Lake Ci UT 84116 Current Oc 818 W SOU Salt Lake Ci UT 84116 Current Oc 866 W SOU Salt Lake Ci UT 84116 Current Oc 18 N 800 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84116 Current Oc 778 W SOU Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 772 W SOU Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 766 W SOU Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 764 W SOU Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 14 S JEREM Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 22 S JEREM Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 855 W SOU Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 8 S JEREMY Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 845 W SOU Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 42 S JEREM Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 48 S JEREM Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 54 S JEREM Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 833 W SOU Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 38 S 800 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 16 S 800 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 785 W SOU Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 777 W SOU Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 767 W SOU Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 17 S 800 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 765 W SOU Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 761 W SOU Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 49 S JEREM Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 51 S JEREM Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 52 S 800 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 60 S 800 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 826 W 100 Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 824 W 100 Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 834 W 100 Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 54 S 800 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 50 S 800 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 45 S 800 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 49 S 800 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 57 S 800 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 59 S 800 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 39 S 800 W Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 Current Oc 763 W SOU Salt Lake Ci UT 84104 CURT WAR 1218 S 500 SALT LAKE CUT 84105 DAVID B AL PO BOX 510 SALT LAKE CUT 84151 DIAMOND P O BOX 16 BOUNTIFULUT 84011 EASTON HA 990 W 3020 LEHI UT 84043 FOUR-TEN, 736 W NOR SALT LAKE CUT 84116 GERALD H S 818 W 100 SALT LAKE CUT 84104 GERMAN LO 5806 W CO SOUTH JOR UT 84009 HAP, LLC 3855 S 500 SALT LAKE CUT 84115 ITZEL COX 1026 W EU SALT LAKE CUT 84104 JEREMY LLC15 S JEREM SALT LAKE CUT 84104 JOSHUA BU 936 ELAINE BOUNTIFULUT 84010 LARRY D BR844 W SOU SALT LAKE CUT 84104 LEONARD R 1018 N BEX NORTH SAL UT 84054 MATT OVIAPO BOX 743 CLEARFIELDUT 84089 MICHAEL G 66 S 800 W SALT LAKE CUT 84104 MOTORSPO 3 N 800 W SALT LAKE CUT 84116 PARTY OF S 2611 E 980 SANDY UT 84092 PURE WAT 11 S JEREM SALT LAKE CUT 84104 REBEKAH JU1450 S 500 SALT LAKE CUT 84105 RED IGUAN 736 W NOR SALT LAKE CUT 84116 RHRE, LLC 99 W SOUT SALT LAKE CUT 84101 RUCKER FA 990 S 500 W WOODS CR UT 84087 SALT LAKE C PO BOX 145 SALT LAKE CUT 84114 TEOFILES V 26 WARREN BEVERLY NJ 08010 US SPRINT PO BOX 129 SHAWNEE KS 66282 WESTERN P 1400 DOUG OMAHA NE 68179 YESCO OUT 2401 S FOO SALT LAKE CUT 84109 Item B3 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sam Owen, Policy Analyst DATE:September 20, 2022 RE:FY23 Budget Amendment #2 MOTION 1 I move the Council close the public hearing and adopt the budget amendment. MOTION 2 I move the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future meeting. MOTION 3 I move the Council continue the public hearing. 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: Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date Sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 19, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Budget Amendment #2 STAFF CONTACTS: John Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 Bill Wyatt, Executive Director, Department of Airports (801) 575-2408 Brian Butler, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Airports (801) 575-2923 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that, subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending the FY2022-23 adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: This proposed budget amendment will have no impact on the City’s General Fund budget. No General Fund revenues or expenditures will be required to finance this budget amendment because 100% of the capital and operating expenditures will be paid from the various types of revenues generated at Salt Lake City International Airport (the “Airport). Such revenues include the landing fees, terminal rentals, and other fees paid by the airlines serving the Airport, as well as various revenues generated from sources other than the airlines. Non-airline revenues are derived from sources such as parking, rental cars, food and beverage concessions, news and gift concessions, cargo revenues and various types of rental income. In addition, when the design for the capital improvements contemplated in this budget amendment is completed, some of the proposed improvements will be funded through supplemental federal grant funding from the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”). BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This budget amendment addresses capital expenditures for (1) construction of a 16-gate expansion of the B Concourse, (2) design for utilities at the Tooele Valley Airport, (3) design for future parallel taxiway U & V to the north of Concourse B, and (4) an operating expenditure 8/22/2022 8/22/2022 Lisa Shaffer (Aug 22, 2022 13:23 MDT) 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 regarding the non-represented employee compensation budget plan previously approved by City Council. 1. New SLC Airport Phase IV 16-Gate Expansion. Over the past several years, enplanements at the Airport have grown at a faster rate than forecasted. Even with severe disruptions due to the pandemic, flights are back to nearly pre- pandemic levels and increasing. To better accommodate this growth and realize significant cost savings through use of the workforce already mobilized for the current phase of construction, the Department of Airports is seeking this budget amendment to move up the construction timeline to extend Concourse B, as well as other related facilities. Given the unexpected increased demand, the Department of Airports consulted with the Program Management Team (“PMT”) for the Airport Redevelopment Program, including the architecture team HOK, regarding the preliminary design and engineering for a 16-gate expansion of Concourse B. This expansion would completely build out Concourse B, giving the Airport 47 gates on Concourse A and 47 gates on Concourse B, for a total of 94 gates. Increasing the number of gates allows for more flights to accommodate growth and potential new entrants to utilize the Airport, which typically results in more competitive pricing and lower costs for the flying public. As the Department of Airports, the PMT, and HOK started to explore design of the facilities and come up with cost estimates, the Department of Airports leadership met with the airlines utilizing the Airport to verify there is current demand to expedite construction of these gates. After meeting with all the airlines, the airlines requested a total of 22 additional gates at the Airport, which is more than can be built at this time and even more than the proposed Phase IV 16-gate expansion of Concourse B. Since demand for gates is greater than the financial and logistical capacity for what can be built at this time, the Department of Airports is also designing a robust permanent hardstand on level 1 on the east end of Concourse B as part of the 16-gate expansion, which would serve growth until a future Concourse C can be built. These hardstand positions would be utilized on a demand basis only and would create flexibility including accommodating new airlines to the Airport (which is also required under federal grant assurances). In addition, the Department of Airports is undertaking obtaining cost estimates and a financial capacity analysis for design and construction of a 700-foot central tunnel extension to the north of Concourse B, which would facilitate building half of the tunnel to a future Concourse C and constructing a maintenance facility and the logistical feasibility to actually place an automated people mover (“APM”) in the central tunnel if the Department of Airports has the financial capacity to put in an APM prior to Concourse C being constructed. While the central tunnel extension is being built, it would take out of service two gates with jet bridges which is why it’s advantageous to do it now versus waiting for the entire tunnel to be built to concourse C as the airlines have need for all 94 gates based on forecasted 2027 levels. To maintain the construction schedule, the Department of 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 Airports needs to amend the construction budget of the New SLC Airport by $683 million so procurement can happen this fall and winter of 2022. To protect the City’s interest and be assured the airlines requesting additional gates will actually utilize the gates (thereby allowing the City to recoup its capital expenditures), part of the discussion with the airlines is that for an airline to have preferential use of a future gate, it will need to sign an extended airline use agreement (lease) (“AUA”) through at least 2034. Currently, most of the existing AUAs expire in June of 2024. 2. Design of Future Parallel Runways U & V to Utilize Federal Grant Funding. Another capital project that was not contemplated in the Department of Airports’ original FY23 capital improvement (“CIP”) budget is the design of a future parallel taxiways U & V to the north of Concourse B. The Airport was awarded approximately $25 million dollars in infrastructure funding from Congress as part of the Bi-Partisan Infrastructure Law (“BIL”) in the Spring of 2022. The total cost of the dual taxiways will be approximately $110 million, and federal funding will pay for approximately 75% of those costs over the next five years. Based on the size and scale of the project and the timing of needing to use federal funding, the Department of Airports is asking for a budget amendment of $3.9 million to design the first half of the project, which includes a road realignment as well as a tunnel for aircraft to allow for unobstructed aircraft movement. The construction costs for the first half of the project will be formally submitted as part of the Department of Airports’ FY24 budget request. 3. Design of Utilities to Service Tooele Valley Airport/Bureau of Land Management. The last CIP-related budget adjustment requested is for the design of sewer and water facilities out at the Tooele Valley Airport (“TVY”). The Department of Airports has been working closely with the Salt Lake City Public Utilities team as well as various entities in Tooele, including the City of Grantsville to explore options and possibilities to extend sewer and culinary water out to TVY. Currently, there are Department of Airports’ operations offices, skydiving operations, and the Bureau of Land Management’s fire-fighting facilities at TVY, which have limited water and sewer resources. Design funding of $900,000 is being requested through this budget amendment and construction can be included and occur in the Department of Airports’ FY24 budget year. The Department of Airports recently executed a 20-year agreement where the BLM is investing millions of dollars to build facilities at the TVY to help fight wildfires, and is committed to securing upgraded water and sewer resources to support the BLM’s investment and fire-fighting operations. 4. Previously Approved Non-Represented Employee Compensation Study. Lastly, the Department of Airports is requesting an operating expense budget amendment for the nine months of funding for the non-represented employee compensation study that was previously approved by City Council for the entire City as part of the FY23 budget. Based on the 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 timing of the Department of Airports’ budget presentation and its required presentations of the budget to the Airport Advisory Board and the airlines, the Department of Airports did not have the specific information available to include this request in the Department of Airports’ FY23 budget presented to City Council. This request is to formally include the increased compensation for certain non-represented employees that was previously identified in the study into the Department of Airports’ FY23 budget and approved by City Council. An ordinance and a summary spreadsheet document outlining proposed budget changes are attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2022 (Second amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2022-2023) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2022 which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2022, and Ending June 30, 2023. In June of 2022, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2022, and ending June 30, 2023, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the Utah Code. The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing document as provided above, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2022. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes 2 specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including any amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2023, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128 of the Utah Code. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2022. ________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________ Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _________ of 2022. Published: ___________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form ___Jaysen Oldroyd________ Jaysen Oldroyd Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs 1 New SLC Airport Phaxe IV 16 Gate Expansion Airport - 683,000,000.00 One Time - 2 Design of Future Parallel Runways U & V to Utilize Federal Grant Funding Airport - 3,901,000.00 One Time - 3 Design of Utilities to Service Tooele Valley Airport/ Bureau of Land Management Airport - 900,000.00 One Time - 4 Previously Approved Non-Represented Employee Compensation Study Airport - 1,017,000.00 One Time - Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources - Consent Agenda # Total of Budget Amendment Items - 688,818,000.00 - - - Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs Total by Fund Class, Budget Amendment #7: Airport Fund Airport - 688,818,000.00 - - - - - - Total of Budget Amendment Items - 688,818,000.00 - - - Administration Proposed Council Approved Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget Amendment #2 Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed Section I: Council Added Items Section A: New Items Section D: Housekeeping Section F: Donations Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources 1 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget Amendment #2 Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2022-23 Budget, Including Budget Amendments FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Revenue General Fund (FC 10)425,537,408 425,537,408 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,762,560 1,762,560 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 1,700,000 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)4,302,222 4,302,222 Water Fund (FC 51)108,196,368 108,196,368 Sewer Fund (FC 52)196,630,907 196,630,907 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)13,476,733 13,476,733 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)302,268,600 - 302,268,600 Refuse Fund (FC 57)21,458,105 21,458,105 Golf Fund (FC 59)11,560,676 11,560,676 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,925,000 3,925,000 Fleet Fund (FC 61)28,826,992 28,826,992 IMS Fund (FC 65)30,523,167 30,523,167 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,600,000 9,600,000 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)4,670,517 4,670,517 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)34,158,918 34,158,918 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)300,000 300,000 Donation Fund (FC 77)2,920,250 2,920,250 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)16,217,000 16,217,000 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)32,037,989 32,037,989 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)35,460,387 35,460,387 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,964,523 3,964,523 Risk Fund (FC 87)54,679,000 54,679,000 Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,344,180,322 - - - - - 1,344,180,322 2 Fiscal Year 2022-23 Budget Amendment #2 Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2022-23 Budget, Including Budget Amendments Total Expense BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Expense General Fund (FC 10)425,537,408 425,537,408 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,762,560 1,762,560 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 1,700,000 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,757,825 5,757,825 Water Fund (FC 51)132,752,815 132,752,815 Sewer Fund (FC 52)255,914,580 255,914,580 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)18,699,722 18,699,722 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)384,681,671 688,818,000 1,073,499,671 Refuse Fund (FC 57)24,952,672 24,952,672 Golf Fund (FC 59)14,726,016 14,726,016 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,800,385 3,800,385 Fleet Fund (FC 61)30,426,032 30,426,032 IMS Fund (FC 65)30,523,167 30,523,167 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,458,748 9,458,748 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)4,958,433 4,958,433 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)26,614,153 26,614,153 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)300,000 300,000 Donation Fund (FC 77)287,250 287,250 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)25,779,253 25,779,253 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)33,658,558 33,658,558 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)35,460,387 35,460,387 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,169,767 3,169,767 Risk Fund (FC 87)54,679,000 54,679,000 - Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,525,603,402 - 688,818,000 - - - 2,214,421,402 Budget Manager Analyst, City Council Contingent Appropriation 3 Item B4 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY23 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards Budget Analysts DATE:September 20, 2022 RE: Budget Amendment Number Three FY2023 MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT ITEM A-2 I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2023 final budget of Salt Lake City only for item A-2 as shown on the motion sheet. A-2: Deeply Affordable Housing to Address Immediate and Long-term Homeless Needs ($6 million from CIP Holding Account to General Fund) And Creation of Homelessness Housing Grant Fund Staff note: like the Redevelopment Agency Notice of Funding Availability or NOFA process, each funding award to recommended housing developments will come to the Council for final approval. MOTION 2 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action. MOTION 3 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future date. MOTION 4 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2023 final budget of Salt Lake City including the employment staffing document only for items as shown on the motion sheet. Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items being approved below; they are listed for reference. A-1: Capital Equipment Purchase – Refuse Packers and Additional Funding for Cost Increases ($3,055,700 from Refuse Fund) A-2: Deeply Affordable Housing to Address Immediate and Long-term Homeless Needs ($6 million from CIP Holding Account to General Fund) And Creation of Homelessness Housing Grant Fund A-6: Governmental Immunity Funding to Cover Potential Costs for Remainder of FY2023 ($500,000 from General Fund Balance) A-7: Utah League of Cities and Towns (ULCT) Membership Cost Increase ($38,000 from General Fund Balance) D-1 Recognizing Revenue in Donations Fund ($44,668) D-2: Transfer Consumer Protection Analyst FTE from Mayor’s Office to Housing Stability Division in CAN (Budget Neutral) D-3: UDOT Class C Reimbursement ($1,617,217 for Class C Fund) D-4: Dominion Energy 200 South Reimbursement ($600,000 from Dominion Energy to CIP Fund) E-1: Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program Retrofitting City Creek Water Treatment Plant ($36,680,000 from Misc. Grant Fund to Water Fund) E-2: Transportation Investment Fund (TIF) Active Transportation Projects Transit Transportation Investment Fund (TTIF) First & Last Mile Projects 300 West Active Transportation Improvements (500 South to 2100 South) ($2.1 million from Misc. Grant Fund) E-3: Transportation Investment Fund-Active Transportation (TTIF): Parley’s Trail Gap in Sugar House ($950,000 from Misc. Grant Fund) Consent Agenda No.3 G-1: US Department of Justice, 2019 Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) ($3,700 from Misc. Grant Fund) G-2: 2022 U.S. Department of Agriculture administered by Utah State Office of Education Summer Food Service Program - Youth Summer Snack Programs ($11,042 from Misc. Grant Fund) G-3: School-Age Program Summer Expansion Grant 2022-2023, State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services ($390,000 from Misc. Grant Fund) G-4 through G-9 School-Age Program Grant 2022-2023, State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services ($62,223 each from Misc. Grant Fund) Consent Agenda No.2 G-1: Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control - 2023 Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Grant ($587,915 from Misc. Grant Fund) G-2: Teen Afterschool Prevention (TAP) Grant, State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services ($1,008,000 from Misc. Grant Fund) G-3: Utah State Department of Public Safety - 2022 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) ($38,000 from Misc. Grant Fund) G-4: Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), State Asset Forfeiture Grant (SAFG) ($6,000 from Misc. Grant Fund) I-1: Know Your Neighbor Program State Grant Award ($100,000 to Grant Fund) I-2: Additional Funding to Cover Cost Increases for RDA Marmalade Plaza Project ($1 Million from Parks Impact Fees) MOTION 5 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING and NOT ADOPT I move that the Council close the public hearing and proceed to the next agenda item. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY23 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards Budget and Policy Analysts DATE:September 20, 2022 RE: Budget Amendment Number Three FY2023 ________________________________________________________________________________ Budget Amendment Number Three includes twenty proposed amendments and requested changes to seven funds. Total expenditures coming from fund balance are $538,000. If all the items are adopted as proposed, then Fund Balance would be 16.7% which is $15,865,447 above the 13% minimum target established by the Council in FY2020. Revenue for FY2023 Budget Adjustments The Finance Department will be available at the briefing to present updated sales tax revenue figures through the end of Fiscal Year 2022 and answer any related questions. Project Timeline: Set Date: Sept. 6, 2022 1st Briefing: Sept. 20, 2022 Public Hearing: Sept. 20, 2022 2nd Briefing: Oct. 4, 2022 (if needed) Potential Action: Oct. 4, 2022 Page | 2 Fund Balance The Administration’s chart below shows the current General Fund Balance figures. Impact Fees Update The Administration provided a summary of impact fee tracking, details on refunding amounts and dates and lists of unfinished projects with impact fee funding. The information is current as of July 1, 2022. As a result, the City is on- track with impact fee budgeting to have no refunds during all of FY2023 and FY2024. The Administration reports work is nearing completion to update the fire and parks sections of the impact fee plan. The transportation section was updated in October 2020. Eligible projects for police impact fees are being identified. Note that the below balances were updated based on the Council’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project funding decisions. Type Unallocated Cash “Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring Impact Fees Fire $1,156,234 More than a year away - Parks $12,578,822*More than a year away - Police $846,150 More than a year away - Transportation $3,428,519 More than a year away - Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract *The RDA Board is evaluating using some funding for the Marmalade Plaza project Page | 3 Section A: New Items (note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration’s descriptions from the transmittal for some of these items) A-1: Capital Equipment Purchase – Refuse Packers and Additional Funding for Cost Increases ($3,055,700 from Refuse Fund) The Sustainability Department is requesting $2,845,000 for seven new packer vehicles and $210,700 to cover cost increases for six of nine packer vehicles originally funded in FY2022 but not fulfilled by the manufacturers. The vehicles are a mix of clean diesel and certified natural gas. Hybrid versions are not available in the market. Electric versions are just becoming available with reliability being tested and may be cost prohibitive until more widely produced. Each packer vehicle costs approximately $406,500. The Department reports the FY2022 funding is encumbered. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, equipment manufacturers are experiencing delays and equipment order backlogs. The timeline for ordering and receiving equipment has increased to over 12 months. Nine packer vehicles were originally ordered in FY2022 but only three are being delivered; costs increased for the remaining six. Authorizing an additional seven new vehicles at this time would allow for extended delivery times while balancing service level. The fleet of packer vehicles is expected to have sufficient capacity to avoid reductions in service level due to manufacturing delays. Note that the total cost is $20,000 more than listed in the transmittal as the difference was identified after being sent. A-2: Deeply Affordable Housing to Address Immediate and Long-term Homeless Needs ($6 million from CIP Holding Account to General Fund) And Creation of Homelessness Housing Grant Fund The Administration proposes to portion City funds for deeply affordable housing into two phases. Phase I The first phase would create a grant fund for permanent supportive housing and/or transitional shelter housing projects that will: •Serve people currently experiencing homelessness in Salt Lake City; •Offer at least 90 housing units; o Staff note: the transmittal listed 100 but the September 13 briefing discussion indicated the Administration recommended 90 and the Council expressed support) •Have a majority of units ready for occupancy on or before April 15, 2023; •Have a majority of its funding from non-SLC sources. The Administration recommends the Council support the creation of a Homelessness Housing Grant Fund with the conditions identified above, using $6 million from funds that were placed in the CIP last fiscal year budget with the intention of using them for housing. Community and Neighborhoods will expedite creation of a grant application for non-profit developers to apply for a portion of those funds, not to exceed $2.5 million per applicant. As this is intended to focus on creation of units within the next 9 months to align with the end of the winter overflow shelter season, it is expected that applicants will include those renovating existing motels for transitional or permanent supportive housing projects. The Administration also anticipates they will have already begun work and need funds to continue and/or finish construction. The transmittal includes the following information regarding “Phase II” of this proposal, spending dollars that were appropriated by the Council in conjunction with the FY2023 annual budget: “Phase II The Administration appreciates the $20.1 million that the City Council and RDA Board approved for affordable housing in the FY ’23 budget. As that funding comprises RDA and Federal HOME grant funds which are restricted and require extended processes, the Administration believes they will be more appropriate for some other projects in the pipeline that are farther out in the development process. A number of housing projects are applying for federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits and might need 12- 24 months to complete planning and construction. Page | 4 The Administration will work with CAN and the RDA to execute NOFA’s and/or other housing funding programs with those funds this fall. This request is submitted for the consideration of the City Council within this budget amendment due to the following recent developments: •Several private developers have been in communication with the City about projects that were not ready as of the adoption of the city budget in June of 2022, but are ready to start developing now; •Implementation of this grant program will incentivize creation of additional PSH units prior to the end of the winter emergency shelter season in April 2023; •The CIP funds were identified in the FY ’22 but were held up pending further discussion of needs during the year. The Administration believes that the opportunity to create housing options for those experiencing unsheltered homelessness within Salt Lake City meets the high standard of use for these funds. The Administration sees the same urgency that the City Council has expressed regarding the impacts of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness. Many of our City staff are out in the City every day, doing their best to address issues related to homelessness. Our community liaisons, the HEART team, the Rapid Intervention Team, Park Rangers, police officers, fire fighters and dozens of others work on the complex issue of homelessness, day in and day out. We are all frustrated by the number of levers that the City simply does not have control over including funding for our state and county to address mental health and substance abuse, the legal or practical path to put criminal offenders in jail, and space in emergency shelters. But housing people is one clear, compassionate answer, and one way we can help people get off the street and on the path to success in our City.” Proposed Homelessness Housing Grant Fund in CAN: The Administration states that the proposed Homelessness Housing Grant Fund would be “targeted on motel renovation projects that can assist in the short-term housing and shelter gaps that the City is experiencing. It is envisioned to be focused on permanent supportive housing (PSH) and transitional options that can be created before the end of the [planned] winter overflow shelter[s] in April 2023. These types of projects target a much lower area median income (AMI) and are costlier to operate than the typical affordable housing project and produce limited or no cash flow to repay debt. In fact, many transitional and supportive housing projects do not produce enough cash flow to support annual operating costs. Accordingly, the Administration is proposing to provide grants to facilitate the financial viability of these types of projects and to facilitate their development on an expedited timeline.” Funding Focused on Multiple Nonprofit Developers: The proposal is aimed at awarding one-time grant funding to nonprofit developers. The Administration confirmed this could include the City Housing Authority. The $2.5 million proposed maximum award per applicant (not per development) is intended to help spread the funding across multiple nonprofit developers and developments. The Council received a briefing on this topic from Mayor Mendenhall and Andrew Johnston at the September 13 work session. Some items noted in that discussion include: -Final Approval by Council: One Council Member asked if the Administration’s recommendations for specific projects will come back to the Council for final approval and the timeline for that approval. The Administration responded specific development funding will come back to the Council for final approval and the process is intended to be expedited. -Flexibility for Development Timing and Size: Some Council Members expressed an interest in providing more flexibility for the Administration to respond to funding requests once the grant program is made public potentially including housing developments that would not be at least 50% completed by April 2023 and may be smaller than 100 units. -Role Clarity for Housing Funds: One Council Member asked about previous role clarity discussions between RDA (housing development) and CAN (programs for existing housing and homelessness). The Administration indicated that because these funds will be focused on people experiencing homelessness, they are proposing the funds go through CAN. In past years, the Council’s policy direction was to create a Page | 5 “one-stop shop” in the RDA for all funding related to housing development and to locate funding and programs serving existing housing and homeless services in CAN. -Accountability for Operations and Outcomes: Some Council Members asked how supportive housing providers could be held accountable for operations and outcomes. The Administration indicated that the State Office of Homeless Services will be an active partner in tracking usage, monitoring compliance and other data for housing developments receiving State funding. Many of the developments anticipated to receive funding from the $6 million proposal would likely also receive State funding. Some Council Members also asked that staffing and resource issues at permanent supportive housing and transitional housing be tracked so associated service level reductions and issues could be noticed and responded to sooner. -Lowering $2.5 Million Award Limit: Council Members discussed the proposed $2.5 million award limit per applicant and expressed a desire to maximize the number of beds provided by City funding, meaning not all projects could receive the $2.5 million award. -Community Benefit Agreement: One Council Member raised the idea of including a community benefit agreement as a requirement of receiving grant funds. Given the tight turnaround the Administration offered that as a part of the application they could ask what community benefits the project would provide. Policy Questions: ➢$800,000 Remaining in CIP Holding Account – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if there are plans for the $800,000 that would be remaining in the CIP holding account after the proposed $6 million is used. The Council could add the $800,000 to the $6 million or leave the funding for future opportunities. ➢$2.5 Million Maximum Award – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether to place a maximum award or allow recommended award amounts based on all the applications received. The Council could also express a policy preference to spread the funding across multiple housing developments and applicants. The RDA’s Notice of Funding Availability or NOFA does not include a maximum dollar award, but RDA policies do limit the agency’s total funding in a project by percentage share. ➢Deeply Affordable Deed Restrictions – The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether housing developments receiving grant funds would be required to deed restrict units for tenants at or below 40% AMI, and how long such restrictions would last. The Council has previously expressed a preference for deed restrictions of 50 years or longer to align with the useful life of the building and protect taxpayer’s investment to create the public benefits. ➢Ongoing Operating Costs – The Council may wish to ask if the Administration has assurance that there will be increased funding for operating costs to support the increased number of permanent supportive housing projects, so that the appropriate governmental entities are filling that ongoing need. ➢Conditions to include For-profit Developers – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether to include for-profit developers as eligible for the one-time $6 million grants and what conditions should be applied in such cases. There may be shovel-ready / already under construction housing by for- profit developers that could advance the program’s goals. A-3: WITHDRAWN A-4: WITHDRAWN A-5: WITHDRAWN A-6: Governmental Immunity Funding to Cover Potential Costs for Remainder of FY2023 ($500,000 from General Fund Balance) Page | 6 This funding is being requested to bolster the Governmental Immunity Fund available to spend balance. Due to actual claims paid this fiscal year, the Fund is lower than it would typically be at this point in the fiscal year. The added funding will help ensure there are sufficient funds to cover potential claims for the remainder of the year. A-7: Utah League of Cities and Towns (ULCT) Membership Cost Increase ($38,000 from General Fund Balance) The ULCT membership cost increased after the FY2023 annual budget was finalized. The membership increased $22,879 last year. The requested $38,000 is the increase for 2023. After the cost increase the total annual membership is $221,563. Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section (None) Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section (None) Section D: Housekeeping D-1 Recognizing Revenue in Donations Fund ($44,668) The Police Department is requesting a housekeeping amendment in the 77 fund to recognize budget from existing resources. D-2: Transfer Consumer Protection Analyst FTE from Mayor’s Office to Housing Stability Division in CAN (Budget Neutral) The position was recently transferred from the Finance Department to the Mayor’s Office and reclassified as a Community Liaison. The position is currently vacant. The Administration stated the position would “promote tenant rights, provide tenant mediation and legal services, and track and decrease evictions in the City.” These services would be coordinated with the Attorney’s Office and Finance Department’s Business Licensing Office and Good Landlord Program. This action would be consistent with the Council’s legislative intent to have a “tenant ombudsman” in the City. Policy Questions: ➢New City Services – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to clarify if the position is proposed to offer new City services or continue existing services. The Council may also wish to ask whether services are available to any renter in the City and are any groups prioritized such as families or low-income households. ➢Notifying Renters – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how renters in the City would hear about these services. ➢Coordination with Justice Court and District Court – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the FTE would coordinate with the City’s Justice Court and Third District Court to offer mediation and legal services and how evictions are tracked. ➢Coordination with Existing Community Service Providers – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the FTE would coordinate with existing community service providers operating similar programs such as Utah Community Action, Utah Disability Law Center, Utah Dispute Resolution, and Utah Legal Services. D-3: UDOT Class C Reimbursement ($1,617,217 for Class C Fund) UDOT has reimbursed the City Class C funds that were paid toward the 1300 East project between 1300 South and 2100 South in the amount of $1,617,216.94. This budget amendment is to receive those funds and place them back into the Class C fund for eligible class C projects. D-4: Dominion Energy 200 South Reimbursement ($600,000 from Dominion Energy to CIP Fund) Dominion Energy is replacing pipeline on 200 South in the area that the City is doing reconstruction between 400 West and 900 East. A Release Agreement was recorded between the two parties on June 13, 2022, in which Page | 7 Dominion Energy is providing the City with $600,000 to pay for the asphalt restoration. This budget amendment is requesting both the revenue and the expenditure budgets for this agreement. Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources E-1: Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program Retrofitting City Creek Water Treatment Plant ($36,680,000 from Misc. Grant Fund to Water Fund) This item recognizes the City's Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program Grant for FY23 in the amount of $36,680,000 for the purpose of retrofitting the City Creek Water Treatment Plant in Salt Lake City. The Justice40 Initiative was established by President Biden in Executive Order 14008 on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad and last year, formal guidance, M-21-28, Interim Implementation Guidance for the Justice40 Initiative was issued. Justice40 covered programs are Federal programs that make covered investments in seven categories. The City submitted a sub-application and under the BRIC Program that fell under the FEMA Department of Homeland Security infrastructure category. The funding will go towards mitigating seismic and flooding hazards at the City Creek Water Treatment Plan. The Grant has a performance period of 36 months from FY23 through FY25. The project match of $15,808,325 is budgeted over the next three years (FY23 through FY25). The match sources will be a combination of the annual budget and financial forecasting. The Administration requests a hold be placed on this funding until an award agreement is received. The City received an email announcing the award. The public hearing was held 4/5/2022. E-2: Transportation Investment Fund (TIF) Active Transportation Projects Transit Transportation Investment Fund (TTIF) First & Last Mile Projects 300 West Active Transportation Improvements (500 South to 2100 South) ($2.1 million from Misc. Grant Fund) This project will design and construct protected bike lanes on 300 West from 900 South to 300 South. Salt Lake City is currently reconstructing 300 West (900 South to 2100 South) and adding a bicycle path separated from vehicle traffic through nearly all of the project area. This project will continue the protected bike lanes into downtown. Funds will be used for design and construction. The match will be proposed from the SLC Streets Bond through the annual budget and from Transportation Division staff time and consultant resources for outreach, planning, design, and construction management. The current project is posted to the 300 West Reconstruction project. The Administration is requesting to set up a new cost center to reflect this description/appropriation language. Additionally, a hold needs to be placed on this funding until an award agreement is received. The City has received an email announcing the award. The public hearing was held 2/18/2020. E-3: Transportation Investment Fund-Active Transportation (TTIF): Parley’s Trail Gap in Sugar House ($950,000 from Misc. Grant Fund) As part of the reconstruction of the Highland Drive and 1100 East project, we will be completing a major gap in the Parley’s Trail along Highland Drive. This project will help complete a regional trail network. The project will include a high-quality two-way bicycle facility in the public right of way on the west side of Highland Drive and it will also include a 200 feet multi-use trail facility along Sugarmont Drive just west of Highland Drive. Current project is posted to the 1100 East/Highland Dr Reconstruction project. We need to put a hold on this funding until an award agreement is received. We have received notice of the award. The public hearing was held 5/4/2021. Staff note: when this project is complete, Parleys Trail within Salt Lake City boundaries will be complete. The one remaining trail gap would be located from State Street to 300 West in the City of South Salt Lake. The recently completed Local Link study includes recommendations for that final trail gap. The study was a joint effort between Salt Lake City, South Salt Lake, Millcreek, Holladay, and Salt Lake County. It is available at www.locallinkstudy.com Section F: Donations (None) Section G: Council Consent Agenda No. 3 G-1: US Department of Justice, 2019 Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) ($3,700 from Misc. Grant Fund) ****This item is to budget for the interest that has accumulated in this grant cost center since the original grant award. This grant ends 9/30/22 and the interest needs to be budgeted for so that it can be included in the closeout Page | 8 of this award.**** The Police department receives this grant annually and will use the award of $326,545 to conduct community policing and system implementation overtime projects, fund training for sworn and civilian personnel and the Peer Support program. Additionally, the department will purchase supplies, a service dog and veterinary services for the K9 program, and protective police helmets. No match is required. G-2: 2022 U.S. Department of Agriculture administered by Utah State Office of Education Summer Food Service Program - Youth Summer Snack Programs ($11,042 from Misc. Grant Fund) The Division of Youth & Family (YouthCity) applied for and received a grant in the amount of $11,042 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture administered by the Utah State Office of Education, for the Summer Food Service Program. These funds are available to provide a daily nutritious snack to youth participating in the YouthCity Summer Program 2022 at Central City Recreation Center, Fairmont Park, Liberty Park, Ottinger Hall, and Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center/Unity Center Campus. The City is reimbursed on a monthly basis and only qualified nutritious snacks and meals served to children participating in the summer enrichment/education activities during the summer program hours are eligible for reimbursement. A Public hearing was held on May 17, 2022. G-3: School-Age Program Summer Expansion Grant 2022-2023, State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services ($390,000 from Misc. Grant Fund) The Public Services Division of Youth and Family Services applied for and received a grant award of $390,000 for the 2022 summer expansion program, from Utah State Department of Work Force Services through the Utah Office of Child Care for the School Age Program Summer Expansion Grant. The Division of Youth and Family Services received $390,000 to provide YouthCity 2022 summer programming for youth five to twelve years old at Fairmont Park, Liberty Park, Central City, Ottinger Hall, Sorenson Unity Center, and Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center. $325,430 for Salaries and Fringe for existing staff, $44,260 for materials and supplies, and $20,310 for professional fees and contract services. No match is required by the funding agency. The Division is providing a voluntary cash match of the Division's General Fund 2022-2023 budget for salaries and benefits for 100% full time equivalent (FTE) of seven site staff and one Associate Director for program delivery, 50% FTE of the Division Director for administrative oversight, and 50% FTE of one Office Facilitator for general support. A public hearing was held May 17, 2022. G-4 through G-9 School-Age Program Grant 2022-2023, State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services ($62,223 each from Misc. Grant Fund) The Public Services Division of Youth and Family Services applied for and received a grant award of $62,223 each for Fairmont Park, Liberty Park, Central City, Ottinger Hall, Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center and Unity Center YouthCity 2022-2023 summer programs, from Utah State Department of Work Force Services through the Utah Office of Child Care for the School Age Program Grant. The School-Age Program Grant monies will fund wages and benefits for eight (8) hourly positions to serve from 7:45 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Monday thru Friday over the 2022-2023 Summer programs: A portion of grant funding is directed to wages and benefits for seven (7) Group one full-time Group Facilitator positions and one (1) Licensed Teacher position. $46,343.30 for salaries and benefits for existing staff, $9,980 for materials and supplies, and $5,900 for Educational Field Trips. No match is required by the funding agency. A public hearing was held on May 17, 2022. Consent Agenda No. 2 G-1: Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control - 2023 Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Grant ($587,915 from Misc. Grant Fund) The Salt Lake City Police Department received a grant of $587,915 from the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program. Of this award $172,360 is approved for salaries and $58,799 is approved for benefits for an administrative employee, K-9 officer, and a contracted finance manager. $140,000 is for investigative overtime, $45,000 for investigative/operational and administrative travel, $15,656 for vehicle leases and services contracts, $11,700 for supplies, and $144,400 for other administrative costs and confidential informant funds. A public hearing was held on 5/17/22. G-2: Teen Afterschool Prevention (TAP) Grant, State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services ($1,008,000 from Misc. Grant Fund) The Youth and Family Services Division applied for and received a grant award of $336,000 per year for a three- Page | 9 year period, from Utah State Department of Work Force Services through the Teen Afterschool Prevention Grant. These funds have been awarded to fund YouthCity Teen sites: Glendale, Central City, Library, Northwest and Sorenson Teen program operating expenses. The allocation of these funds will be over three years and will help fund two new full-time equivalent (FTE) Community Program Managers, and eight existing positions for Teen Specialists, in addition to General Operating expenses, and Professional Services expenses. No match is required by the funding agency. A public hearing was held on 6/14/2022. G-3: Utah State Department of Public Safety - 2022 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) ($38,000 from Misc. Grant Fund) The Emergency Management Services Division received a $38,000 FY2022 EMPG grant from the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety. This grant is awarded on an annual basis to jurisdictions to help offset costs of planning and updating emergency preparedness plans, conduct emergency preparedness exercises and produce materials and other media for public educational outreach and training pertaining to emergency preparedness. These funds will offset costs in providing National Incident Management System (NIMS) training to City staff with emergency response responsibilities during a disaster or other significant event. The funds will be used to fund community preparedness activities, purchase training materials, supplies and equipment including books, brochures, handouts, etc. The grant requires a 50% match which will be satisfied with the Community Preparedness Coordinator's time and budgeted for within Emergency Managements general fund. A public hearing was held for this grant application on 6/14/22. G-4: Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), State Asset Forfeiture Grant (SAFG) ($6,000 from Misc. Grant Fund) The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for and received a $6,000 grant award from the State of Utah, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), under the State Asset Forfeiture Grant (SAFG) program. The SAFG program funds crime prevention and law enforcement activities within specific guidelines. CCJJ developed the SAFG program as a means of evaluating and distributing state forfeiture funds. The funds will be used for confidential informant funds to enhance investigations in narcotics-related cases. A public hearing was held on 07/19/22. Section I: Council Added Items I-1: Know Your Neighbor Program State Grant Award ($100,000 to Grant Fund) The City was recently notified of a $100,000 grant award from the Utah Department of Workforce Services to continue and expand the Know Your Neighbor program. The City did not apply for the grant funding but it is a proactive grant opportunity from the State of Utah. The grant would fund a new volunteer coordinator FTE in the Mayor’s Office from October 1, 2022, through September 30, 2023. The program would increase the number of volunteer coordinators from one to two. This item would recognize the revenue and authorize the expenditure. The program connects local volunteers with refugees to facilitate resettlement and help address family needs. Aid can take a variety of forms from how to ride TRAX trains, shop at grocery stores, improve English language skills and applying for educational or job opportunities among other assistance. The program’s goal is to recruit and onboard at least 30 volunteers to provide services to at least 30 refugee families annually. The program has a dedicated webpage at www.slc.gov/equity/know-your-neighbor/ The Administration has requested a straw poll to accept the funding because of the grant award acceptance deadline. The revenue and expenditure would be authorized upon adoption of this budget item. I-2: Additional Funding to Cover Cost Increases for RDA Marmalade Plaza Project ($1 Million from Parks Impact Fees) In RDA Budget Amendment #1 the Board approved $720,000 from the Revolving Loan Fund and $280,000 from the Arctic Court infill home budget to cover anticipated cost increases for the Marmalade Plaza project. This funding was approved to ensure sufficient budget existed to fully cover the costs included in the time-limited bid and sign the construction contract. The Board requested that in follow up budget amendments the funding source be changed to parks impact fees. This item will provide parks impact fees to the RDA project. A corresponding item in a future RDA budget opening will return the $720,000 to the Revolving Loan Fund to be available for future loans and the $280,000 to the Arctic Court infill home holding account. Page | 10 ATTACHMENTS 1. None ACRONYMS AMI –Area Median Income BRIC – Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities CAN – Department of Community & Neighborhoods CCJJ – Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice CIP – Capital Improvement Program EMPG – Emergency Management Performance Grant FTE – Full Time Equivalent Position FY – Fiscal Year GF – General Fund HIDTA – High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas HUD – Housing and Urban Development JAG – Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant Misc. -- Miscellaneous NIMS – National Incident Management System NOFA – Notice of Funding Availability PSH – Permanent Supportive Housing RDA – Redevelopment Agency SAFG—State Asset Forfeiture Grant TAP – Teen Afterschool Prevention Grant TIF – Transportation Investment Fund TTIF – Transportation Investment Fund-Active Transportation Program UTA – Utah Transit Authority Salt Lake City Sales Tax SLC Council 9/20/2022 Sales Tax Actuals rose 17% by the end of FY 2022 after increasing 11% from the prior year FY 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Actuals 61,864,444 64,897,427 66,324,138 73,778,034 86,532,634 Actual Growth From Prior Year 8%5%2%11%17% Budgets 58,016,887 62,950,961 65,350,000 62,049,593 68,119,999 83,500,000 Budget Growth From Prior Year 7%9%4%-5%10%23% 8%5%2% 11% 17% 7% 9%4% 10% 23% $0 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 $70,000,000 $80,000,000 $90,000,000 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Actuals Budgets Actual Growth From Prior Year Budget Growth From Prior Year -5% % % From 2016 –2020, average Actual growth was 5.1% and Budget growth was 5.6% Six Major Sectors account for 82% of the sales tax revenue 2021 to 2022 -Sale Tax Actuals 2021 2022 Top 6 Sectors (~82% of 1% revenue)sales_credit Diff FY Y/Y % Ch % of Total sales_credit Diff FY Y/Y % Ch % of Total Retail Trade 31,453,702 3,935,050 14%42.6%34,977,500 3,523,798 11%40.4% Wholesale Trade 10,529,669 1,738,375 20%14.3%11,320,982 791,313 8%13.1% Accommodation and Food Services 6,729,925 (928,218)-12%9.1%10,039,859 3,309,934 49%11.6% Manufacturing 5,204,034 886,734 21%7.1%6,256,064 1,052,030 20%7.2% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 3,527,122 351,546 11%4.8%4,321,313 794,191 23%5.0% Information 3,327,363 407,356 14%4.5%4,117,892 790,529 24%4.8% Total 60,771,816 6,390,843 11.8%82.4%71,033,609 10,261,794 16.9%82.1% Retail Trade Dominates the Sectors with over 40% of the Sales Tax generated Business Growth is a Big Driver 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Other Revenue Information Real Estate and Rental and Leasing Manufacturing Accommodation and Food Services Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Growth Distinct Count of Business Accounts Since 2019 SLC has experienced a large uptick is Business Counts Reference Forecast Amount Prior Year FY2022 Actuals $ 86,532,634 Budget FY2023 --$ 83,500,000 Lo 95% Confidence $ 80,749,110 Lo 80% Confidence $ 85,691,218 Average Forecast $ 95,027,084 Hi 80% Confidence $ 104,362,950 Hi 95% Confidence $ 109,305,059 * Models are trained and tested strictly on historical values. The Actuals can change based on other economic impacts (past, present, or future) that are not calculated in the model. * While historical values shown are not adjusted for inflation. The historical values prior to running the models are adjusted for inflation using the National CPI Index (June 2022). Where could Sales Tax Revenue be by end of FY 2023? $0 $20,000,000 $40,000,000 $60,000,000 $80,000,000 $100,000,000 $120,000,000 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Modeled Forecast (ETS) Hi 95% Confidence Hi 80% Confidence Mean Forecast Lo 80% Confidence Lo 95% Confidence Actuals Budget 4.7% 8.3% -2% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Average Calendar Year Inflation Averaged 1.7% Inflation, Inflation, Inflation YTD Appendix Monthly Breakdown Legend diff fy-fy Total difference from prior year % Change Percent change from prior year (growth) Appendix A Appendix B DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238 PO BOX145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394 ERINMENDENHALL Mayor MARY BETHTHOMPSON Chief Financial Officer CITYCOUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ___________________________________Date Received: _______________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: __________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO:Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 29, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM:Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT:Budget Amendment #3 SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT:John Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that, subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY2022-23 adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: REVENUE EXPENSE GENERAL FUND $ 6,000,000.00 $ 6,538,000.00 WATER FUND 36,680,000.00 36,680,000.00 DONATION FUND 44,668.00 44,668.00 REFUSE FUND 0.00 3,035,700.00 MISCELLANEOUS GRANT FUND 2,417,995.00 2,417,995.00 CIP FUND GOVERNMENT IMMUNITY 5,267,216.94 500,000.00 11,267,216.94 500,000.000 TOTAL $ 50,909,879.94 $ 60,483,579.94 8/29/2022 8/29/2022 rachel otto (Aug 29, 2022 16:05 MDT) BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Revenue for FY 2022-23 Budget Adjustments The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2023. Because of the timing of this budget amendment no updates for fiscal year 2023 projections are available. The City has begun closing out fiscal year 2022 and will provide updates to Council as the audit progresses. In c l u d i n g p r o p o s e d c h a n g e s f o r B A # 3 f u n d b a l a n c e w o u l d b e p r o j e c t e d a s f o l l o w s f o r F Y 2 0 2 3 : Ad j u s t e d f u n d b a l a n c e i s p r o j e c t e d t o b e a t 1 6 . 7 3 % . The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $50,909,879.94 of revenue and expense of $60,483,579.94. The amendment proposes changes in seven funds, with two FTEs. The amendment also includes the use of $538,000.00 from the General Fund fund balance. The proposal includes twenty-four initiatives for Council review. A summary spreadsheet document, outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. The budget opening is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I. Council Added Items PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing In i t i a t i v e N u m b e r / N a m e F u n d R e v e n u e A m o u n t E x p e n d i t u r e Am o u n t R e v e n u e A m o u n t E x p e n d i t u r e Am o u n t On g o i n g o r O n e - ti m e FT E s 1 Ca p i t a l E q u i p m e n t P u r c h a s e - R e f u s e Pa c k e r s Re f u s e - 3 , 0 3 5 , 7 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 2 De e p l y A f f o r d a b l e H o u s i n g t o A d d r e s s Im m e d i a t e a n d L o n g - t e r m H o m e l e s s N e e d s CI P - 6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 2 De e p l y A f f o r d a b l e H o u s i n g t o A d d r e s s Im m e d i a t e a n d L o n g - t e r m H o m e l e s s N e e d s GF 6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 3 W i t h d r a w n P r i o r t o T r a n s m i t t a l 4 W i t h d r a w n P r i o r t o T r a n s m i t t a l 5 W i t h d r a w n P r i o r t o T r a n s m i t t a l 6 Go v e r n m e n t a l I m m u n i t y F u n d i n g t o C o v e r Co s t s f o r F i s c a l Y e a r GF - 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e 6 Go v e r n m e n t a l I m m u n i t y F u n d i n g t o C o v e r Co s t s f o r F i s c a l Y e a r Go v t I m m u n 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 7 Ut a h L e a g u e o f C i t i e s a n d T o w n s Me m b e r s h i p C o s t I n c r e a s e GF - 3 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n g o i n g - 1 Re c o g n i z i n g R e v e n u e i n t h e D o n a t i o n s Fu n d Do n a t i o n 4 4 , 6 6 8 . 0 0 4 4 , 6 6 8 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 2 FT E T r a n s f e r - C o n s u m e r P r o t e c t i o n An a l y s t GF - ( 1 0 8 , 8 4 1 . 0 0 ) O n g o i n g ( 1 . 0 0 ) 2 FT E T r a n s f e r - C o n s u m e r P r o t e c t i o n An a l y s t GF - 1 0 8 , 8 4 1 . 0 0 O n g o i n g 1 . 0 0 3 U D O T C l a s s C R e i m b u r s e m e n t C I P 1 , 6 1 7 , 2 1 6 . 9 4 1 , 6 1 7 , 2 1 6 . 9 4 O n e - t i m e - 4 Do m i n i o n E n e r g y 2 0 0 S o u t h Re i m b u r s e m e n t CI P 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - Se c t i o n E : G r a n t s R e q u i r i n g N o N e w S t a f f R e s o u r c e s 1 Bu i l d i n g R e s i l i e n t I n f r a s t r u c t u r e a n d Co m m u n i t i e s ( B R I C ) P r o g r a m Wa t e r 3 6 , 6 8 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 3 6 , 6 8 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 2 3 0 0 W e s t P r o t e c t e d B i k e L a n e s C I P 2 , 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 , 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 3 P a r l e y s T r a i l G a p i n S u g a r H o u s e C I P 9 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 9 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - - Co n s e n t A g e n d a # 1 1 US D e p a r t m e n t o f J u s t i c e , 2 0 1 9 B u r e a u o f Ju s t i c e A s s i s t a n c e G r a n t ( J A G ) Mi s c G r a n t s 3 , 7 0 0 . 0 0 3 , 7 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 2 U. S . D e p a r t m e n t o f A g r i c u l t u r e ad m i n i s t e r e d b y U t a h S t a t e O f f i c e o f Ed u c a t i o n S u m m e r F o o d S e r v i c e P r o g r a m 20 2 2 - Y o u t h S u m m e r S n a c k P r o g r a m s Mi s c G r a n t s 1 1 , 0 4 2 . 0 0 1 1 , 0 4 2 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 3 Sc h o o l - A g e P r o g r a m S u m m e r E x p a n s i o n Gr a n t 2 0 2 2 - 2 0 2 3 , St a t e o f U t a h , D e p a r t m e n t o f W o r k f o r c e Se r v i c e s Mi s c G r a n t s 3 9 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 3 9 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - FY 2 0 2 3 B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 3 Co u n c i l A p p r o v e d Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n P r o p o s e d Se c t i o n A : N e w I t e m s Se c t i o n D : H o u s e k e e pin g Se c t i o n F : D o n a t i o n s Se c t i o n G : C o u n c i l C o n s e n t A g e n d a - - G r a n t A w a r d s Se c t i o n C : G r a n t s f o r N e w S t a f f R e s o u r c e s Se c t i o n B : G r a n t s f o r E x i s t i n g S t a f f R e s o u r c e s 1 FY 2 0 2 3 B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 3 4 Fa i r m o n t P a r k , S c h o o l - A g e P r o g r a m G r a n t 20 2 2 - 2 0 2 3 , St a t e o f U t a h , D e p a r t m e n t o f W o r k f o r c e Se r v i c e s Mi s c G r a n t s 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 5 Li b e r t y P a r k , S c h o o l - A g e P r o g r a m G r a n t 20 2 2 - 2 0 2 3 , St a t e o f U t a h , D e p a r t m e n t o f W o r k f o r c e Se r v i Mi s c G r a n t s 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 6 Ce n t r a l C i t y , S c h o o l - A g e P r o g r a m G r a n t 20 2 2 - 2 0 2 3 , St a t e o f U t a h , D e p a r t m e n t o f W o r k f o r c e Se r v i c e s Mi s c G r a n t s 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 7 Ot t i n g e r H a l l , S c h o o l - A g e P r o g r a m G r a n t 20 2 2 - 2 0 2 3 , St a t e o f U t a h , D e p a r t m e n t o f W o r k f o r c e Se r v i c e s Mi s c G r a n t s 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 8 So r e n s o n M u l t i - C u l t u r a l C e n t e r , S c h o o l - Ag e P r o g r a m G r a n t 2 0 2 2 - 2 0 2 3 , S t a t e o f Ut a h , D e p a r t m e n t o f W o r k f o r c e S e r v i c e s Mi s c G r a n t s 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 9 Un i t y C e n t e r , S c h o o l - A g e P r o g r a m G r a n t 20 2 2 - 2 0 2 3 , St a t e o f U t a h , D e p a r t m e n t o f W o r k f o r c e Se r v i c e s Mi s c G r a n t s 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 6 2 , 2 2 3 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - Co n s e n t A g e n d a # 2 1 E x e c u t i v e O f f i c e o f t h e P r e s i d e n t , O f f i c e o f Na t i o n a l D r u g C o n t r o l - 2 0 2 3 R o c k y Mo u n t a i n H i g h I n t e n s i t y D r u g T r a f f i c k i n g Ar e a ( H I D T A ) G r a n t Mi s c G r a n t s 5 8 7 , 9 1 5 . 0 0 5 8 7 , 9 1 5 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 2 T e e n A f t e r s c h o o l P r e v e n t i o n ( T A P ) G r a n t , St a t e o f U t a h , D e p a r t m e n t o f W o r k f o r c e Se r v i c e s Mi s c G r a n t s 1 , 0 0 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 , 0 0 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e 2 . 0 0 3 U t a h S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c S a f e t y - 20 2 2 E m e r g e n c y M a n a g e m e n t Pe r f o r m a n c e G r a n t ( E P M G ) Mi s c G r a n t s 3 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 3 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - 4 U t a h C o m m i s s i o n o n C r i m i n a l a n d J u v e n i l e Ju s t i c e ( C C J J ) , S t a t e A s s e t F o r f e i t u r e G r a n t (S A F G ) Mi s c G r a n t s 6 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 6 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 O n e - t i m e - To t a l o f B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t I t e m s 5 0 , 9 0 9 , 8 7 9 . 9 4 6 0 , 4 8 3 , 5 7 9 . 9 4 - - 2 . 0 0 In i t i a t i v e N u m b e r / N a m e F u n d R e v e n u e A m o u n t E x p e n d i t u r e Am o u n t R e v e n u e A m o u n t E x p e n d i t u r e Am o u n t On g o i n g o r O n e - ti m e FT E s To t a l b y F u n d C l a s s , B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 3 : Ge n e r a l F u n d GF 6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 6 , 5 3 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 - - - CI P F u n d CI P 5 , 2 6 7 , 2 1 6 . 9 4 1 1 , 2 6 7 , 2 1 6 . 9 4 - - - Do n a t i o n F u n d Do n a t i o n 4 4 , 6 6 8 . 0 0 4 4 , 6 6 8 . 0 0 - Wa t e r F u n d Wa t e r 3 6 , 6 8 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 3 6 , 6 8 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 - - - Re f u s e F u n d Re f u s e - 3 , 0 3 5 , 7 0 0 . 0 0 - - - Go v e r n m e n t a l I m m u n i t y Go v t I m m u n 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 - - - Mi s c e l l a n e o u s G r a n t F u n d Mi s c G r a n t s 2 , 4 1 7 , 9 9 5 . 0 0 2 , 4 1 7 , 9 9 5 . 0 0 - - 2 . 0 0 - - - Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n P r o p o s e d C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d Se c t i o n I : C o u n c i l A d d e d I t e m s 2 FY 2 0 2 3 B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 3 To t a l o f B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t I t e m s 5 0 , 9 0 9 , 8 7 9 . 9 4 6 0 , 4 8 3 , 5 7 9 . 9 4 - - 2 . 0 0 3 FY 2 0 2 3 B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 3 Cu r r e n t Y e a r B u d g e t S u m m a r y , p r o v i d e d f o r i n f o r m a t i o n o n l y FY 2 0 2 2 - 2 3 B u d g e t , I n c l u d i n g B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t s FY 2 0 2 2 - 2 3 Ad o p t e d B u d g e t BA # 1 T o t a l B A # 2 T o t a l B A # 3 T o t a l B A # 4 T o t a l B A # 5 T o t a l T o t a l R e v e n u e Ge n e r a l F u n d ( F C 1 0 ) 42 5 , 5 3 7 , 4 0 8 6 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 43 1 , 5 3 7 , 4 0 8 Cu r b a n d G u t t e r ( F C 2 0 ) 3, 0 0 0 3, 0 0 0 DE A T a s k F o r c e F u n d ( F C 4 1 ) 1, 7 6 2 , 5 6 0 1, 7 6 2 , 5 6 0 Mi s c S p e c i a l S e r v i c e D i s t r i c t s ( F C 4 6 ) 1, 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 1, 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 St r e e t L i g h t i n g E n t e r p r i s e ( F C 4 8 ) 4, 3 0 2 , 2 2 2 4, 3 0 2 , 2 2 2 Wa t e r F u n d ( F C 5 1 ) 10 8 , 1 9 6 , 3 6 8 3 6 , 6 8 0 , 0 0 0 14 4 , 8 7 6 , 3 6 8 Se w e r F u n d ( F C 5 2 ) 19 6 , 6 3 0 , 9 0 7 19 6 , 6 3 0 , 9 0 7 St o r m W a t e r F u n d ( F C 5 3 ) 13 , 4 7 6 , 7 3 3 13 , 4 7 6 , 7 3 3 Ai r p o r t F u n d ( F C 5 4 , 5 5 , 5 6 ) 30 2 , 2 6 8 , 6 0 0 30 2 , 2 6 8 , 6 0 0 Re f u s e F u n d ( F C 5 7 ) 21 , 4 5 8 , 1 0 5 21 , 4 5 8 , 1 0 5 Go l f F u n d ( F C 5 9 ) 11 , 5 6 0 , 6 7 6 11 , 5 6 0 , 6 7 6 E- 9 1 1 F u n d ( F C 6 0 ) 3, 9 2 5 , 0 0 0 3, 9 2 5 , 0 0 0 Fl e e t F u n d ( F C 6 1 ) 28 , 8 2 6 , 9 9 2 1 2 0 , 0 0 0 28 , 9 4 6 , 9 9 2 IM S F u n d ( F C 6 5 ) 30 , 5 2 3 , 1 6 7 30 , 5 2 3 , 1 6 7 Co u n t y Q u a r t e r C e n t S a l e s T a x f o r Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n ( F C 6 9 ) 9, 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 9, 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 CD B G O p e r a t i n g F u n d ( F C 7 1 ) 4, 6 7 0 , 5 1 7 4, 6 7 0 , 5 1 7 Mi s c e l l a n e o u s G r a n t s ( F C 7 2 ) 34 , 1 5 8 , 9 1 8 2 , 4 1 7 , 9 9 5 36 , 5 7 6 , 9 1 3 Ot h e r S p e c i a l R e v e n u e ( F C 7 3 ) 30 0 , 0 0 0 30 0 , 0 0 0 Do n a t i o n F u n d ( F C 7 7 ) 2, 9 2 0 , 2 5 0 2 0 , 0 0 0 4 4 , 6 6 8 2, 9 8 4 , 9 1 8 Ho u s i n g L o a n s & T r u s t ( F C 7 8 ) 16 , 2 1 7 , 0 0 0 16 , 2 1 7 , 0 0 0 De b t S e r v i c e F u n d ( F C 8 1 ) 32 , 0 3 7 , 9 8 9 32 , 0 3 7 , 9 8 9 CI P F u n d ( F C 8 3 , 8 4 & 8 6 ) 35 , 4 6 0 , 3 8 7 5 , 5 3 0 , 9 1 6 5 , 2 6 7 , 2 1 7 46 , 2 5 8 , 5 2 0 Go v e r n m e n t a l I m m u n i t y ( F C 8 5 ) 3, 9 6 4 , 5 2 3 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 4, 4 6 4 , 5 2 3 Ri s k F u n d ( F C 8 7 ) 54 , 6 7 9 , 0 0 0 54 , 6 7 9 , 0 0 0 T o t a l o f B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t I t e m s 1 , 3 4 4 , 1 8 0 , 3 2 2 5 , 6 7 0 , 9 1 6 - 5 0 , 9 0 9 , 8 8 0 - - 1 , 4 0 0 , 7 6 1 , 1 1 8 4 FY 2 0 2 3 B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t # 3 Cu r r e n t Y e a r B u d g e t S u m m a r y , p r o v i d e d f o r i n f o r m a t i o n o n l y FY 2 0 2 2 - 2 3 B u d g e t , I n c l u d i n g B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t s T o t a l E x p e n s e B A # 1 T o t a l B A # 2 T o t a l B A # 3 T o t a l B A # 4 T o t a l B A # 5 T o t a l T o t a l E x p e n s e Ge n e r a l F u n d ( F C 1 0 ) 42 5 , 5 3 7 , 4 0 8 3 2 5 , 0 0 0 6 , 5 3 8 , 0 0 0 43 2 , 4 0 0 , 4 0 8 Cu r b a n d G u t t e r ( F C 2 0 ) 3, 0 0 0 3, 0 0 0 DE A T a s k F o r c e F u n d ( F C 4 1 ) 1, 7 6 2 , 5 6 0 1, 7 6 2 , 5 6 0 Mi s c S p e c i a l S e r v i c e D i s t r i c t s ( F C 4 6 ) 1, 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 1, 7 0 0 , 0 0 0 St r e e t L i g h t i n g E n t e r p r i s e ( F C 4 8 ) 5, 7 5 7 , 8 2 5 5, 7 5 7 , 8 2 5 Wa t e r F u n d ( F C 5 1 ) 13 2 , 7 5 2 , 8 1 5 3 6 , 6 8 0 , 0 0 0 16 9 , 4 3 2 , 8 1 5 Se w e r F u n d ( F C 5 2 ) 25 5 , 9 1 4 , 5 8 0 25 5 , 9 1 4 , 5 8 0 St o r m W a t e r F u n d ( F C 5 3 ) 18 , 6 9 9 , 7 2 2 18 , 6 9 9 , 7 2 2 Ai r p o r t F u n d ( F C 5 4 , 5 5 , 5 6 ) 38 4 , 6 8 1 , 6 7 1 6 8 8 , 8 1 8 , 0 0 0 1, 0 7 3 , 4 9 9 , 6 7 1 Re f u s e F u n d ( F C 5 7 ) 24 , 9 5 2 , 6 7 2 3 , 0 3 5 , 7 0 0 27 , 9 8 8 , 3 7 2 Go l f F u n d ( F C 5 9 ) 14 , 7 2 6 , 0 1 6 14 , 7 2 6 , 0 1 6 E- 9 1 1 F u n d ( F C 6 0 ) 3, 8 0 0 , 3 8 5 3, 8 0 0 , 3 8 5 Fl e e t F u n d ( F C 6 1 ) 30 , 4 2 6 , 0 3 2 4 , 0 1 1 , 3 6 0 34 , 4 3 7 , 3 9 2 IM S F u n d ( F C 6 5 ) 30 , 5 2 3 , 1 6 7 30 , 5 2 3 , 1 6 7 Co u n t y Q u a r t e r C e n t S a l e s T a x f o r Tr a n s p o r t a t i o n ( F C 6 9 ) 9, 4 5 8 , 7 4 8 9, 4 5 8 , 7 4 8 CD B G O p e r a t i n g F u n d ( F C 7 1 ) 4, 9 5 8 , 4 3 3 4, 9 5 8 , 4 3 3 Mi s c e l l a n e o u s G r a n t s ( F C 7 2 ) 26 , 6 1 4 , 1 5 3 2 , 4 1 7 , 9 9 5 29 , 0 3 2 , 1 4 8 Ot h e r S p e c i a l R e v e n u e ( F C 7 3 ) 30 0 , 0 0 0 30 0 , 0 0 0 Do n a t i o n F u n d ( F C 7 7 ) 28 7 , 2 5 0 2 0 , 0 0 0 4 4 , 6 6 8 35 1 , 9 1 8 Ho u s i n g L o a n s & T r u s t ( F C 7 8 ) 25 , 7 7 9 , 2 5 3 25 , 7 7 9 , 2 5 3 De b t S e r v i c e F u n d ( F C 8 1 ) 33 , 6 5 8 , 5 5 8 33 , 6 5 8 , 5 5 8 CI P F u n d ( F C 8 3 , 8 4 & 8 6 ) 35 , 4 6 0 , 3 8 7 9 , 8 4 2 , 2 5 1 1 1 , 2 6 7 , 2 1 7 56 , 5 6 9 , 8 5 5 Go v e r n m e n t a l I m m u n i t y ( F C 8 5 ) 3, 1 6 9 , 7 6 7 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 3, 6 6 9 , 7 6 7 Ri s k F u n d ( F C 8 7 ) 54 , 6 7 9 , 0 0 0 54 , 6 7 9 , 0 0 0 - T o t a l o f B u d g e t A m e n d m e n t I t e m s 1 , 5 2 5 , 6 0 3 , 4 0 2 1 4 , 1 9 8 , 6 1 1 6 8 8 , 8 1 8 , 0 0 0 6 0 , 4 8 3 , 5 8 0 - - 2 , 2 8 9 , 1 0 3 , 5 9 3 Bu d g e t M a n a g e r An a l y s t , C i t y C o u n c i l Co n t i n g e n t A p p r o p r i a t i o n 5 Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 1 Section A: New Items A-1: Capital Equipment Purchase Refuse Packers Refuse $3,035,700.00 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Angie Nielsen For Questions Please Include: Angie Nielsen, Debbie Lyons, Chris Bell, Sophia Nicholas, Mary Beth Thompson The Department of Sustainability is requesting FY 2023 capital equipment budget of $3,035,700 to initiate the ordering of 13 packer units. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, equipment manufacturers are experiencing delays and equipment order backlogs. Based on information received from packer equipment manufacturers the timeline for ordering and receiving equipment has increased to over 12 months. Additionally, production curtailments at these manufacturers have translated to us not being able to have our FY 2022 purchase order completely filled. The department is only getting 3 of the 9 packers ordered so need to add remaining 6 to our FY 2023 order of 7 for a total of 13. Based on all these factors, the department is requesting a FY 2023 increase to order 13 packers. A-2: Deeply Affordable Housing to Address Immediate and Long-term Homeless Needs CIP $6,000,000.00 GF $6,000,000.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Rachel Otto For Questions Please Include: Rachel Otto, Mary Beth Thompson, Blake Thomas , Tony Milner The Administration proposes to portion City funds for deeply affordable housing into two phases. Phase I The first phase would provide funding for permanent supportive housing and/or transitional shelter housing projects that will: Serve people currently experiencing homelessness in Salt Lake City; Offer at least 100 housing units Have a majority of units ready for occupancy on or before April 15, 2023 Have a majority of its funding from non-SLC sources. The Administration recommends the Council support the creation of an Homelessness Housing Grant Fund with the conditions identified above. The administration further recommends the Council allocate a total of $6 million to this Grant Fund from funds that were placed in the CIP last fiscal year budget with the intention of using them for housing. Community and Neighborhoods will expedite creation of a grant application for non-profit developers to apply for a portion of those funds, not to exceed $2.5 million per applicant. As this is intended to focus on creation of units within the next 9 months to align with the end of the winter overflow shelter season, it is expected that applicants will include those renovating existing motels for transitional or permanent supportive housing projects. We also anticipate they will have already begun work and need funds to continue and/or finish construction. Phase II The Administration appreciates the $20.1 million that the City Council & RDA Board approved for affordable housing in . As that funding comprises RDA and Federal HOME grant funds which are restricted and require extended processes, the Administration believes they will be more appropriate for some other projects in the pipeline that are farther out in the development process. A number of housing projects are applying for federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits and might need 12-24 months to complete planning and construction. g programs with those funds this fall. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 2 Conclusion This request is submitted for the consideration of the City Council within this budget amendment due to the following recent developments: Several private developers have been in communication with the city about projects that were not ready as of the adoption of the city budget in June of 2022, but are ready to start developing now; Implementation of this grant program will incentivize creation of additional PSH units prior to the end of the winter emergency shelter season in April 2023; during the year. The Administration believes that the opportunity to create housing options for those experiencing unsheltered homelessness within Salt Lake City meets the high standard of use for these funds; The Administration sees the same urgency that the City Council has expressed regarding the impacts of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness. Many of our City staff are out in the City every day, doing their best to address issues related to homelessness. Our community liaisons, the HEART team, the Rapid Intervention Team, Park Rangers, police officers, fire fighters and dozens of others work on the complex issue of homelessness, day in and day out. We are all frustrated by the number of levers that the City simply does not have control over including funding for our state and county to address mental health and substance abuse, the legal or practical path to put criminal offenders in jail, and space in emergency shelters. But housing people is one clear, compassionate answer, and one way we can help people get off the street and on the path to success in our City. See full memo at the end of this document A-3: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal A-4: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal A-5: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal A-6: Governmental Immunity Funding to Cover Anticipated Costs for Fiscal Year GF $500,000.00 Govt Immunity $500,000.00 Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson For Questions, Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, Katie Lewis This funding is being requested to bolster the Governmental Immunity Fund balance. Due the size of claims having already been paid this fiscal year; the Governmental Immunity Fund balance is significantly lower than it should be this early in the year. The added funding will help ensure there are sufficient funds to cover anticipated claims. A-7: Utah League of Cities and Towns Membership Cost Increase GF $38,000.00 Department: Non-Departmental Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson For Questions, Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, John Vuyk Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 3 was higher than anticipated this year. This funding will cover the increased cost. Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Recognizing Revenue in Donations Fund Donation $44,668.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich, Chief Brown For Questions, Please Include: Shellie Dietrich, Chief Brown The Police Department is requesting a housekeeping amendment in the 77 fund to recognize budget from existing resources. D-2: FTE Transfer Consumer Protection Analyst GF -$108,841.00 GF $108,841.00 Department: CAN-Housing Stability Prepared By: Tony Milner For Questions, Please Include: Tony Milner, Brent Beck, Blake Thomas Consumer Protection Analyst FTE to be transferred from the Mayor's Office to Housing Stability. This position is cur rently listed in the Mayor's Office as Community Liaison, grade 26. The position will focus on consumer protection as well as eviction prevention. D-3: UDOT Class C Reimbursement CIP $1,617,216.66 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente For Questions, Please Include: Dawn Valente, Dustin Petersen, Jorge Chamoro, Mary Beth Thompson UDOT has reimbursed the City Class C funds that were paid toward the 1300 East project between 1300 South and 2100 South in the amount of $1,617,216.94. This budget amendment is to receive those funds and place them back into the Class C fund for eligible class c projects. Project final billing is attached as the last worksheet. D-4: Dominion Energy 200 South Reimbursement CIP $600,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente For Questions, Please Include: Dawn Valente, Dustin Petersen, Jorge Chamoro, Mary Beth Thompson Dominion Energy is replacing pipeline on 200 South in the area that the City is doing reconstruction between 400 West and 900 East. A Release Agreement was recorded between the 2 parties on June 13, 2022 in which Dominion Energy is providing the City with $600,000 to pay for the asphalt restoration. This budget amendment is requesting both the revenue and the expenditure budgets for this agreement. Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources E-1: Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program Water $36,680,000.00 Department: Public Utilities Prepared By: Ann Garcia, Lisa Tarufelli For Question, Please Include: Ann Garcia, Lisa Tarufelli, Mary Beth Thompson, Laura Briefer, Mark Christensen Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 4 This budget amendment is to recognize the City's Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Program Grant for FY23 in the amount of $36,680,000 for the purpose of retrofitting the City Creek Water Treatment Plant in Salt Lake City. The Justice40 Initiative was established by President Biden in Executive Order 14008 on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad and last year, formal guidance, M-21-28, Interim Implementation Guidance for the Justice40 Initiative was issued. Justice40 covered programs are Federal programs that make covered investments in seven categories. The City submitted a sub application and under the BRIC Program that fell under the FEMA Department of Homeland Security infrastructure category. The funding will go towards mitigating seismic and flooding hazards at the City Creek Water Treatment Plan. The Grant has a performance period of 36 months from FY23 through FY25. The project match of $15,808,325 is budgeted over the next three years (FY23 through FY25). The match sources will be a combination of the annual budget and financial forecasting. We need to put a hold on this funding until an award agreement is received. We have received an email announcing the award. E-2: 300 West Protected Bike Lanes CIP $2,100,000.00 Department: CAN-Transportation Prepared By: Ann Garcia, Jeff Gulden For Questions, Please Include: Ann Garcia, Jeff Gulden, Jon Larsen, Blake Thomas This project will design and construct protected bike lanes on 300 West from 900 South to 300 South. Salt Lake City is currently reconstructing 300 West (900 South to 2100 South) and adding a bicycle path separated from vehicle traffic through nearly all of the project area. This project will continue the protected bike lanes into downtown. Funds will be used for design and construction. Match will be proposed from the SLC Streets Bond through the annual budget and from Transportation Division staff time and consultant resources for outreach, planning, design, and construction management. Current project is posted to the 300 West Reconstruction project. Could we please setup a new cost center to reflect this description/appropriation language. We need to put a hold on this funding until an award agreement is received. We have received an email announcing the award. E-3: Parleys Trail Gap in Sugar House CIP $950,000.00 Department: CAN-Transportation Prepared By: Ann Garcia, Jeff Gulden For Questions, Please Contact: Ann Garcia, Jeff Gulden, Jon Larsen, Blake Thomas Trail along Highland Drive. This project will help complete a regional trail network. The project will include a high-quality two-way bicycle facility in the public right of way on the west side of Highland Drive and it will also include a 200 feet multi-use trail facility along Sugarmont Drive just west of Highland Drive. Current project is posted to the 1100 East/Highland Dr Reconstruction project. We need to put a hold on this funding until an award agreement is received. We have received notice of the award. Section F: Donations Section G: Consent Agenda Consent Agenda #1 Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 5 G-1: US Department of Justice, 2019 Bureau of Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Misc. Grants $3,700.00 Department: Police Department Prepared By: Jordan Smith/Ann Garcia ****This item is to budget for the interest that has accumulated in this grant cost center since the original grant award. This grant ends 9/30/22 and the interest needs to be budgeted for so that it can be included in the closeout of this award.**** The Police department receives this grant annually and will use the award of $326,545 to conduct community policing and system implementation overtime projects, fund training for sworn and civilian personnel and the Peer Support program. Additionally, the department will purchase supplies, a service dog and veterinary services for the K9 program, and protective police helmets. No match is required. G-2: U.S. Department of Agriculture administered by Utah State Office of Education Summer Food Service Program 2022 - Youth Summer Snack Programs Misc. Grants $11,042.00 Department: Public Services (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Kim Thomas/Ann Garcia The Division of Youth & Family (YouthCity) applied for and received a grant in the amount of $11,042 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture administered by the Utah State Office of Education, for the Summer Food Service Program. These funds are available to provide a daily nutritious snack to youth participating in the YouthCity Summer Program 2022 at Central City Recreation Center, Fairmont Park, Liberty Park, Ottinger Hall, and Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center/Unity Center Campus. SLC is reimbursed on a monthly basis and only qualified nutritious snacks and meals served to children participating in the summer enrichment/education activities during the summer program hours are eligible for reimbursement. A Public hearing was held on this grant application on May 17, 2022. G-3: School-Age Program Summer Expansion Grant 2022-2023, State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services Misc. Grants $390,000.00 Department: Public Services (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Kim Thomas/Ann Garcia The Public Services Division of Youth and Family Services applied for and received a grant award of $390,000 for the 2022 summer expansion program, from Utah State Department of Work Force Services through the Utah Office of Child Care for the School Age Program Summer Expansion Grant. The Division of Youth and Family Services received $390,000 to provide YouthCity 2022 summer programming for youth five to twelve years old at Fairmont Park, Liberty Park, Central City, Ottinger Hall, Sorenson Unity Center, and Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center. $325,430 for Salaries and Fringe for existing staff, $44,260 for Materials and Supplies, and $20,310 for Professional Fees and Contract Services. No match is required by the funding agency. The Division is providing a voluntary cash match of the Division's General Fund 2022-2023 budget for salaries and fringe benefits for 100% full time equivalent (FTE) of seven site staff and one Associate Director for program delivery, 50% FTE of the Division Director for administrative oversight, and 50% FTE of one Office Facilitator for general support. A public hearing was held for the grant application on May 17, 2022. G-4: Fairmont Park, School-Age Program Grant 2022-2023, Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 6 State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services Misc. Grants $62,223.00 Department: Public Services (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Kim Thomas/Ann Garcia The Public Services Division of Youth and Family Services applied for and received a grant award of $62,223 for Fairmont Park for 2022-2023 summer programs, from Utah State Department of Work Force Services through the Utah Office of Child Care for the School Age Program Grant. The School-Age Program Grant monies will fund wages and benefits for eight (8) hourly positions to serve from 7:45 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Monday thru Friday over the 2022-2023 Summer programs: A portion of grant funding is directed to wages and fringe benefits for seven (7) Group one full-time Group Facilitator positions and one (1) Licensed Teacher position. $46,343.30 for Salaries and Fringe for existing staff, $9,980.00 for Materials and Supplies, and $5,899.70 for Other: Educational Field Trips. No match is required by the funding agency. A public hearing was held on May 17, 2022. G-5: Liberty Park, School-Age Program Grant 2022-2023, State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services Misc. Grants $62,223.00 Department: Public Services (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Kim Thomas/Ann Garcia The Public Services Division of Youth and Family Services applied for and received a grant award of $62,223 for Liberty Park for 2022-2023 summer programs, from Utah State Department of Work Force Services through the Utah Office of Child Care for the School Age Program Grant. The School-Age Program Grant monies will fund wages and benefits for eight (8) positions to serve from 7:45 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Monday thru Friday the YouthCity 2022-2023 summer programs at Central City: A portion of grant funding is directed to wages and fringe benefits for seven (7) Group Facilitator positions and one (1) Licensed Teacher Position. $46,343.30 for Salaries and Fringe for existing staff, $9,980.00 for Materials and Supplies, and $5,899.70 for Other: Educational Field Trips No match is required by the funding agency. A public hearing was held for the grant application on May 17, 2022. G-6:Central City, School-Age Program Grant 2022-2023, State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services Misc. Grants $62,223.00 Department: Public Services (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Kim Thomas/Ann Garcia The Public Services Division of Youth and Family Services applied for and received a grant award of $62,223 for Central City for 2022-2023 summer programs, from Utah State Department of Work Force Services through the Utah Office of Child Care for the School Age Program Grant. The School-Age Program Grant monies will fund wages and benefits for eight (8) positions to serve from 7:45 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Monday thru Friday the YouthCity 2022-2023 summer programs at Liberty Park: A portion of grant funding is directed to wages and fringe benefits for seven (7) Group Facilitator positions and one (1) Licensed Teacher Position. $46,343.30 for Salaries and Fringe for existing staff, $9,980.00 for Materials and Supplies, and $5,899.70 for Other: Educational Field Trips. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 7 No match is required by the funding agency. A public hearing was held for the grant application on May 17, 2022. G-7: Ottinger Hall, School-Age Program Grant 2022-2023, State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services Misc. Grants $62,223.00 Department: Public Services (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Kim Thomas/Ann Garcia The Public Services Division of Youth and Family Services applied for and received a grant award of $62,223 for Ottinger Hall for 2022-2023 summer programs, from Utah State Department of Work Force Services through the Utah Office of Child Care for the School Age Program Grant. The School-Age Program Grant monies will fund wages and benefits for eight (8) positions to serve from 7:45 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Monday thru Friday the YouthCity 2022-2023 summer programs at Ottinger Hall: A portion of grant funding is directed to wages and fringe benefits for seven (7) Group Facilitator positions and one (1) Licensed Teacher Position. $46,343.30 for Salaries and Fringe for existing staff, $9,980.00 for Materials and Supplies, and $5,899.70 for Other: Educational Field Trips. No match is required by the funding agency. A public hearing was held for the grant application on May 17, 2022. G-8: Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center, School-Age Program Grant 2022- 2023, State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services Misc. Grants $62,223.00 Department: Public Services (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Kim Thomas/Ann Garcia The Public Services Division of Youth and Family Services applied for and received a grant award of $62,223 for Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center for 2022-2023 summer programs, from Utah State Department of Work Force Services through the Utah Office of Child Care for the School Age Program Grant. The School-Age Program Grant monies will fund wages and benefits for eight (8) positions to serve from 7:45 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Monday thru Friday the YouthCity 2022-2023 summer programs at Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center: A portion of grant funding is directed to wages and fringe benefits for seven (7) Group Facilitator positions and one (1) Licensed Teacher Position. $46,343.30 for Salaries and Fringe for existing staff, $9,980.00 for Materials and Supplies, and $5,899.70 for Other: Educational Field Trips. No match is required by the funding agency. A public hearing was held for the grant application on May 17, 2022. G-9: Unity Center, School-Age Program Grant 2022-2023, State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services Misc. Grants $62,223.00 Department: Public Services (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Kim Thomas/Ann Garcia Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 8 The Public Services Division of Youth and Family Services applied for and received a grant award of $62,223 for Unity Center for 2022-2023 summer programs, from Utah State Department of Work Force Services through the Utah Office of Child Care for the School Age Program Grant. The School-Age Program Grant monies will fund wages and benefits for eight (8) positions to serve from 7:45 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. Monday thru Friday the YouthCity 2022-2023 summer programs at Unity Center: A portion of grant funding is directed to wages and fringe benefits for seven (7) Group Facilitator positions and one (1) Licensed Teacher Position. $46,343.30 for Salaries and Fringe for existing staff, $9,980.00 for Materials and Supplies, and $5,899.70 for Other: Educational Field Trips No match is required by the funding agency. A public hearing was held for the grant application on May 17, 2022. Consent Agenda #2 G-1: Executive Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control - 2023 Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Grant Misc Grants $587,915.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Ann Garcia The Salt Lake City Police Department received a grant of $587,915 from the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program. Of this award $172,360 is approved for salaries and $58,799 is approved for fringe benefits for an administrative employee, K-9 officer, and a contracted finance manager. $140,000 for investigative overtime, $45,000 for investigative/operational and administrative travel, $15,656 for vehicle leases and services contracts, $11,700 for supplies, and $144,400 for other administrative costs and confidential informant funds. A public hearing was held on 5/17/22 for the grant application on this award. G-2: Teen Afterschool Prevention (TAP) Grant, State of Utah, Department of Workforce Services Misc Grants $1,008,000.00 Department: CAN (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Kim Thomas / Ann Garcia The Youth and Family Services Division applied for and received a grant award of $336,000 per year for a three-year period, from Utah State Department of Work Force Services through the Teen Afterschool Prevention Grant. These funds have been awarded to fund YouthCity Teen sites: Glendale, Central City, Library, Northwest and Sorenson Teen program operating expenses. The allocation of these funds will be over three years and will help fund two new full-time equivalent (FTE) Community Program Managers, and eight existing positions for Teen Specialists, in addition to General Operating expenses, and Professional Services expenses. No match is required by the funding agency. A public hearing was held on 06/14/2022 on the grant application. G-3: Utah State Department of Public Safety - 2022 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Misc Grants $38,000.00 Department: Emergency Management Prepared By: Audrey Pierce / Ann Garcia The Emergency Management Services Division received a $38,000 FY2022 EMPG grant from the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety. This grant is awarded on an annual basis to jurisdictions to help offset costs of planning and updating emergency preparedness plans, conduct emergency preparedness exercises and produce materials and other media for public educational outreach and training pertaining to emergency preparedness. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 9 These funds will offset costs in providing National Incident Management System (NIMS) training to SLC staff with emergency response responsibilities during a disaster or other significant event. The funds will be used to fund community preparedness activities, purchase training materials, supplies and equipment including books, brochures, handouts, etc. The grant requires a 50% match which will be satisfied with the Community Preparedness Coordinator's time and budgeted for within Emergency Managements general fund. A public hearing was held for this grant application on 6/14/22. G-4: Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), State Asset Forfeiture Grant (SAFG) Misc Grants $6,000.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Ann Garcia The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for and received a $6,000 grant award from the State of Utah, Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), under the State Asset Forfeiture Grant (SAFG) program. The SAFG program funds crime prevention and law enforcement activities within specific guidelines. CCJJ developed the SAFG program as a means of evaluating and distributing state forfeiture funds. The funds will be used for confidential informant funds to enhance investigations in narcotics-related cases. A public hearing was held on 07/19/22 for this grant application. Section I: Council Added Items Item A-2 Attachment Background The greatest issue facing the City right now is the growing number of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness. We are not alone in this struggle as many communities across the state and country are grappling with similar concerns. While Salt Lake City employs a number of interventions to address homelessness and its related impacts, the administration, along with our local partners and national experts agree that housing is the core of any solution to this issue. The closure of the winter overflow shelter this past April, coupled with economic impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic has led to increasing numbers of people with nowhere to go on our City streets, in City parks, and along the Jordan River. The need for housing solutions for people experiencing and on the verge of homelessness is urgent and the impacts are becoming extreme. The Administration shares the frustration of the City Council, residents, and businesses that the tools we have and employ are not enough, and we need all levels of government, including the county, state, and federal government, to do more to serve people experiencing mental health issues, disabilities, and suffering from substance use disorders, along with homelessness. While there is currently a process underway to locate another 400 beds of emergency shelter from October to April in Salt Lake County, without other permanent housing solutions, the City will continue to experience an increase in homelessness and its impacts. Proposal Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 10 The Administration proposes to portion City funds for deeply affordable housing into two phases. Phase I The first phase would provide funding for permanent supportive housing and/or transitional shelter housing projects that will: Serve people currently experiencing homelessness in Salt Lake City; Offer at least 100 housing units Have a majority of units ready for occupancy on or before April 15, 2023 Have a majority of its funding from non-SLC sources. The Administration recommends the Council support the creation of an Homelessness Housing Grant Fund with the conditions identified above. The administration further recommends the Council allocate a total of $6 million to this Grant Fund from funds that were placed in the CIP last fiscal year budget with the intention of using them for housing. Community and Neighborhoods will expedite creation of a grant application for non-profit developers to apply for a portion of those funds, not to exceed $2.5 million per applicant. As this is intended to focus on creation of units within the next 9 months to align with the end of the winter overflow shelter season, it is expected that applicants will include those renovating existing motels for transitional or permanent supportive housing projects. We also anticipate they will have already begun work and need funds to continue and/or finish construction. Phase II The Administration appreciates the $20.1 million that the City Council & RDA Board approved for affordable As that funding comprises RDA and Federal HOME grant funds which are restricted and require extended processes, the Administration believes they will be more appropriate for some other projects in the pipeline that are farther out in the development process. A number of housing projects are applying for federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits and might need 12-24 months to complete planning and construction. with those funds this fall. Conclusion This request is submitted for the consideration of the City Council within this budget amendment due to the following recent developments: Several private developers have been in communication with the city about projects that were not ready as of the adoption of the city budget in June of 2022, but are ready to start developing now; Implementation of this grant program will incentivize creation of additional PSH units prior to the end of the winter emergency shelter season in April 2023; The CIP funds were identified in discussion of needs during the year. The Administration believes that the opportunity to create Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #3 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 11 housing options for those experiencing unsheltered homelessness within Salt Lake City meets the high standard of use for these funds; The Administration sees the same urgency that the City Council has expressed regarding the impacts of people experiencing unsheltered homelessness. Many of our City staff are out in the City every day, doing their best to address issues related to homelessness. Our community liaisons, the HEART team, the Rapid Intervention Team, Park Rangers, police officers, fire fighters and dozens of others work on the complex issue of homelessness, day in and day out. We are all frustrated by the number of levers that the City simply does not have control over including funding for our state and county to address mental health and substance abuse, the legal or practical path to put criminal offenders in jail, and space in emergency shelters. But housing people is one clear, compassionate answer, and one way we can help people get off the street and on the path to success in our City. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2022 (Third amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2022-2023) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2022 which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2022, and Ending June 30, 2023. In June of 2022, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2022, and ending June 30, 2023, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the Utah Code. prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including any amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including any amendments to the employment staffing document as provided above, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2022. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes 2 specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including any amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2023, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128 of the Utah Code. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2022. ________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________ Vetoed _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _________ of 2022. Published: ___________________. Approved As To Form ___Jaysen Oldroyd________ Jaysen Oldroyd SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2022 (Third amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2022-2023) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2022 which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2022, and Ending June 30, 2023. In June of 2022, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2022, and ending June 30, 2023, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the Utah Code. The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including any amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including any amendments to the employment staffing document as provided above, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2022. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes 2 specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including any amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2023, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128 of the Utah Code. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2022. ________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________ Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _________ of 2022. Published: ___________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form __________ Jaysen Oldroyd Impact Fees Summary Confidential Data pulled 07/01/2022 Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area Area Cost Center UnAllocated Cash Notes: Impact fee - Police 8484001 846,150$ A Impact fee - Fire 8484002 1,156,234$ B Impact fee - Parks 8484003 15,216,578$ C Impact fee - Streets 8484005 8,061,854$ D 25,280,816$ Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month 202107 (Jul2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202108 (Aug2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202109 (Sep2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202110 (Oct2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202111 (Nov2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202112 (Dec2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202201 (Jan2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202202 (Feb2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202203 (Mar2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202204 (Apr2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202205 (May2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month 202206 (Jun2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202305 (May2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202307 (Jul2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202308 (Aug2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202309 (Sep2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202310 (Oct2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202311 (Nov2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202312 (Dec2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202401 (Jan2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202402 (Feb2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202403 (Mar2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202404 (Apr2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202405 (May2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202406 (Jun2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total, Currently Expiring through June 2024 0$ -$ -$ -$ 0$ Fiscal Quarter E = A + B + C + D Police Fire Parks Streets TotalCalendar Month Impact Fees Confidential Data pulled 07/01/2022 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC Police Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Police Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Police Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Police Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Police Allocation Remaining Appropriation ReimbExcessPoliceCapacity IF 8422800 1,898,497$ -$ 1,898,497$ -$ Police'sConsultant'sContract 8419205 3,565$ -$ 3,565$ -$ Public Safety Building Replcmn 8405005 14,068$ 14,068$ -$ 0$ Eastside Precint 8419201 21,639$ -$ -$ 21,639$ Police Impact Fee Refunds 8421102 338,448$ -$ 100,842$ 237,606.45$ Grand Total 2,276,217$ 14,068$ 2,002,903$ 259,246$ A Fire Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Fire Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Fire Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Fire Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Fire Allocation Remaining Appropriation Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 4,941$ 3,021$ 1,862$ 58$ FY20 FireTrainingFac. 8420431 56,031$ -$ -$ 56,031$ Fire Station #3 Debt Service 8422200 483,233$ -$ 483,233$ -$ Grand Total 1,045,105$ 3,021$ 985,995$ 56,089$ B Parks Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining AppropriationValues Description Cost Center Sum of Parks Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Parks Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Parks Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Parks Allocation Remaining Appropriation Cnty #2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 88$ -$ 88$ -$ Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 20,411$ -$ 20,411$ -$ Fairmont Park Lighting Impr 8418004 49,752$ -$ 49,752$ -$ Fisher Carriage House 8420130 1,098,764$ 261,187$ 837,577$ -$ Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 4,857$ 2,596$ 2,219$ 42$ Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 23,530$ 23,000$ -$ 530$ Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,110$ -$ -$ 1,110$ Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 1,570$ -$ -$ 1,570$ Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 224,247$ 92,027$ 130,574$ 1,646$ Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$ ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 10,830$ -$ 4,433$ 6,398$ FY Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 12,795$ 4,328$ -$ 8,467$ Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$ 9line park 8416005 21,958$ 855$ 2,692$ 18,411$ IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 58,014$ -$ 1,905$ 56,109$ UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 135,084$ 21,169$ 12,803$ 101,112$ Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 523,889$ 374,573$ 39,040$ 110,276$ FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 722,920$ 116,388$ 480,599$ 125,933$ C Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$ 9Line Orchard 8420136 195,045$ 12,423$ 28,477$ 154,145$ RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 180,032$ -$ -$ 180,032$ Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 388,477$ 16,762$ 117,939$ 253,777$ Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ -$ 275,000$ Bridge to Backman 8418005 290,276$ 10,285$ 4,515$ 275,475$ SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 425,000$ -$ 105,861$ 319,139$ Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$ Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 431,000$ 24,953$ -$ 406,047$ Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 420,000$ -$ -$ 420,000$ Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 489,688$ 29,235$ 35,098$ 425,355$ Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 510,000$ 44,362$ -$ 465,638$ Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 610,000$ -$ -$ 610,000$ Emigration Open Space ACQ 8422423 700,000$ -$ -$ 700,000$ Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,094,430$ 33,364$ 47,318$ 1,013,749$ SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$ -$ -$ 1,304,682$ Pioneer Park 8419150 3,343,904$ 86,260$ 179,148$ 3,078,497$ GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,200,000$ 17,400$ 22,152$ 3,160,449$ Grand Total 17,281,123$ 1,174,504$ 2,142,322$ 13,964,297$ Streets Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Street Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Street Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Street Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Street Allocation Remaining Appropriation 9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 152,500$ 68,924$ 83,576$ -$ 700 South Reconstruction 8415004 2,449$ -$ 2,449$ -$ Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ 13,000$ -$ -$ Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 95,653$ 12,768$ 82,180$ 705$ Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 1,444$ -$ -$ 1,444$ Gladiola Street 8406001 16,109$ 13,865$ -$ 2,244$ Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$ Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 29,817$ 17,442$ -$ 12,374$ 500 to 700 S 8418016 96,637$ -$ 73,893$ 22,744$ Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ -$ -$ 25,398$ 900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$ -$ -$ 28,000$ Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 44,400$ 13,090$ -$ 31,310$ D 1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$ Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 35,392$ -$ -$ 35,392$ 200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 37,422$ -$ -$ 37,422$ Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 58,780$ 20,697$ -$ 38,083$ 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$ Local Link Construction IF 8422606 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ 400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$ Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$ Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$ Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 200,000$ -$ 18,154$ 181,846$ TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 302,053$ 53,713$ 9,608$ 238,732$ Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 2,250,220$ 396,873$ 1,470,038$ 383,309$ IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 221,688$ -$ 221,238$ 450$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8420105 300,000$ 77,706$ 222,294$ -$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 875,000$ 67,474$ 19,589$ 787,937$ Grand Total 5,967,404$ 840,578$ 2,220,710$ 2,906,116$ Total 26,566,261$ 2,032,171$ 7,348,343$ 17,185,748$ E = A + B + C + D TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE $1,156,234 UnAllocated Budget Amount 8484001 846,150$ 25,280,816$ 8484002 8484003 8484005 15,216,578$ 8,061,854$ Item B5 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: Allison Rowland Budget and Policy Analyst DATE:September 20, 2022 RE: ORDINANCE: AMENDMENT TO THE GROWING SLC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN MOTION 1 – ADOPT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance amendment to the implementation plan for Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan 2018-2022. MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT I move that the Council close the public hearing, not adopt the ordinance amendment, and proceed to the next agenda item. Attachment: Staff Policy Questions and Summary of Information from Department A.Salt Lake City Code Section 4, Chapter 2.80 defines the Housing Trust Fund Advisory Board (HTFAB), and outlines it powers and duties. With the proposed amendment, these would remain the same as they have been since 2013, with only the title of the Division changing. Considering that the Council has enacted significant changes in the roles and responsibilities of the HTFAB since 2017, when it began the process of shifting responsibility for housing development to the Redevelopment Agency (RDA), Would the Council like to schedule an opportunity for the Administration to provide an update on its plans for the future of the HTFAB? Staff Summary of Administration Response, from the Second Legislative Intents Update (Council Work Session on April 12, 2022): Transfer Housing Trust Fund Development Loans and Payments to RDA (Legislative Intent, Fiscal Year 2021). The Division continues to administer these loans and assist the HTF Advisory Board. In 2022, the Finance Department will prepare a budget amendment to transfer the balance sheet of the loans, and coordinate with RDA for a corresponding budget amendment to accept the balance sheet. Once the loans are transferred, the Attorney’s Office will prepare and review with the Council the needed code modifications related to restructuring the HTF Advisory Board. B.Salt Lake City Code Section 4, Chapter 2.80 also describes a process of annual reporting on the Division’s work. Would the Council like to request that the Administration begin to institutionalize this process for future years? If the Council is interested in this, staff could discuss the reporting ordinance. C.Salt Lake City Code Section 5, Chapter 18.99, indicates that a non-profit corporation appointed by the Division should administer a Housing Relocation Assistance Program for the City. Given that this program is not known to have operated during previous Administrations, Would the Council like to request the consultants who are currently working on the City’s Thriving in Place (gentrification and displacement) study also recommend whether and how this section of code could be modified? Staff Summary of Administration Response, in Council Work Session on April 12, 2022: The Department is currently working on this issue, in conjunction with the Attorney’s Office and the consultants for the Thriving in Place study. The Department indicated that some of the problematic items from the existing ordinance will need to be based on policy questions that the Council will have an opportunity to consider. 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 25, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Growing SLC Implementation Plan Amendment related to HB 462. 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 Ruedigar Matthes, Policy and Program Manager, Community and Neighborhoods, 385-415- 4701, ruedigar.matthes@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission and to ensure that the City is in compliance with State Code requirements for adopting an Implementation Plan for the Moderate Income Housing Element of the General Plan by October 1, 2022. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On December 12, 2017, the Salt Lake City Council voted unanimously to adopt Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan 2018-2022, which was the City’s first housing plan since 2000. The City has been successful in implementing or making progress on the goals and action items outlined in Growing SLC, accomplishing, or making significant progress on, all 27 items. Despite this progress, the housing market over the past few years has 8/31/2022 8/31/2022 Lisa Shaffer (Aug 31, 2022 08:38 PDT) seen rapid price increases. In addition to the rapidly increasing housing costs in the city (and throughout the region, State, and Nation), the legislature passed HB 462 – Affordable Housing Amendments during the 2022 legislative session, which made changes to housing plan requirements. HB 462 requires that all housing plans include an “Implementation Plan element” by October 1, 2022. HB 462 also dictates that housing plans for municipalities with fixed guideway public transit stations must select a minimum of four strategies outlined in the legislation to remain eligible for certain State funding sources, including transportation funding. To be eligible for priority consideration for these funding sources, a municipality must implement at least six strategies. HB 462 requires that all municipalities with a fixed guideway public transit station include strategy (V) “develop and adopt a station area plan in accordance with Section 10- 9a-403.1,” and select at least one of either strategies (G) “amend land use regulations to allow for higher density or new moderate income residential development in commercial or mixed-use zones near major transit investment corridors,” (H) “amend land use regulations to eliminate or reduce parking requirements for residential development where a resident is less likely to rely on the resident's own vehicle, such as residential development near major transit investment corridors or senior living facilities,” or (Q) “create a housing and transit reinvestment zone pursuant to Title 63N, Chapter 3, Part 6, Housing and Transit Reinvestment Zone Act.” Accordingly, the City has included strategy (V) and strategies (G) and (H) in the proposed Implementation Plan. City staff briefed the Planning Commission on these needed requirements on May 25, 2022, and began the public comment period on June 6, 2022. After the end of the 45-day public comment period, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on July 27, 2022. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. The Implementation Plan presented to the public, the Planning Commission, and the City Council includes 12 strategies from HB 462, touching on 12 goals outlined in Growing SLC. The Implementation Plan includes items that touch multiple City Departments and represents programmatic, zoning, and funding items. The Plan includes items such as RDA funding and programs, zoning ordinance changes, Housing Stability programs and funding, and a budget item that has since been adopted by City Council to allocate $20.1M toward affordable housing. Updated Legislative Requirements HB 462 Utah Housing Affordability Amendments outlines new requirements for Moderate Income Housing Plans. Moderate Income Housing Plans requirements: On or before October 1, 2022, the General Plan must be amended to meet the new statutory requirements including a realistic opportunity to meet the need for additional moderate-income housing within the next five years. Four strategies and an Implementation Plan are required for cities that have a fixed guideway public transit station. The proposed housing ordinances outlined below are allowable strategies under the statute. Six strategies and compliance with the new reporting guidelines are required to qualify for priority consideration for funding from the Transportation Commission, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget local grants, and COVID-19 local assistance matching grant program. The City will be required to submit a newly formatted annual report on October 1 of each year that tracks the implementation of selected strategies, number of internal and external accessory dwelling units, a description of each land use regulation and decision, and how the market has responded to the City actions. The report will be sent to the Department of Transportation, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Wasatch Front Regional Council, and the Association of Governments to certify compliance and priority consideration for funding. Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 a. Overview – Growing SLC, the City’s Five-Year Housing Plan, was adopted in January 2018. Growing SLC outlined three main goals: 1) Reform City practices to promote a responsive, affordable, high-opportunity housing market, 2) Increase housing opportunities for cost-burdened households, and 3) Build a more equitable city. Within these three larger goals, there were 13 objectives, which were further broken out into 27 action items. Of those 27 action items, the City has accomplished or made reasonable progress toward accomplishing all 27. All the housing ordinances that are being worked on by the Administration align with goals outlined in Growing SLC. A progress tracker that shows the work toward achieving the goals identified in Growing SLC as of December 2021 can be found here. While item 1.1.2 shows no progress on the tracker, significant work has been completed on Affordable Housing Zoning Incentives. Additionally, the City regularly pursues legislative changes to increase opportunities for incentives and revenue sources for affordable housing, which accomplishes item 2.2.2. The only action item that has not been met is 2.2.1, which is to propose significant, long-term, and sustainable funding for affordable housing. At a future date, the Administration welcomes the opportunity to present a detailed update on the progress made in accomplishing the goals in Growing SLC and to seek input from the Council on goals and priorities for the new housing plan, Housing SLC, initial engagement for which is underway. b. Status – Adopted c. Public Process – Completed c. Estimated Council Transmittal – Completed d. Website – https://www.slc.gov/can/growingSLC/ e. Metrics – A progress report can be found here. Density Increase Affordability Housing Choice Housing Plan Menu Yes Yes Yes Yes Implementation Plan to Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan 2018-2022 a. Overview – The Implementation Plan, which has been recommended unanimously for adoption by the Planning Commission on July 27, 2022, must be adopted on or before October 1, 2022, in order for Growing SLC to be compliant with State statute (as amended by HB 462). State funding is also contingent upon compliance with requirements outlined in HB 462. The Implementation Plan includes 12 strategies outlined in HB 462 that address 12 action items found in Growing SLC. Some of the implementation strategies address multiple HB 462 items. All of the strategies presented in the Implementation Plan are items that the City is either already doing or which the Council is aware of (zoning items). The Implementation Plan does not exist on its own and strategies that will be proposed through the Thriving in Place efforts could be adopted in conjunction with the proposals outlined, though they are not included in the Implementation Plan. Any ordinance listed in the Implementation Plan would still need to go through the appropriate public process and City Council would need to make the ultimate decision. b. Status – Not Adopted c. Public Process – Completed: 45-day Public Comment Period, Planning Commission Public Hearing; In Progress: Council Process (briefing and public hearing). See below for more information. f. Estimated Council Transmittal – Completed g. Website – https://www.slc.gov/can/housingplan/ h. Metrics – As outlined in the Implementation Plan (Exhibit A) and found at the above website. Density Increase Affordability Housing Choice Housing Plan Menu Yes Yes Yes Yes PUBLIC PROCESS: May 25, 2022 – Planning Commission Briefing June 6, 2022 – 45 Day Public Comment Period Began Notification email was sent to list including Recognized Community Organizations and housing stakeholders. Website was available on the Community and Neighborhoods page to collect public comment (the site is still live and comments can still be submitted). Two comments were received through the website and two were received by email, for a total of four comments during the period. o One comment focused on the need for deeply affordable housing. o One comment focused on changing zoning to allow for taller apartment buildings o Two comments addressed issues out of scope of this Implementation Plan and which will be better addressed in the work being done on creating a new five-year housing plan. July 27, 2022 – Planning Commission Public Hearing (A copy of the staff report can be found here.) Two comments were received from the public at the public hearing. o One comment suggested that the noticing requirements were not met because a few Community Council chairs did not receive the email notification on June 6. Both the comment and a legal opinion highlighted the good faith efforts by staff to go above and beyond the minimum noticing requirements. The legal opinion expressed that the noticing requirements were met. o Additionally, the comments suggested that the Implementation Plan was a way of pushing through unpopular policies under the guise of receiving State funding. EXHIBITS:A – Growing SLC Implementation Plan Amendment B – Ordinance Adopting Implementation Plan to Growing SLC Exhibit A Growing SLC Implementation Plan Amendment Implementation Plan for Final Year of Growing SLC Introduction Growing SLC, Salt Lake City's (the "City") Moderate Income Housing Plan, is in its final year and has seen significant success toward the goals and objectives outlined within it, accomplishing or making reasonable progress toward 26 of the 27 action items outlined. Despite the progress, the local housing market has seen record price increases. In light of the increased pressures on the housing market and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has required both acute and ongoing responses to housing needs, the City is continuing to address the housing crisis and expand upon the accomplishments in Growing SLC. This implementation plan will serve to guide short-term efforts while the City looks toward the future with the preparation of a new five-year housing plan, which will be adopted in early 2023. During the 2022 legislative session, HB 462 -Affordable Housing Amendments was passed, requiring cities to select from a menu of strategies and amend the adopted Moderate Income Housing Plan to include an implementation plan. It is imperative that the city adopts the implementation plan by October 1, 2022, to be in compliance with state statute and to ensure priority consideration for critical state funds. The process of composing and adopting this implementation plan will meet the new requirements while also guiding the City's efforts as a new five-year plan is drafted. To both continue addressing the housing situation and to comply with new requirements, this implementation plan has been drafted to be included as an Amendment to Growing SLC and to build upon the housing-related efforts that are currently being undertaken by the City. Legislative Requirements Per section 10-9a-403 from HB 462, a Moderate Income Housing Plan must: (A)Provide[] for a realistic opportunity to meet the need for additional moderate income housing within the next five years; (B)Select[] three or more moderate income housing strategies described in Subsection (2)(b)(iii) for implementation, including one additional moderate income housing strategy as provided in Subsection (2)(b)(iv) for a specified municipality that has a fixed guideway public transit station; and (C)Includes an implementation plan as provided in Subsection (2)(c). (Lines 661-667) Additionally, municipalities with a fixed guideway public transit station, must include: (A)The strategy described in Subsection (2)(b)(iii)(V); and (B)A strategy described in Subsection (2)(b)(iii)(G), (H), or (Q). (Lines 765-766) 1 Looking Forward Growing SLC is in its final year as the Salt lake City's Moderate Income Housing Plan. Over the course the next year, the City will be undertaking the creation of a new housing plan, Housing SLC. The process for creating a new housing plan will allow multiple methods and opportunities for public input and engagement at various stages. We understand that the city, and housing within the city, has changed dramatically since Growing SLC was adopted, and that the challenges facing residents within the city have shifted. The new plan will build upon the successes of Growing SLC, will incorporate anti-displacement strategies that are being developed through Thriving In Place, and will learn from resident experiences to create an actionable plan to ensure all residents in Salt Lake City have an equitable opportunity to safe and affordable housing. We hope that you will be a part of the process. For more information and to sign up for updates do visit www.slc.gov/can/housing-slc. 7 Exhibit B Ordinance Adopting Implementation Plan to Growing SLC SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2022 (Adopting an implementation plan to “Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan 2018-2022”) An ordinance adopting an implementation plan to “Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan 2018-2022” as required by Utah Code Subsection 10-9a-403(2)(a)(iii)(C). WHEREAS, the Utah Legislature adopted HB462 during its 2022 general session, which amended Utah Code Section 10-9a-403 to require specified municipalities--including Salt Lake City--to adopt an “implementation plan” to the municipalities’ moderate income housing plans by October 1, 2022; and WHEREAS, the city’s moderate income housing plan is found within “Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan 2018-2022”, which is anticipated to be replaced in early 2023 by a new housing plan; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (“Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on July 27, 2022 on a request submitted by the Salt Lake City Department of Community and Neighborhoods (“CAN”) to adopt the implementation plan required by Utah Code Subsection 10-9a-403(2)(a)(iii)(C), which implementation plan relates to the city’s moderate income housing plan; and WHEREAS, at its July 27, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (“City Council”) on said request; and WHEREAS, after holding 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. Adopting an Implementation Plan to the City’s Moderate Income Housing Plan. That the implementation plan provided in Exhibit “A” attached hereto is adopted to implement the moderate income housing strategies set forth in “Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan 2018-2022”. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2022. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul C. Nielson, Senior City Attorney August 4, 2022 Bill No. ________ of 2022. Published: ______________. Ordinance adopting Implementation Plan to Growing SLC EXHIBIT “A” Implementation Plan to “Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan 2018-2022” 1 Implementation Plan for Final Year of Growing SLC Introduction Growing SLC, Salt Lake City’s (the “City”) Moderate Income Housing Plan, is in its final year and has seen significant success toward the goals and objectives outlined within it, accomplishing or making reasonable progress toward 26 of the 27 action items outlined. Despite the progress, the local housing market has seen record price increases. In light of the increased pressures on the housing market and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has required both acute and ongoing responses to housing needs, the City is continuing to address the housing crisis and expand upon the accomplishments in Growing SLC. This implementation plan will serve to guide short-term efforts while the City looks toward the future with the preparation of a new five-year housing plan, which will be adopted in early 2023. During the 2022 legislative session, HB 462 – Affordable Housing Amendments was passed, requiring cities to select from a menu of strategies and amend the adopted Moderate Income Housing Plan to include an implementation plan. It is imperative that the city adopts the implementation plan by October 1, 2022, to be in compliance with state statute and to ensure priority consideration for critical state funds. The process of composing and adopting this implementation plan will meet the new requirements while also guiding the City’s efforts as a new five-year plan is drafted. To both continue addressing the housing situation and to comply with new requirements, this implementation plan has been drafted to be included as an Amendment to Growing SLC and to build upon the housing-related efforts that are currently being undertaken by the City. Legislative Requirements Per section 10-9a-403 from HB 462, a Moderate Income Housing Plan must: (A) Provide[ ] for a realistic opportunity to meet the need for additional moderate income housing within the next five years; (B) Select[ ] three or more moderate income housing strategies described in Subsection (2)(b)(iii) for implementation, including one additional moderate income housing strategy as provided in Subsection (2)(b)(iv) for a specified municipality that has a fixed guideway public transit station; and (C) Includes an implementation plan as provided in Subsection (2)(c). (Lines 661-667) Additionally, municipalities with a fixed guideway public transit station, must include: (A) The strategy described in Subsection (2)(b)(iii)(V); and (B) A strategy described in Subsection (2)(b)(iii)(G), (H), or (Q). (Lines 765-766) 2 HB 462 further requires that: In drafting the implementation plan portion of the moderate income housing element…, the planning commission shall establish a timeline for implementing each moderate income housing strategy selected by the municipality for implementation. (ii) The timeline described in Subsection (2)(c)(i) shall: (A) Identify specific measures and benchmarks for implementing each moderate income housing strategy selected by the municipality, whether one-time or ongoing; and (B) Provide flexibility for the municipality to make adjustments as needed. (Lines 767-774) Cities with fixed guideway public transit stations that include six or more strategies for implementation in their moderate income housing plan may be eligible for priority consideration for various State fundings sources, including transportation funding. (Lines 1195-1211) Growing SLC Goals included in this Implementation Plan 1.1.1 Develop flexible zoning tools and regulation, with a focus along significant transportation routes. 1.1.2 Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts. 1.1.3 Revise the Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance to expand its application and develop measures to promote its use. 1.1.4 Reduce parking requirements for affordable housing developments and eliminate parking requirements in transit-rich, walkable neighborhoods or when the specific demographics of a development require less parking, such as senior populations. 2.1.2 Consider an ordinance that would require and incentivize the inclusion of affordable units in new developments. 2.2.1 Propose a significant, long-term, and sustainable funding source for the development, preservation, and stability of affordable housing. 2.4.1 Create an Affordable Housing Community Land Trust. 2.4.2 Work with community partners and government entities to acquire hotels, multi-family properties, and surplus land to preserve or redevelop them as affordable housing. 2.4.3 Structure renovation programs to reduce utility, energy, and maintenance costs while promoting healthy living. 2.5.1 Support and potentially expand incentives for landlords to rent low-income households, including landlord insurance programs. 2.5.2 Enhance neighborhood development programs to entice landlords of substandard properties to improve their rental units. 3.3.1 Support diverse and vibrant neighborhoods by aligning land use policies that promote a housing market capable of accommodating residents throughout all stages of life. 3 Growing SLC and HB 462 Though Growing SLC complies with State code, because it was adopted prior to legislative requirements regarding moderate income housing strategies, the language in Growing SLC is different than the language used in the strategies outlined in State code. For convenience in addressing these disparities, the table below explicitly links the strategies in State code and the goals in Growing SLC. The strategies that are being addressed in this Implementation Plan are included below, along with the description found in HB 462 and a reference to the Growing SLC goals, a description of which can be found in the previous section. HB 462 Strategy HB 462 Strategy Description Growing SLC Goal A Rezone for densities necessary to facilitate the production of moderate income housing 1.1.1, 1.1.2 C Demonstrate investment in the rehabilitation of existing uninhabitable housing stock into moderate income housing 2.4.3, 2.5.1, 2.5.2 F Zone or rezone for higher density or moderate income residential development in commercial or mixed use zones near major transit investment corridors, commercial centers, or employment centers 1.1.1 G Amend land use regulations to allow for higher density or new moderate income residential development in commercial or mixed-use zones near major transit investments corridors 1.1.1, 1.1.2 H Amend land use regulations to eliminate or reduce parking requirements for residential development near major transit investment corridors or senior living facilities 1.1.4 J Implement zoning incentives for moderate income units in new developments 1.1.1 M Demonstrate creation of or participation in a Community Land Trust (CLT) for moderate income housing 2.4.1 O Apply for or partner with an entity that applies for state or federal funds or tax incentives to promote the construction of moderate income housing, an entity that applies for programs offered by the Utah Housing Corporation within that agency's funding capacity, an entity that applies for affordable housing programs administered by the Department of Workforce Services, an entity that applies for affordable housing programs administered by an association of governments established by an interlocal agreement under Title 11, Chapter 13, Interlocal Cooperation Act, an entity that applies for services provided by a public housing authority to preserve and create moderate income housing, or any other entity that applies for programs or services that promote the construction or preservation of moderate income housing 2.4.2 P Demonstrate utilization of a moderate income housing set-aside from a RDA 2.2.1 V Develop and adopt a station area plan in accordance with Section 10-9a-403.1 1.1.1, 3.3.1 W Create or allow for, and reduce regulations related to, multifamily residential dwellings compatible in scale and form with single-family residential dwellings and located in walkable communities within residential ore mixed-use zones 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3 X Demonstrate implementation of any other program or strategy to address the housing needs of residents of the municipality who earn less than 80% AMI, including the dedication of a local funding source to moderate income housing or the adoption of a land use ordinance that requires 10% or more of new residential development in a residential zone be dedicated to moderate income housing 2.1.2, 2.2.1 4 Implementation Efforts, Benchmarks, and Timelines Of the 12 strategies selected for implementation, six are focused on land-use, four involve programs and partnerships managed by the Housing Stability division, two involve the Redevelopment Agency (RDA), and one involves the creation and or update of Station Area Plans, which are required for all fixed guideway public transit stations. These 12 strategies address 12 unique goals from Growing SLC. Successful implementation of the selected strategies will have significant impacts on housing within Salt Lake City over the next year, helping make Salt Lake City a more equitable and affordable place for all residents. The implementation efforts for the selected strategies, the benchmarks associated with them, and the timelines for implementation are outlined in the table on the following pages. Abbreviations used in the table: AHZI – Affordable Housing Zoning Incentive CDBG – Community Development Block Grant CDCIP - Community Development & Capital Improvement Programs CHDO – Community Housing Development Organizations CLT – Community Land Trust HDLP – Housing Development Loan Program HOME – HOME Investment Partnerships HOME-ARP – Home Investment Partnerships - American Rescue Plan HUD – US Department of Housing and Urban Development NOFA – Notice of Funding Availability RDA – Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City RFP – Request for Proposals SAP – Station Area Plan WCI – Westside Community Initiative 5 HB 462 Strategy Growing SLC Goal Implementation Effort Implementation Benchmarks Implementation Timeline* A 1.1.1 1.1.2 The Planning division is currently developing an AHZI Ordinance. The AHZI Ordinance is anticipated to be presented to Council later in 2022. - AHZI Planning Commission Hearing - AHZI presented to Council - AHZI passed by Council - AHZI Ordinance passed by City Council by June 30, 2023 C 2.4.3 2.5.1 2.5.2 - Allocate $30,000 to help rehabilitate units through City Housing Repair Programs (30 units) – HUD CDBG - Provide $453,718 to CHDOs for rehabilitation efforts (60 units) – HUD HOME - Provide $700,000 to ASSIST Utah's Housing Repair Program (195 units) – HUD CDBG - Provide $300,000 to VBH Storefront, via ICast, for rehabilitation (49 units) – HUD CDBG - Provide $196,837 to NeighborWorks SLC to rehabilitate units (80 units) – HUD CDBG - Provide $322,000 to First Step House to rehabilitate (26 units) – HUD CDBG Partners were selected through a competitive process, were recommended by CDCIP advisory board, and approved by the Mayor and City Council. Total Funding Committed: $2M; Total Units Rehabilitated: 440. - Spend /distribute $2M - 440 units rehabilitated (directly or through partners) - Funding committed by August 15, 2022 - City funding spent by June 30, 2023 - Units rehabilitated by June 30, 2023 F 1.1.1 The Planning division is currently developing an AHZI Ordinance. The AHZI Ordinance is anticipated to be presented to Council later in 2022. - AHZI Planning Commission Hearing - AHZI presented to Council - AHZI passed by Council - AHZI Ordinance passed by City Council by June 30, 2023 G 1.1.1 1.1.2 The Planning division is currently developing an AHZI Ordinance. The AHZI Ordinance is anticipated to be presented to Council later in 2022. - AHZI Planning Commission Hearing - AHZI presented to Council - AHZI passed by Council - AHZI Ordinance passed by City Council by June 30, 2023 H 1.1.4 The Planning division has prepared a PRO that is before the City Council. - PRO presented to Council - PRO passed by Council - PRO passed by City Council by June 30, 2023 J 1.1.1 The Planning division is currently developing an AHZI Ordinance. The AHZI Ordinance is anticipated to be presented to Council later in 2022. - AHZI Planning Commission Hearing - AHZI presented to Council - AHZI passed by Council - AHZI Ordinance passed by City Council by June 30, 2023 M 2.4.1 Salt Lake City created a CLT in 2018, that currently has 17 properties within the Trust. The City is conducting a study to further develop the CLT into a more robust program. The RDA is establishing the WCI and allocating $500,000 through a NOFA process. The WCI intends to develop shared-equity models for ownership and for keeping properties affordable by taking them off the market. - Final report received - Recommendations presented to Mayor’s Office, City Council, and internal departments - $500k allocated to WCI by RDA. - Report received by July 31, 2022 - Recommendations presented to Council by December 31, 2022 - RDA Funding allocated by June 30, 2022 O 2.4.2 Commit $12M through HUD HOME and CDBG Program Income for the creation of new affordable housing, with a prioritization on deeply affordable housing. Commit $3.5M through HUD HOME-ARP for the creation of housing for the unsheltered. Funding and partner selection will be made available in FY22-23 through a competitive application process. The number of units this funding is anticipated to create is to be determined. - Competitive application process completed - Partners contracted - $15.5M funding distributed - Housing units in pipeline - Present to City Council in July 2022 - Partners contracted/awarded by October 31, 2022 - Funds distributed by June 30, 2023 6 HB 462 Strategy Growing SLC Goal Implementation Effort Implementation Benchmarks Implementation Timeline* P 2.2.1 The RDA has budgeted over $8M in affordable housing funds for FY2022-23. Most of these funds will be dedicated to the HDLP ($5.2M). $3.3M will be dedicated to property acquisition. The RDA’s policy priorities include: - Provide a mix of affordable housing…to promote housing opportunity and choice throughout the city for households…of various sizes - Foster a mix of household incomes in projects and neighborhoods and disperse affordable housing projects throughout the city to encourage a balance of incomes in all neighborhoods and communities - Promote equity and anti-displacement efforts through the development and preservation of affordable housing in low-income neighborhoods - Contribute to the development of sustainable, walkable neighborhoods to expand housing choice near transportation, services, and economic opportunity - Support an array of scale of project types, including detached housing accessory dwelling units, rowhouses, and small to large scale multifamily buildings, that contribute to neighborhood context and livability - Incorporate green-building elements and energy efficiency to lower housing expenses, conserve resources, and promote resiliency - NOFA released - Awardees notified - Funding spent or committed - NOFA released in September 2022 - Awardees notified by December 31, 2022 - Funding spent or committed by June 30, 2023 V 1.1.1 3.3.1 The Planning division is intending to complete a study regarding existing SAPs to ensure that they meet the requirements outlined in Section 10-9a-403.1. For station areas over which the City has limited to no control, a resolution will be passed acknowledging the exemptions, per state statute 10-9a-403.1. The City intends to have all SAPs in compliance and completed by December 2023. - RFP issued - Consultant selected - Report provided to City - Resolution passed - Study completed by December 31, 2022 - Resolution passed by March 31, 2023 - New Station Area Plans adopted by December 31, 2023 W 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 The Planning division is currently developing an AHZI Ordinance. The AHZI Ordinance is anticipated to be before Council later in 2022. - AHZI Planning Commission Hearing - AHZI presented to Council - AHZI passed by Council - AHZI Ordinance passed by City Council by June 30, 2023 X 2.1.2 2.2.1 Mayor Mendenhall dedicated, and Council approved, $20.1M to the creation and preservation of affordable housing in the FY 2022-2023 budget. - Budget allocated - Competitive application process - Projects awarded - Funding committed - Budget allocated June 30, 2022 - Present to City Council in July 2022 - Partners contracted/awarded by October 31, 2022 - Funding spent or encumbered to contracts by June 30, 2023 *This is an anticipated implementation schedule. HB462 (2022) requires the city’s planning commission establish a timeline for implementing these strategies. However, Part 4 of Utah Code Chapter 10-9a establishes that a planning commission’s role with respect to general plan adoption is as a recommending body and it is the municipal legislative body that adopts the general plan and amendments to the general plan. Thus, given the commission’s limited role and separation of powers principles, this implementation timeline provides estimates of when the Salt Lake City Council may potentially take action based on information available to the commission and in no way binds the City Council to act by any specific date. Looking Forward Growing SLC is in its final year as the Salt Lake City’s Moderate Income Housing Plan. Over the course the next year, the City will be undertaking the creation of a new housing plan, Housing SLC. The process for creating a new housing plan will allow multiple methods and opportunities for public input and engagement at various stages. We understand that the city, and housing within the city, has changed dramatically since Growing SLC was adopted, and that the challenges facing residents within the city have shifted. The new plan will build upon the successes of Growing SLC, will incorporate anti-displacement strategies that are being developed through Thriving In Place, and will learn from resident experiences to create an actionable plan to ensure all residents in Salt Lake City have an equitable opportunity to safe and affordable housing. We hope that you will be a part of the process. For more information and to sign up for updates do visit https://www.slc.gov/can/housing-slc/. 7 Items B6 & B7 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: Allison Rowland & Brian Fullmer Policy Analysts DATE:September 20, 2022 RE: The Other Side Village Public Benefits Analysis and Below Market Lease Rate and Term; and The Other Side Village Rezoning Application PLNPCM2021-00787 The following motions are for the public hearing on the TOSV public benefits analysis and below market lease rate and term (public hearing item #6) AND the TOSV rezoning application public hearing (public hearing item #7) MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing on the Other Side Village: - public benefits analysis and below market lease rate and term (item #6), - and rezoning application (item #7), - and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing on the Other Side Village: - public benefits analysis and below market lease rate and term (item #6), - and rezoning application (item #7), - and defer action to a future Council meeting. 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:September 6, 2022 RE: RESOLUTION: REVIEWING THE PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS FOR THE OTHER SIDE VILLAGE PILOT PROJECT AT 1850 WEST INDIANA AVENUE AND CONSIDERING A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE LEASE RATE AND TERM ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing on the public benefits analysis and the proposed lease rate and term for a pilot project to test the viability of The Other Side Village (TOSV), a tiny home community that would offer “recovery housing” for people experiencing homelessness, particularly those who struggle with substance abuse, mental health and/or physical disabilities. Its services would be similar to those at permanent supportive housing developments, and it would be located on eight acres at 1850 West Indiana Avenue and part of an adjacent parcel, on a portion of vacant land owned by Salt Lake City that was formerly a landfill. The Other Side Academy (TOSA), a Utah nonprofit corporation would lease the area for 40 years at $1 per year. TOSA has agreed to pay for all costs to remediate the site of the pilot project, which includes part of the former landfill, as well as the costs of development and operation of the pilot project. Any request to lease the remainder of the City properties for less than fair market value would be submitted later and with a supplemental public benefit analysis. The Council will hear public comment on this resolution at the September 20 Formal Meeting. In conjunction with this project, the Administration has requested the Council consider a zoning amendment for the City property. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed zoning change on October 27, 2021, and the City Council will be briefed on that issue on September 13 with a public hearing also on September 20. Goal of the briefing: Review the public benefit analysis for the pilot project of The Other Side Academy’s Village and consider authorizing the below-market lease rate and 40-year term. Item Schedule: Briefing: September 6, 2022 Set Date: August 29, 2022 Public Hearing: September 20, 2022 Potential Action: October 4 Page | 2 2 1 7 1 7 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND BACKGROUND A.The Properties and Proposed Lease. Since learning of TOSA’s interest in establishing a “village” of tiny homes, the Mayor’s Administration has worked with the organization to identify potential sites large enough for the planned full build-out, which was envisioned as at least 30 acres. Parcels of this size with access to public transit are not available in most areas of Salt Lake City, but two abutting candidate parcels totaling approximately 83.5 acres of City-owned property were identified, one at 1850 West Indiana Avenue and the other at 1965 West 500 South. Parts of these parcels served as a City landfill between 1923 and 1962, and they will require environmental remediation before they can be used for the TOSV (see section B). In addition, a fault line runs through the property and the Utah Geological Survey is currently conducting a trenching study to gather additional information. The fault line and precise locations of environmental contamination could affect the boundaries and site plan of future phases of the development. The Public Benefits Analysis in the transmittal states that the 2022 assessed value of the Indiana Avenue property is about $4.20 per square foot, or $8,230,000 for the full parcel, excluding remediation, mitigation, and cleanup costs. The City and TOSA agreed to phase in the development, starting with a pilot project to test its viability (see section D below). The proposal before the Council would allow TOSA to site the pilot project on eight acres at the southeast corner of the properties. This area is assessed at approximately $1,460,000. TOSA would not have rights or obligations related to the other areas of these properties, unless and until another phase of the project is approved by the City. The City would continue to secure and maintain these areas, and TOSA states that it is committed to ensuring that residents of the Pilot Site are respectful of the surrounding property and neighborhood. The Administration proposes a lease term of 40 years at the reduced lease rate of $1 per year, with an option to renew during the last year of the lease, subject to review and approval by the Council. The below-market lease terms would be offered as the City’s contribution to TOSA’s effort to provide creative solutions for people experiencing homelessness. Utah State law provides that a municipality may “authorize municipal services or other nonmonetary assistance to be provided to a nonprofit entity, whether or not the municipality receives consideration in return,” under certain conditions. 1. The purpose of these services or assistance must be approved by the municipal legislative body and provide for “the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality.” 2. A public hearing must be held by the legislative body before the decision is made. ➢The Council may wish to ask the Administration and the Attorney’s Office about some issues that could be addressed in the terms of the lease agreement, including: o an operating covenant; o ensuring that the pledges and guarantees offered in the transmittal are in a form acceptable to the City; and o any potential termination of the lease, should TOSV not meet the mutually- agreed expectations. B.Environmental Remediation. Under the lease, the City would relinquish any responsibility for environmental remediation, construction, operation, or maintenance of the pilot site and project. All of these would be assumed by TOSA. The organization also would accept full liability for the costs and claims related to the remediation and mitigation. Current cleanup efforts are limited to the pilot site, which is believed to be the area where the smallest amount of trash was buried. Page | 3 2 1 7 1 7 The transmittal reports that the City’s Department of Sustainability is already involved with the identification, sampling, and site investigation process and will work with State and other agencies to ensure that requirements are met for site cleanup, remediation, and mitigation. Department of Sustainability staff plans to work closely with regulators, an environmental consultant, and TOSA through the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). The Sustainability Department reviews and provides input on sampling plans, reviews findings and recommendations, and coordinates the implementation of the selected remediation pathway. UDEQ will examine historical reports and environmental sampling results, and may recommend additional sampling, depending on the results of the first round. The Sustainability Department estimates one additional round of sampling and associated reporting by the consultant would cost $70,000, which would be drawn from the City’s non-departmental environmental fund. This fund was set up to be used for environmental assessments on City property and received $100,000 in the FY23 budget. The Administration reports: “Additional budget allocations may be necessary depending on the extent of the environmental work recommended by UDEQ, the City’s desire to continue participating in the VCP, and other city properties that require environmental assessments or remediation.” Once the VCP program is completed, the City would receive a “Certificate of Completion” for the project area. This indicates that all necessary precautions were taken to protect environmental and public health and provides liability protection for the City. The Sustainability Department notes that because the pilot project would be sited in the area where it is believed the smallest amount of trash was buried, remediation there may be simpler than in other areas of the property. The Department estimates that sampling and evaluation of remediation options for subsequent phases could take a year or longer, depending on what is discovered, and the proposed uses of the property. ➢The Council may wish to request additional information from the Administration about the extent of the work already completed by the Sustainability Department on this project, including the cost of any staff time that exceeded services normally provided for potential City leases. C.Informal Public Benefits Analysis. Unlike many other cases the Council considers, a formal public benefits analysis conducted by an outside consultant was not required in this case due to the non-profit status of TOSA. Still, the Administration requested that the Attorney’s Office conduct an “informal” public benefits analysis with help from the Department Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) to identify the potential benefits of the proposed agreement between Salt Lake City and The Other Side Academy (TOSA), the entity which proposes to develop The Other Side Village (TOSV). These public benefits are identified in Exhibit C of the transmittal. 1.Benefits to City. The Informal Public Benefits Analysis notes that in exchange for the property lease to TOSA for the Pilot Project the City and its residents would receive the following benefits: a. Development, operation, and management of a Pilot Project at TOSV that offers a new model for supporting people experiencing homelessness, including “a path to secure housing.” b. Case management for residents, including help accessing benefits and entitlements; healthcare; behavioral and mental health services; education and employment supports; and other community resources. Page | 4 2 1 7 1 7 c. New housing units for households with incomes at or below 30% of Area Median Income, which in 2022 is no more than $21,510 for a single person. Maximum rents would be set at 25% of the area median income and adjusted annually, which is currently $448 monthly, including basic utilities. (Tenants would be allowed to increase their income after signing their leases.) d. Potentially, reduced costs of public care for unsheltered people who likely use emergency services; more alternatives to scarce shelter beds and services; reductions of population in living in encampments. e. The activation of currently vacant property; mitigation of former landfill space; reduction of criminal activity in the vicinity of TOSV; additional investments in nearby neighborhoods in grocery and other retail stores, recreation, and transit. 2.Growing SLC and Council Priorities. The transmittal states that the proposal aligns with both the City’s 2018-2022 Housing Plan, and the Council’s longtime priorities in the following ways: a. Offering solutions to address housing for incomes below 40% AMI; b. Providing housing and services to the City’s most vulnerable populations; c. Creating a net increase in affordable housing units while avoiding displacement of existing affordable housing; d. Retaining and expanding the diversity of AMI and innovative housing types. D.The Pilot Project. As the site map in the transmittal’s Exhibit A indicates, TOSA ultimately intends to expand its operations to cover much of the property on Indiana Avenue and a portion of the 500 South property. For now, though, it has agreed with the Administration to demonstrate the feasibility of its tiny home village concept through a pilot project that would extend over approximately eight acres. The focus would be on “Recovery Housing,” treating people who are considered chronically homeless, that is, those who have experienced homelessness for at least one year, or repeatedly over several years, and who are struggling with substance use disorder, serious mental illness, and/or physical disability. The pilot project would consist of at least 54 deed-restricted tiny homes, six tiny homes for on-site staff who provide 24-hour coverage, and 25 tiny homes that would be offered as nightly rentals. The homes would measure between 280 and 400 square feet each. In addition, the pilot project would include community space, commercial space for income-generating projects, and space for on-site supportive services, as well as utility serve and related infrastructure, and roads, curbs, and gutters. All tenants would be required to pay a standardized rental rate, since this project does not have project- based rental vouchers attached to the units, unlike many other housing developments that serve people who were formerly homeless or have extremely low-incomes. TOSA states that it is committed to assisting prospective and actual tenants obtain and maintain a source of income to pay rent, such as employment, Social Security Disability Insurance, or a Housing Choice tenant-based rental voucher. Page | 5 2 1 7 1 7 1.The Recovery Housing Model. TOSV’s organization and supportive services would conform to National Alliance for Recovery Residence Standards for “Recovery Housing,” a model designed for people suffering from substance use disorders who need supportive transitional housing. Recovery housing provides an alcohol and drug-free living environment and may require residents to participate in recovery activities as a condition for residency. The Recovery Housing Model is recognized and supported by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which recognizes the importance of providing individual choice to support various paths towards recovery. This support is outlined in a HUD Policy Brief on the topic. As described by TOSA: “In this Policy Brief, HUD states that some people pursuing recovery from addiction express a preference for an abstinence-focused residential or housing program where they can live among and be supported by a community of peers who are also focused on pursuing recovery from addiction–environments that are provided by Recovery Housing programs. HUD defines “Recovery Housing” as housing in an abstinence-focused and peer-supported community for people recovering from substance use issues. The Village would meet this definition. The Policy Brief continues to describe characteristics of “Recovery Housing”, which include residents choosing to actively participate together in community activities focused on supporting recovery. The Policy Brief states that: “Many Recovery Housing programs include a high percentage of staff in all areas of the organization that are in recovery themselves. Not only does this type of staffing advance the goals of the program through peer support, but it provides program participants, in some cases, with an opportunity to become employed in a mission-oriented work environment. This creates an environment that benefits both the organization and the individual program participants.” The Village has all of the above components: residents choosing to actively participate in community to support recovery, staff that are in recovery themselves, and employment opportunities for residents.” In response to a staff question, TOSA outlined the process for residents who break their sobriety commitments: “The Other Side Village is a sober community following the HUD defined Recovery Housing Model. TOSA understands that the path to sobriety is challenging and sometimes involves setbacks. If a resident is found to have violated sobriety commitments, there is not an automatic eviction, but rather they will be assisted in every way to regain their sobriety. This could range anywhere from a period of regular drug and alcohol testing and outpatient support to a requirement to participate in residential treatment. All residents will be offered the option of returning to the Welcome Neighborhood for some period of time as a way of restoring sobriety. A resident will be evicted from the Village if they are unwilling to agree upon a reasonable plan to return to sobriety. These policies are in alignment with the HUD guidelines in their Policy Brief on Recovery Housing that was previously mentioned.” Like other housing providers, TOSA would be required to comply with the Fair Housing Act and could face regulatory and legal action for any violations. Page | 6 2 1 7 1 7 2.Tenant Selection. To ensure compliance with Federal and State fair housing laws, the term sheet that accompanies the proposed ordinance changes would require that TOSA: a. not deny housing to protected classes; b. not unreasonably limit the ability of families with children to obtain housing; c. develop and make public written tenant selection policies and procedures that include descriptions of the eligibility requirements; d. ensure that all applicants to the project go through the coordinated entry process used by the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness to ensure coordination and efficiency; e. enter any new resident into the Homeless Management Information System (“HMIS”) coordinated entry system; f. give preference to Salt Lake City residents for placement; and, g. submit annual compliance reports to the City. In addition, an admission preference may be established for individuals with a commitment to sobriety. To be able to afford to pay rent, tenants may be required to have employment or another source of income, such as social security disability or a tenant-based voucher. TOSA intends to lease units on a month-to-month basis, but tenants may remain in their homes indefinitely while they continue to meet the basic obligations of tenancy. If no applications from chronically homeless people are received and TOSV homes are available, the Administration intends to ensure that these are filled with people who are most critically in need of housing, using the coordinated entry system and intake/assessment tools of the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness to match the needs of each unique individual and household. This system generally prioritizes those with longer lengths of homelessness and certain other vulnerabilities for housing. 3.Programming. The Term Sheet for the proposed lease agreement requires supportive services including “on-site case coordination or management that ensures tenants’ access to a wide variety of services and on-site location of services provided by professional service providers as evidenced through an agreement” with appropriately licensed providers. These are to be made available on a “flexible and voluntary basis” and address the following: mental health; substance and alcohol use; health; case management; independent living skills; employment; peer support; and community involvement and support. TOSA is still developing partnerships with service providers, so the scope and scale of on-site health and case-management has not yet been finalized. Because of widely reported staff shortages in social services, staff requested information about how TOSA would handle this issue should it occur in the organizations they are preparing to engage. The reply was as follows: “It is possible that there could be staffing shortages among the service providers and that those staffing shortages could lead to a reduction of services for the residents of the Village. If this were to occur, the Village management would simultaneously pursue two options. One would be to bring in the services of other service providers. The Other Side Village has already had discussions with other medical and mental health service providers who are interested in providing services to the residents of the Village. The other option would be to try to fill the gaps in service through volunteers. The Other Side Village has a number of doctors and clinicians who have volunteered to help at the Village.” Page | 7 2 1 7 1 7 Since, in addition to on-site services, TOSA would coordinate access to off-site services, the organization stated: “TOSA assumes responsibility to coordinate and facilitate access to both on-site and off-site services. This will be accomplished by the Village Coaches, the full-time non-clinical case managers. Each resident will have a Village Coach assigned to them and part of the Village Coach's responsibilities is to facilitate and coordinate access to services, including arranging transportation for them for any off-site appointments.” E.Pilot Project Financing. The financing models include both constructions expenses and operational expenses and revenue. TOSA currently projects breaking ground on the pilot project in early 2023. 1.Construction Costs. Full buildout of the TOSV Pilot Project was estimated at nearly $13.8 million at the end of April 2022, approximately $162,000 per unit, not including land costs. This included environmental remediation, architect fees and building permits, roads and utilities, construction of homes and other buildings, and landscaping, as shown in the figure below. TOSA believes that most of these costs will be covered through in-kind contributions and donations. As of July 6, 2022, TOSA reports having received nearly $2.2 million in cash for this project, with another $3.1 in cash pledged. The exhibits to the transmittal include letters from various individuals promising in-kind support and guarantees. The Administration has committed to ensuring that TOSA has adequate funds to move the project forward prior to closing on the land lease. ➢To increase the likelihood that these pledges are enforceable, the Council could consider asking the Administration to include a condition on the ground lease that any pledge or guarantees is in a form acceptable to the City (this was also noted in an earlier policy question). TOSV PILOT PHASE - CAPITAL COSTS Environmental Remediation $232,500 Permit / Fees $400,000 Civil Work $1,045,440 Tiny Home Construction $4,350,000 Welcome Neighborhood Homes $875,000 Neighborhood Center $441,000 Community Center / Clinic $3,146,400 Social Enterprise Building $2,300,000 Landscaping $320,000 Architectural Fees $666,744 Total $13,777,084 Source: TOSA, dated 4/29/22 as provided to City staff on 6/24/22 Note: Excludes land costs Page | 8 2 1 7 1 7 2.Operations Costs. The primary source of revenue to cover TOSV’s operating costs will be the “social enterprise” businesses located on-site, which are designed to provide job opportunities for residents. These include a thrift store, cookie manufacturing, and rental of the 25 purpose-built tiny homes to the public, including Pilot Project visitors and volunteers. This would be known as the Community Inn. Rent from TOSV residents would cover approximately 10% of operating costs. TOSA indicated that the years noted on the pro forma included in the transmittal (Exhibit G) would shift to reflect that the bulk of revenues and expenses would begin to accrue in 2023, rather than 2022. In response to staff questions, TOSA provided the following additional information: “The Other Side Village has had 2 market studies for the cookie production. The two studies were done independently by University of Utah as well as by Brigham Young University business and MBA students. Both studies showed a growing cookie market and strong indicators for a viable cookie production business. In regards to the Thrift Store, no additional market study was conducted. The Other Side Village is drawing on the experience of the Academy running the two thrift stores in Millcreek and Murray, plus their experience of launching and running a Thrift Furniture store in Denver. There would be a relationship between the Village thrift store and the Academy’s stores. The most obvious relationship is for the Academy to provide inventory for the Village store. The Academy has excess inventory available that would be easy to place at the Village thrift store at little expense or effort.” ➢The Council may wish to ask the Administration about the strategy to be used in the event the operational revenues are not sufficient to cover operational costs. F.Assessment of Pilot Project. The transmittal states that the purpose of the pilot project is to demonstrate the feasibility of the concept. The Administration would assess this using the following criteria: 1. Financial feasibility, successfully generating sufficient positive cashflow to maintain and grow its operations. 2. Social outcomes of the target populations, reducing the number of chronically homeless individuals and improving the well-being of residents. 3. At the neighborhood level, the project’s positive impact on the surrounding community. ➢The Council may wish to ask the Administration about the assessment process: Which department or division would be charged with the assessment? Which indicators and sources of information would be used? What would become of the pilot site and the construction on it should the pilot not demonstrate feasibility? ➢The Council may wish to ask the Administration how success will be evaluated and/or confirmed prior to the authorization of future phases. ➢The Council could ask the Administration to consider adding terms to the lease to lay the groundwork for termination if the Village does not meet operational expectations and/or cover expenses. 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 Office Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 19, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) __________________________ SUBJECT: Informal Public Benefits Analysis for a tiny home village with ~54 units of affordable housing in exchange for a below-market 40-year land lease of approximately 8 acres of vacant City property located at approximately 1850 West Indiana Avenue. STAFF CONTACT: Tammy Hunsaker, Deputy Director, Community and Neighborhoods 801-535-7244, tammy.hunsaker@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Consideration of the attached resolution allowing the City to enter into a 40-year below-market ground lease agreement with The Other Side Academy, a Utah nonprofit corporation, in order to facilitate the construction of a tiny home village with ~54 units of affordable housing. BUDGET IMPACT: N/A BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City and the State of Utah are experiencing a widening housing affordability gap, one of the fundamental causes of homelessness. Resources at the federal and state level have proven vastly inadequate in addressing the housing crisis. As such, cities are left to stretch local dollars, implement innovative policy tools, and think outside of the box with project typologies. Research and experience have overwhelmingly demonstrated that investment in permanent housing solutions is effective in reducing homelessness. Long-term housing solutions, particularly solutions that are co-located with supportive services, not only stabilize lives but have been proven to be more cost effective than emergency shelters and care facilities. 8/19/2022 8/19/2022 In 2020, the Administration began to explore new, innovative solutions to addressing the homelessness crisis. At this time, an exploratory partnership was formed between the City and The Other Side Academy (“TOSA”), a Utah 501(c)3 non-profit organization, to analyze the feasibility of a tiny home village that provides housing for chronically homeless individuals. TOSA brings unique experience with operation of “therapeutic communities” that help those with long histories of addiction and criminal behavior stabilize their lives. As a result of this exploratory partnership, a tiny home village for individuals experiencing homelessness has been conceptualized and is proposed to be located on approximately 40 acres of City-owned property located at 1850 W Indiana Avenue and 1965 West 500 South (the “Property”). The Other Side Village (“TOSV”) is proposed to be a “recovery housing” model that aligns with National Alliance for Recovery Residence standards and is contemplated to eventually encompass the Property. Currently, the Administration and TOSA have narrowed the scope to a pilot project limited to approximately 8 acres (the “Pilot Site”) to demonstrate the feasibility of the concept, refer to Exhibit A: Site Map. This initial phase of the project will include approximately 54 deed-restricted tiny homes, 6 tiny homes for staff, 25 tiny homes to be offered as nightly rentals, community space, commercial space for social enterprise endeavors, and space for on-site services (the “Pilot Project”). The Administration and TOSA have negotiated project terms that include a below-market land lease of $1.00 per year for 40 years to assist in the financial viability of the Pilot Project. Pursuant to State law, the City shall first hold a public hearing followed by authorization by the City Council in order to execute a below-market land lease. Highlights of the Pilot Project are as follows, with additional detail included in Exhibit B: Resolution and Term Sheet and Exhibit C: Informal Public Benefits Analysis. I.Project Overview The Pilot Project is proposed to include the following: •At least 60 tiny homes to be used as permanent housing §A minimum of 54 units, or 90% of the total permanent housing units, shall be deed-restricted as affordable §Up to 6 units, or 10% of the total permanent housing units, may be used as staff living quarters •Up to 25 additional tiny homes may be used as a Community Inn offered as nightly rentals to generate income for TOSV operations •A ~ 2,000 square foot Neighborhood Center to house clubhouse type uses for TOSV residents •A ~10,000 square foot Social Enterprise Building to house social enterprise endeavors that generate income for the TOSV operations •A ~12,000 square foot Community Center building to house multi-purpose space, and supportive services for TOSV residents including a medical clinic, a mental health clinic, a social services clinic, administrative offices, and a security office •Utility service and related infrastructure; roads and curb/gutter II.Recovery Housing Model Utilizing the recovery housing model, TOSA plans to target individuals who are considered chronically homeless, generally defined as individuals experiencing homelessness for at least a year, or repeatedly, and struggling with a disabling condition such as a serious mental illness, substance use disorder, or physical disability. Similar to permanent supportive housing, recovery housing values independent living and voluntary clinical services. Where they differ is that recovery housing requires an alcohol and drug- free living environment and may require residents to participate in recovery activities as a condition for residency. This social model of recovery helps individuals relearn how to organize their lives, interact with others, and participate in community-based recovery activities. III.Affordable Housing & Tenant Selection An overview of the affordable housing and tenant selection terms are as follows: •Units shall primarily be available to persons or families that meet HUD’s definition of chronically homeless. If there are units available and no applications from chronically homeless individuals, TOSA may lease units to vulnerable homeless individuals. •An admission preference may be established for individuals with a commitment to sobriety. •All applicants shall go through the coordinated entry process used by the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness. •Tenants may be required to have employment or another source of income, such as social security disability or a tenant-based voucher, to be able to afford to pay rent. •Maximum rents shall be set for individuals and households at 25% of the area median income (“AMI”), adjusted annually for household size. For a single person based on 2022 HUD income limits, this would equate to $448 maximum monthly rent including basic utilities. •Maximum incomes shall be set for individuals and households at 30% of the AMI and below. Tenants must meet this income threshold, in addition to meeting homelessness criteria, upon entering into a lease. This equates to a maximum annual income of $21,510 for a single person based on 2022 HUD income limits. Tenants will only be required to meet this income threshold upon entering into a lease and may increasing their income subsequently. •TOSA intents to provide leases on a month-to-month basis, however, tenants may live in their homes as long as they meet the basic obligations of tenancy without a time limitation. IV.Supportive Services & Programming The Pilot Project will include supportive services to assist homeless persons in transitioning from homelessness, and to enable tenants to live as independently as possible. The scope and scale of on-site health and case-management services is yet to be finalized, as TOSA is working on building partnerships with service providers - refer to Exhibit D: Service Providers Letters of Interest for additional information. In addition to on-site services, TOSA plans to coordinate access to off-site specialty services that are tailored to unique needs that residents may have. In addition to health-related services, the Pilot Project will include programming to develop social and life-skills. Employment training will be available through the on-site social enterprise businesses. V.Site & Zoning The Property is currently zoned PL - Public Lands. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning of the Property to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District). The Salt Lake City Planning Commission recommended approval of the zoning change on October 27, 2021, with the request currently being considered by the City Council through a transmittal from the Planning Division. The Property is vacant and will require significant infrastructure and site improvements to facilitate the Pilot Project. VI.Environmental Remediation Parts of the Property were previously used as a landfill. Environmental testing indicates that various levels of mitigation efforts need to occur in order for the Property to be safe for residential development. The extent of mitigation will depend on the placement of land uses and the utilization of environmental controls. The Department of Sustainability is involved with the identification, sampling, and site investigation process and will work with State and other cognizant agencies to ensure that requirements are met for site clean- up, remediation, and mitigation. VII.Development Viability TOSA estimates that the Pilot Project will cost an estimated $13.8 million, excluding land costs, as follows: TOSV PILOT PHASE - CAPITAL COSTS Environmental Remediation $232,500 Permit / Fees $400,000 Civil Work $1,045,440 Tiny Home Construction $4,350,000 Welcome Neighborhood Homes $875,000 Neighborhood Center $441,000 Community Center / Clinic $3,146,400 Social Enterprise Building $2,300,000 Landscaping $320,000 Architectural Fees $666,744 Total $13,777,084 Source: TOSA, dated 4/29/22 as provided to City staff on 6/24/22 Note: Excludes land costs The majority of costs will be covered by in-kind work and donations. According to TOSA, the fund-raising status is as follows as of July 6, 2022: •Almost $2.2 million in cash has been committed and received •Another $3.1 in cash has been pledged •The remaining balance is either committed or expected to be received through in- kind assets and services - Refer to Exhibit E: In Kind Letters for additional information The Administration will ensure that TOSA has adequate funds to move the project forward prior to closing on the land lease. If fundraising does not meet expectations or there are gaps in the receipt of charitable funds, Joseph Grenny, TOSA’s Chairman of the Board, and his wife have made a personal commitment of up to $5,000,000 to cover shortfalls - refer to Exhibit F: Construction Commitment Letter for additional information. VIII.Operating Viability & Social Enterprises Rent revenues are only estimated to cover about 10% of the annual operating costs – refer to Exhibit G: Pro Forma. The remaining revenue required to successfully operate the Pilot Project will be generated by social enterprise businesses that will be located on-site. These businesses are anticipated to be a motel (Community Inn), thrift store, and cookie- manufacturing enterprise. In addition to generating revenue to cover operating costs, these businesses will provide critical job training opportunities for residents. The Community Inn will include 25 stand-alone tiny homes offered as nightly rentals for the general public, thereby providing lodging opportunities for Pilot Project visitors and volunteers. While these businesses are yet to be established, TOSA has considerable experience with social enterprise businesses and has partnered with the founder of Lofthouse Cookies to advise on the cookie manufacturing business. If revues fall short, TOSA has committed to covering up to $1,000,000 annually to cover operating expenses –refer to Exhibit H: Operating Commitment Letter. PUBLIC PROCESS: Under Utah law, after first holding a public hearing, a municipality may “authorize municipal services or other nonmonetary assistance to be provided to a nonprofit entity, whether or not the municipality receives consideration in return.” Utah Code §10-8- 2(1)(a)(v). Because TOSA is a nonprofit entity, the City may waive the fair-market rental rates it would ordinarily be required to receive for use of City-owned property so long as the municipal legislative body first holds a public hearing regarding the waiver and authorizes the Administration to enter into the land lease for the below-market lease rates. While a formal public benefits analysis is not required pursuant to Utah law, an informal public benefits analysis is provided as Exhibit C: Informal Public Benefits Analysis to provide an analysis of the public benefits to be received in exchange for a waiver of the fair-market rents for a land lease. EXHIBITS: A.Site Map B.Resolution and Term Sheet C.Informal Public Benefits Analysis D.Service Provider Letters of Interest E.In Kind Letters F.Construction Commitment Letter G.Pro Forma H.Operating Commitment Letter EXHIBIT A: SITE MAP Note: Pilot Site is defined by the smaller blue boundary. Site plan is subject to change. RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2022 (Authorizing the Lease Rate and Term for The Other Side Village Pilot Project located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Salt Lake City) WHEREAS, The Other Side Academy (“TOSA”), a Utah nonprofit corporation, desires to develop a community of small homes, community space, support services, and commercial uses to provide affordable housing and life skill development for the City’s unsheltered population, to be known as The Other Side Village (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the first phase of the Project (the “Pilot Project”) will include affordable housing, supportive services, community space, social enterprise buildings, and additional tiny homes to be offered as nightly rentals, as further described on the attached term sheet (the “Term Sheet”); and WHEREAS, TOSA and the City desire to locate the Pilot Project on approximately 8 acres of the real property owned by the City and located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Salt Lake City (the “Pilot Site”); WHEREAS, the primary beneficiaries of the construction of the Pilot Project will be individuals experiencing chronic homelessness who are transitioning into housing as part of the City, County, and State’s efforts to address the homelessness and housing crisis in Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, a below-market ground lease to TOSA will facilitate the development of the Pilot Project, which would otherwise be financially unfeasible; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to provide assistance to TOSA in the form of a ground lease rate for the Pilot Site in the amount of $1.00 per year for a term of 40 years, so long as the conditions of the ground lease between City and TOSA, or another nonprofit approved by City, are met (the “Lease Fee Waiver”); and EXHIBIT B: RESOLUTION & TERM SHEET 2 WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 10-8-2(1)(a)(i) allows public entities to provide nonmonetary assistance and waive fees to and for nonprofit entities after a public hearing; and WHEREAS, though Utah Code Section 10-8-2 does not require a study for such waiver or assistance, in this case the Administration voluntarily performed an analysis of the nonmonetary assistance to the nonprofit corporation (the “Analysis”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing relating to the foregoing, in satisfaction of the requirements of Utah Code Section 10-8-2; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Analysis, and has fully considered the conclusions set forth therein, and all comments made during the public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1.The City Council hereby adopts the conclusions set forth in the Analysis, and hereby finds and determines that, for all the reasons set forth in the Analysis, the Lease Fee Waiver is appropriate under these circumstances. 2.The terms outlined on the Term Sheet represent the approved terms for the Pilot Project, and the City Council hereby authorizes the City administration to negotiate the final terms consistent with the Term Sheet or more beneficial to the City, and execute the ground lease and any other relevant documents consistent with this Resolution and incorporating such other terms and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, on _________, 2022. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: ______________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ____________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office By: ___________________________ Kimberly Chytraus, Senior City Attorney EXHIBIT TO RESOLUTION The Other Side Village Pilot Project Term Sheet AFFORDABLE HOUSING I.Unit Requirements TOSA shall develop and maintain the Pilot Site to include a minimum of 60 tiny home units. Of the total units: 1.Up to 10% may be unrestricted in rent and occupancy for utilization by staff. 2.A minimum of 90% shall be available and affordable to individuals or families meeting the HUD-adopted definition of chronically homeless and homeless, with a priority on chronically homeless. These units shall be designated as the “Affordable Units”. II.Occupancy Requirements TOSA must place into the Affordable Units individuals and families that meet the HUD-adopted definition of chronically homeless and homeless, prioritized as follows: 1.TOSA shall first make the units available to persons or families that meet HUD’s definition of chronically homeless as defined in section 401(2)(A) of the McKinney- Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(9)). In general, to meet this definition, a chronically homeless person or family’s head of household must be sleeping in a place not meant for human habitation or living in a homeless emergency shelter or safe haven, have a disabling condition, as defined in section 401(9) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(9)), and i.be continuously homeless for a year or more, OR ii.have had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years as long as the combined occasions equal at least 12 months. 2.If there are units available and no applications from chronically homeless individuals, TOSA may lease units to vulnerable homeless individuals, as “homeless” is then- currently defined by HUD, provided that applicants who have been homeless for the longest periods of time immediately preceding their application are given priority over applicants who have been homeless for lesser periods of time. III.Tenant Eligibility To determine whether a tenant is eligible, TOSA must verify that the prospective tenant meets HUD’s definition of chronically homeless or homeless and whose incomes have an aggregate annual income for all occupants that is 30% and below of the area median income for Salt Lake City Utah, HUD Metro FMR Area as adjusted for household size. IV.Tenant Selection 1.The Affordable Units shall be made available pursuant to federal and state fair housing laws and HUD guidance, including the following: i.TOSA may establish admission preferences, including a preference for individuals with a commitment to sobriety, but may not deny housing to protected classes pursuant to federal and state fair housing laws. ii.TOSA may regulate the occupancy of units based on unit size but may not unreasonably limit the ability of families with children to obtain housing. 2.TOSA must develop and make public written tenant selection policies and procedures that include descriptions of the eligibility requirements. The Tenant Selection Plan must include evidence of a contractual partnership with service provider(s) and whether there is a restriction or preference in the admission of tenants. The restriction or preference must cite the supporting documentation to ensure inclusion and nondiscrimination in the selection of tenants. 3. TOSA will ensure that all applicants for housing in the project will go through the coordinated entry process used by the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness to ensure coordination and efficiency with the current homelessness services system. 4. TOSA also will enter any new resident into the Homeless Management Information System (“HMIS”) coordinated entry system. 5. Preference will be given to Salt Lake City residents for placement into the development. V. Maximum Rents 1. The annualized rent (which includes all required housing costs such as utilities and other charges uniformly assessed to all Affordable Units, other than charges for optional services) per unit shall be set forth in a written lease and shall not exceed, for the term of the lease, 30% of the annual income limit for individuals and households with a maximum AMI of 25% AMI for the applicable Unit Type (i.e. studio or bedroom number). VI. Tenant Lease Requirements 1. Leases may be provided on a month-to-month basis, with the intent that tenants may live in their homes as long as they meet the basic obligations of tenancy without a time limitation. 2. TOSA shall comply with local, state, and federal laws, including the federal fair housing act, when approving applicants as tenants, evicting, terminating a lease, or providing a notice to quit. 3. TOSA must incorporate specific provisions into the lease agreement for each eligible tenant of the Affordable Units that establish the tenant's obligation to provide accurate information regarding household income and composition. VII. Record-Keeping and Reporting Requirements 1. Upon execution of a lease, TOSA must verify and document the tenant’s annual (gross) income. 2. TOSA must re-examine the income and household composition of tenants on an annual basis. 3. TOSA must submit annual compliance reports to the City. These reports shall document the occupancy and show whether TOSA is in compliance with tenant eligibility requirements. 4. TOSA must provide the City a written certification of compliance when the project reaches initial compliance and then with each annual report. SUPPORTIVE SERVICES The pilot project will include supportive services to assist homeless persons in transitioning from homelessness, and to promote the provision of supportive housing to enable homeless persons to live as independently as possible. Supportive services will include on-site case coordination or management that ensures tenants’ access to a wide variety of services and on-site location of services provided by professional service providers as evidenced through an agreement. Services shall be made available on a flexible and voluntary basis and may address the following: mental health, substance and alcohol use, health, case management, independent living skills, employment, peer support, and community involvement and support. Physical and mental health providers shall have the appropriate licenses, which other services may be provided by those with appropriate training and following industry best practices. PROGRAMMING The pilot project will include programming that includes peer mentoring and the life skill development. This will include opportunities for residents to obtain employment experience by working in a social enterprise to the best of their ability. While participation in these employment activities shall be encouraged, it is not a condition of living in the pilot project. TERM The term of the lease will be forty (40) years with an option to renew the lease within the last year of the lease subject to approval by the Salt Lake City Council for the reduced lease rate. LEASE RATE The lease rate for the property will be $1 per year for the term of the lease. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council Members SUBJECT: Informal Analysis of Public Benefits Provided by The Other Side Village’s Small Home Project in Exchange for a Below-market Ground Lease of Property INTRODUCTION Salt Lake City (the “City”) owns real property located at approximately 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Salt Lake City, consisting of approximately 45 acres (the “City Property”). The Other Side Academy, a Utah nonprofit corporation (“TOSA”) desires to develop a community of small homes, community space, support services, and commercial uses to provide affordable housing and life skill development for the City’s unsheltered population (the “Project”). This informal public benefits analysis is only for the first phase of the Project (the “Pilot Project”), which is intended to be a lease of approximately 8 acres of the City Property (the “Pilot Site”) and development of approximately of 54 tiny homes that shall be deed restricted as affordable and co-located with supportive services and social enterprise uses. While the City’s primary interest in development of the Pilot Site is affordable housing and supportive services, TOSA intends to develop other uses including community space, social enterprise buildings, and additional tiny homes to be offered as nightly rentals. Prior to development, the Pilot Site may require environmental remediation and/or mitigation to allow for residential uses. TOSA has agreed to pay for all costs to remediate the Pilot Site and to develop and operate the Pilot Project. Any request to lease the remainder of the City Property for less than fair market value will be submitted to the City Council at a later time for a supplemental public benefit analysis. In exchange for the remediation, operation, and management of the Pilot Project, TOSA is seeking a discounted lease rate for a 40-year ground lease of the Pilot Site (the “Ground Lease”). Though a formal analysis of the benefits to be received by the City in exchange for the benefit provided to TOSA is not required under Utah Code ⸹10-8-2, this informal analysis has been prepared to help assist the City Council’s evaluation of the recommended action. LEGAL FRAMEWORK Under Utah law, after first holding a public hearing, a municipality may “authorize municipal services or other nonmonetary assistance to be provided to a nonprofit entity, whether or not the municipality receives consideration in return.” Utah Code §10-8-2(1)(a)(v). Because TOSA is a nonprofit entity, the City may waive the fair-market rental rates it would ordinarily be required to receive for use of the City Property so long as the municipal legislative body first holds a public hearing regarding the waiver and authorizes the Administration to enter into the Ground Lease at the below-market lease rate. Utah Code §10-8-2(3) outlines the purposes for which a municipal body may appropriate funds as “for any purpose that, in the judgment of the municipal legislative body, provides for the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the EXHIBIT C: INFORMAL PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS 2 inhabitants of the municipality.” The factors that must be considered in determining the propriety of such an appropriation or waiver if made to any type of entity or individual other than a nonprofit entity as set forth under Utah Code §10-8-2(3)(e). Here, it may be helpful to consider the same factors: (1)The specific benefits (including intangible benefits) to be received by the City in return for the arrangement; (2)The City’s purpose in making the appropriation, including an analysis of how the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort or convenience of the residents of Salt Lake City will be enhanced; and (3)Whether the appropriation is “necessary and appropriate” to accomplish the reasonable goals and objectives of the City in the area of economic development, job creation, affordable housing, blight elimination, resource center development, job preservation, the preservation of historic structures and property, and any other public purpose. BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT AND CITY PROPERTY As an overview of the entire Project, to be named The Other Side Village, TOSA anticipates developing a community that will be a secure and self-reliant neighborhood designed to serve the most vulnerable of the City’s unsheltered individuals, particularly those that meet the definition of chronically homeless. The home sizes may range from approximately 280-400 square feet. The Pilot Project is anticipated to have onsite services similar to those provided with permanent supportive housing, such as onsite medical, dental, and mental health services. In addition, TOSA is proposing that the community will have a garden and gathering spaces to serve residents. TOSA plans to implement social enterprises so that the Project can support itself financially and allow residents to gain employment experience. TOSA’s purpose for the Project is to create a community for unsheltered residents of Salt Lake City following the recovery housing model. Similar to permanent supportive housing, recovery housing values independent living and voluntary clinical services. Where they differ is that recovery housing requires an alcohol and drug-free living environment and may require residents to participate in recovery activities as a condition for residency. TOSA’s intent is to instill a peer accountability model to keep the community safe, clean, and orderly, to run social enterprises within the non-profit so that the organization can eventually be operationally self-sufficient and not be dependent on the government or donors. The Administration worked with TOSA to identify a parcel suitable for development of the Project, which ideally requires at least 30 acres, access to public transportation, and reasonable proximity to services. There are very few parcels of sufficient size and geography available within Salt Lake City boundaries. The City Property was identified as one that will allow the community to be established and potentially expand as a diverse type of deeply affordable housing and accessible services. 3 The City Property was historically used as a landfill between 1923 and 1962. It is currently vacant property and requires significant environmental remediation/mitigation and cleanup of refuse prior to development of residential uses. TOSA is working with the City’s Sustainability Department and the State of Utah to determine the scope and scale of the efforts, and TOSA has agreed to pay for the entire cost and to accept full liability for the costs and claims related to the remediation/mitigation. Before committing to lease the entire City Property to TOSA for the Project, the City and TOSA agreed to phase the Project, starting with the Pilot Project using the Pilot Site for the development of a minimum of 60 tiny homes to be utilized as housing (the “Housing Units”). Of the anticipated 60 Housing Units, a minimum of 54, or 90% of the total Housing Units, will be available and affordable to individuals and/or households that align with fair housing occupancy standards who have experienced homelessness and have incomes at or below 30% of Salt Lake County’s average median income (“AMI”), the (“Affordable Units”). The remaining 6, or up to 10% of the total Housing Units, will be available for Pilot Project staff to live on-site to help provide 24-hour staff coverage. In addition to the Housing Units, TOSA plans to construct and utilize up to 25 tiny homes as nightly rentals (the “Community Inn”). The Community Inn will also function as a social enterprise to provide job training and revenue for TOSV operations. TOSA shall construct and operate supportive services for the residents to assist homeless persons in transitioning from homelessness, and to enable tenants to live as independently as possible. Finally, TOSA intends to construct community space and social enterprise buildings to provide job training and revenue for the Pilot Project’s operations. The Ground Lease will include the affordability requirements for the Pilot Project, as well as other requirements. The Pilot Project is anticipated to include development of the buildings, Housing Units, related infrastructure (curb and gutter), and will also include the related amenities. TOSA desires to eventually develop the entire City Property for the Project and anticipates submitting a separate request to lease the additional City Property after meeting certain metrics, including occupancy and confirmation that the Pilot Project does not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. If TOSA requests to lease the remaining City Property, it will accept full responsibility for the costs and liability to remediate and/or mitigate the additional City Property to standards for residential development. TOSA is requesting that the City approve the Ground Lease of the Pilot Site in exchange for the public benefits TOSA will be providing with the homeless services, environmental remediation, development, and operation of the Pilot Project. The Council has been asked to consider a zoning amendment for the City Property concurrent with consideration of the proposed below- market lease rate to allow development of the Pilot Project. TOSA intends to construct and operate the Pilot Project through donations from foundations, corporations, and private citizens. Eventually, TOSA hopes to obtain self-sufficiency through revenues generated from social enterprises, including the Community Inn. 4 TERMS OF THE GROUND LEASE AND PUBLIC BENEFITS PROVIDED I.Terms of Ground Lease; Costs to the City Under the proposed Ground Lease between the City and TOSA, the City will maintain ownership of the Pilot Site and the Pilot Project will be owned and developed by TOSA, or a non-profit entity approved by the City. The Ground Lease will be structured to require a $1.00 dollar per year payment over the 40-year lease term. The Ground Lease will require that the Pilot Site will be used solely for the development and operation of the small home community. The 2022 assessed value of the City Property is approximately $4.20 per square foot, which equates to about $8,230,000 for the City Property or $1,460,000 for the Pilot Site property, excluding remediation, mitigation, and cleanup costs. Remediation and mitigation of the Pilot Site acres of City Property will allow it to be utilized for residential purposes. The below-market lease terms are being offered as the City’s contribution to providing solutions for homeless services. The City will not have any responsibility for environmental remediation, construction, operation, or maintenance of the Pilot Site and Pilot Project. II.Public Benefits Provided by the Pilot Project. The Pilot Project as planned provides numerous benefits to the City and promotes the City’s reasonable goals of objectives to increase the availability of affordable housing, job training, and supporting the City’s unsheltered population on a path to secure housing. A wide array of affordable housing options is needed to create a path from shelter to housing. By the City maintaining ownership of the Pilot Site but leasing it to TOSA, the City will facilitate the development of housing and services for underserved populations in our City that need it most. Residents of the Pilot Project will have the opportunity to work with case managers and may receive support in the following areas: sober living; tenant responsibilities and housing stability; access to benefits and entitlements; access to healthcare providers; access to behavioral health services; access to education and employment supports; access to mental health services and medications; information and referral to community resources (including but not limited to food pantries, legal services, faith-based organizations, additional housing options); and other relevant services and supports. Regular engagement in case management services will assist tenants in developing and fine-tuning life skills. Further, the on-site social enterprise endeavors will provide job skill development for residents of the Pilot Project. The Pilot Project will help lower the cost of public care of unsheltered individuals by providing housing for people who likely have a history of utilizing emergency services within Salt Lake City. Once housed, residents will free up shelter beds and services for others in the community to access and help alleviate capacity restraints at the homeless resource centers. In addition, accessible housing may alleviate encampments within the city that require tremendous City and County resources to maintain the health and safety of the unsheltered individuals and the public. Some residences will be earmarked as deeply affordable recovery housing to provide needed assistance to the most vulnerable population in our community. These are greatly needed community benefits. 5 The unsheltered population typically have limited access to healthcare and may rely on emergency services for care. Connecting residents to accessible medical, dental, and mental health care within the community will allow for preventative care, reducing the need for emergency room visits and hopefully providing better health outcomes. Alleviating the current burden on emergency medical services and hospitals to provide continuing care for unsheltered individuals will benefit both the individual users and the public. III.Salt Lake City’s Purposes and Enhancing the Quality of Life for Residents. Through the services mentioned above, the Pilot Project aims to serve formerly unsheltered individuals through housing, healthcare, social enterprise, and community. By helping serve the needs of these individuals, it is anticipated that the impact to the City can be measured through improvement of life skills and health outcomes, reduction in area criminal activity, and new or increased employment of clients served by the Pilot Project. The neighborhood surrounding the Pilot Project may also benefit by activation of the currently vacant and former landfill space. Increasing the number of residences in the area may encourage additional investments in the neighborhood such as grocery and other retail stores, recreation, and transit. In addition, TOSA is committed to ensuring that the Pilot Project does not become a strain on the City’s public safety infrastructure and does not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhoods. IV.Accomplishing Salt Lake City’s Goals. The construction and operation of the Pilot Project is in line with the City’s Housing Plan, Growing SLC: a Five Year Housing Plan, 2018-2022. Growing SLC includes solutions to address housing for incomes below 40% AMI providing housing and services to the City’s most vulnerable populations. Growing SLC strongly encourages supporting residents living in poverty and making $20,000 per year or less. To do that, the plan sets the following actions items for the City: (1)Lead in the development of new affordable housing types, as well as construction methods that incorporate innovative solutions to issues of form, function, and maintenance. (2)Offer incentives to developers of affordable housing such as land discounts and primary financing options. (3)Work with housing partners and government entities to continue supporting and enhancing service models that meet the needs of the City’s most vulnerable households. The plan also adopts the City Council’s 2017 guiding principles for evaluating and appropriating City funds for housing. The priorities relevant to the Pilot Project are as follows: (1)Create a net increase in affordable housing units while: (i) Avoiding displacement of existing affordable housing to the extent possible, and (ii) Retaining and expanding the diversity of AMI and innovative housing types. (2)Create a spectrum of housing options for people of all backgrounds and incomes. 6 (3)Include collaboration with community and private sector partners to enable opportunities for in kind contributions, creative financing, and service delivery models. (4)Utilize city-owned land whenever possible. (5)Enable residents’ success to maintain housing through partnerships with providers of supportive services. (6)Identify tools to increase and diversify the total housing supply including housing types that the private market does not sufficiently provide such as … innovative housing types. The Pilot Project accomplishes several of the City’s goals and priorities by providing predictable, affordable housing and supports needs of its residents. CONCLUSION The development of the Pilot Project by TOSA will be a benefit to residents of the City. Providing a below-market Ground Lease for the Pilot Site is an appropriate use of City resources to achieve the City’s “reasonable goals and objectives of the City in the area of economic development, job creation, affordable housing, blight elimination, resource center development, job preservation, the preservation of historic structures and property.” Further, the Pilot Project helps to achieve the City’s goals by creating a net increase in affordable housing stock while providing long-term housing services for very low-income residents who have experienced homelessness. 4460 S Highland Dr. Salt Lake City, UT 84124 888.949.4864 ValleyCares.com July 1, 2022 The Other Side Village 667 East 100 South Salt Lake City, UT 84102 To Whom it May Concern: It is my pleasure to provide this letter of support on behalf of Valley Behavioral Health, Inc (Valley). Valley has worked closely with The Other Side Village leadership team to create the Welcome Neighborhood which will temporarily house and prepare individuals experiencing chronic homelessness to transition from the street to Village life and connect them to resources and services needed, including mental health treatment, supportive housing, medication management, and targeted case management. Valley collaborates on the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness and the Housing Core Function Group. In addition, Valley’s homeless outreach program, Storefront, works closely with the three Homeless Resource Centers and the Midvale Family Shelter by providing regular outreach and connecting those staying at these centers to various community housing programs. We support The Other Side Village initiative and plan to provide onsite mental health services to the residents of the Village on a regular basis when it is operational. We look forward to continuing our combined efforts to make homelessness rare, brief, and non- recurring in our capital city by lifting individuals out of chronic homelessness through community and connection. Sincerely, Preston L. Cochrane Valley Behavioral Health, Inc Vice President of Housing & Support Services EXHIBIT D: SERVICE PROVIDERS LETTERS OF INTEREST June 17, 2022 Mr. Tim Stay The Other Side Village Executive Director Dear Mr. Stay, On behalf of Fourth Street Clinic, I am pleased to provide this letter of interest for The Other Side Village, a.k.a Tiny Village, as you move forward in your planning and approval phase to begin construction. Fourth Street Clinic is committed to providing high quality integrated health care services to those in our community experiencing homelessness. We believe that housing is a critical component of achieving and maintaining good health, and we are pleased to be included in the conversation on how we can partner to support those experiencing homelessness as they transition into housing. We look forward to continuing conversations as you embark on the planning process to discuss expand funding opportunities, defining and understanding the scope and timelines of the project, and engaging with additional partners to support our work. As community partners, we are keenly aware that partnerships are essential to extend and strengthen vital programs that ensure the health and well-being of those experiencing homelessness. Located in downtown Salt Lake City since 1988, Fourth Street Clinic has been the primary provider of health care services in Salt Lake County and its surrounding area. In 2021, 4,672 individuals received care at our downtown clinic as well as through our Medical Street Team and our Mobile Clinic. Fourth Street Clinic stands ready to look at ways in which our organizations can work collaboratively to maximize resources and to improve the health care for our homeless community. Fourth Street Clinic values the partnership of our organizations and applauds the work of The Other Side Village to address the many challenges of homelessness. I look forward to ongoing discussions and clarity on the Tiny Village project as plans are solidified. I can be reached directly at 801-364-0058 ext 1383 or janida@fourthstreetclinic.org. Sincerely, Janida Emerson CEO July 3, 2022 Salt Lake City Council Attn: Tim Stay 667 E 100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84120 RE: THE OTHER SIDE VILLAGE Dear City Council: The purpose of this letter is to document the commitment of Sego Homes to help with the funding and construction of the The Other Side Village. Sego Homes, along with their vendors and trade partners, has provided support to several charitable organizations over the past few years such as Operation Underground Railroad to whom we donated $121,000 and Hopes for Hope to whom we donated $101,000. We anticipate providing a similar level of support to The Other Side Village by building and donating several of the tiny homes proposed for this community. We respectfully request that the City Council approve this proposed community and facilitate the successful development of this innovative and much needed community. Sincerely, SEGO HOMES Wayne H. Corbridge CEO wayne@segohomes.com (801) 362-6228 EXHIBIT E: IN KIND LETTERS June 24, 2022 ATTN: Mr. Tim Stay The Other Side Academy 667 E 100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Dear Tim, As you know, HomeAid is a 501(c)3 organization with 32 years experience in partnering with the homebuilding industry to provide discounted and in-kind construction and renovation services to organizations serving people experiencing homelessness. The HomeAid Utah affiliate has been in operation over 3 years and has enjoyed tremendous support in our fight to help alleviate human suffering within our community. We are supported by some of the largest homebuilders and industry associates locally, regionally and nationally. We are aware of and eager to participate in your new tiny home community project in Salt Lake City, The Other Side Village. Our sister affiliate, HomeAid Austin, has been very successful in their efforts at the Community First Village in Austin, Texas and will have completed 36 tiny-homes by the end of 2023. HomeAid Utah anticipates we can facilitate the construction of approximately 15-20 tiny homes, possibly an entire sub-village within the initial phase of the community. It is our goal that once completed and additional phases become available, we can be an ongoing contributor over the duration of the total project buildout facilitating the construction of several more homes. We are very much looking forward to participating with you on this worthy initiative. Sincerely, Don Adamson Executive Director, HomeAid Utah Cc: Nate Shipp, Affiliate President, HomeAid Utah t 801.595.6400 e4harchitecture.com |833 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 July 1, 2022 The Other Side Village Attn: Tim Stay 667 E 100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Re: Support for the Other Side Village Project Dear Tim, At your request, I am writing to summarize our support to date for the Other Side Village project. Our architectural firm, E4H Environments for Health Architecture, is dedicated to improving the wellness of our communities including physical health, mental health, equality, and basic human needs. The charitable wing of our organization, E4Hcares, has been providing full architectural services for the Other Side Village project for well over a year. Our Salt Lake firm partner, David Dixon, has orchestrated the development of the site plan, buildings, and homes by leading a host of other design professionals, schools, and individuals in the planning of the Village while he fills in the gaps. To date, David has contributed well over 400 hours to this effort. At our standard billing rate of $250/hour for our firm partners, this would equate to a donation of over $100,000 in design services. We would estimate he and others in our firm will spend another equal amount of time seeing the project through to completion. We firmly believe the Other Side Village will be the best program anywhere for caring for our homeless neighbors and helping them to lead more productive lives. The leaders of the Village effort have a proven track record with the Other Side Academy and we hope the City will continue to offer their full support to bring this to fruition as quickly as possible. Best regards, David J. Dixon, AIA EXHIBIT F: CONSTRUCTION COMMITMENT LETTER 45 OPERATIONAL 15-YEAR PROFORMA FOR VILLAGE PILOT PHASE EXHIBIT G: PROFORMA 667 E 100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84102 TheOtherSideAcademy.com July 1, 2022 To Whom it May Concern : The board of The Other Side Academy has agreed to cover any operational shortfalls in funding from the operations of The Other Side Village in an amount up to $1 million per year. I also confirm that The Other Side Academy has the financial means to provide these funds if needed. Respectfully, Tim Stay CEO The Other Side Academy tim@theothersideacademy.com 801-362-8998 EXHIBIT H: OPERATING COMMITMENT LETTER RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2022 (Authorizing the Lease Rate and Term for The Other Side Village Pilot Project located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Salt Lake City) WHEREAS, The Other Side Academy (“TOSA”), a Utah nonprofit corporation, desires to develop a community of small homes, community space, support services, and commercial uses to provide affordable housing and life skill development for some of the City’s unsheltered population, to be known as The Other Side Village (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the first phase of the Project (the “Pilot Project”) will include affordable housing, supportive services, community space, social enterprise buildings, and additional tiny homes to be offered as nightly rentals, as further described on the attached term sheet (the “Term Sheet”); and WHEREAS, TOSA and the City desire to locate the Pilot Project on approximately 8 acres of the real property owned by the City and located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Salt Lake City (the “Pilot Site”); WHEREAS, the primary beneficiaries of the construction of the Pilot Project will be individuals experiencing chronic homelessness who are transitioning into housing as part of the City, County, and State’s efforts to address the homelessness and housing crisis in Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, a below-market ground lease to TOSA will facilitate the development of the Pilot Project, which would otherwise be financially unfeasible; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to provide assistance to TOSA in the form of a ground lease rate for the Pilot Site in the amount of $1.00 per year for a term of 40 years, so long as the conditions of the ground lease between City and TOSA, or another nonprofit approved by City, are met (the “Lease Fee Waiver”); and 2 WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 10-8-2(1)(a)(i) allows public entities to provide nonmonetary assistance and waive fees to and for nonprofit entities after a public hearing; and WHEREAS, though Utah Code Section 10-8-2 does not require a study for such waiver or assistance, in this case the Administration voluntarily performed an analysis of the nonmonetary assistance to the nonprofit corporation (the “Analysis”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing relating to the foregoing, in satisfaction of the requirements of Utah Code Section 10-8-2; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Analysis, and has fully considered the conclusions set forth therein, and all comments made during the public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby adopts the conclusions set forth in the Analysis, and hereby finds and determines that, for all the reasons set forth in the Analysis, the Lease Fee Waiver is appropriate under these circumstances. 2. The terms outlined on the Term Sheet represent the approved terms for the Pilot Project, and the City Council hereby authorizes the City administration to negotiate the final terms consistent with the Term Sheet or more beneficial to the City, and execute the ground lease and any other relevant documents consistent with this Resolution and incorporating such other terms and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, on _________, 2022. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: ______________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ____________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office By: ___________________________ Kimberly Chytraus, Senior City Attorney Items B6 & B7 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: Allison Rowland & Brian Fullmer Policy Analysts DATE:September 20, 2022 RE: The Other Side Village Public Benefits Analysis and Below Market Lease Rate and Term; and The Other Side Village Rezoning Application PLNPCM2021-00787 The following motions are for the public hearing on the TOSV public benefits analysis and below market lease rate and term (public hearing item #6) AND the TOSV rezoning application public hearing (public hearing item #7) MOTION 1 (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing on the Other Side Village: - public benefits analysis and below market lease rate and term (item #6), - and rezoning application (item #7), - and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing on the Other Side Village: - public benefits analysis and below market lease rate and term (item #6), - and rezoning application (item #7), - and defer action to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:September 13, 2022 RE: The Other Side Village (TOSV) Rezoning Application PLNPCM2021-00787 The Council will be briefed about an ordinance requested by The Other Side Academy (TOSA) to amend zoning designations on portions of properties located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue, and 1965 West 500 South. Both properties are owned by Salt Lake City and zoned PL (Public Lands). The requested zoning designation is FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District) to develop a walkable urban mixed-use neighborhood that would be known as “The Other Side Village” (TOSV) operated by TOSA. Permanent supportive housing for chronically homeless individuals, along with on-site healthcare, medical services, and community gathering spaces are anticipated under the proposal. The proposed rezoning would apply to approximately 28.5 acres of the 1850 West Indiana Avenue parcel, and approximately 8.6 acres at 1965 South 500 West for a total of approximately 37.1 acres as shown in the image below. Total area of both parcels is approximately 83.43 acres. Approval by the Council would result in both parcels being “split zoned” (two zoning designations within each parcel). It has not been determined by the Administration whether the parcels would remain split zoned or subdivided. If the parcels are subdivided that is an administrative process and would not involve the Council. Under the proposal, the City would retain ownership of the subject property and lease it to TOSA at a reduced rate. This was addressed separately at the Council work session on September 6, 2022 by Council Senior Public Policy Analyst Allison Rowland in her report reviewing the public benefit analysis for TOSV. (Note: Ms. Rowland’s report and the public benefits analysis are attached to this report.) A specific site development proposal has not been submitted at this time however, the petitioner indicated, and the public benefits analysis is based on a “phased approach.” This would include an initial “demonstration” or pilot project on the southeast portion of the subject property. Item Schedule: Briefing: September 13, 2022 Set Date: August 29, 2022 Public Hearing: September 20, 2022 Potential Action: TBD Page | 2 2 1 7 4 2 According to information included with the public benefits analysis, the pilot project would consist of at least 54 deed-restricted tiny homes, six tiny homes for on-site staff who provide 24-hour coverage, and 25 tiny homes that would be offered as nightly rentals. The homes would measure between 280 and 400 square feet each. In addition, the pilot project would include community space, commercial space for income-generating projects, and space for on-site supportive services, as well as utility serve and related infrastructure, and roads, curbs, and gutters. Total costs are estimated at $13.8 million, excluding land costs, which TOSA has indicated it will raise largely through donations and in-kind contributions. If the pilot project is successful future phases would then expand into other areas of the property. This rezoning action would accommodate those future phases, although future public benefits analysis would be needed before the City agrees to additional ground leases. The Planning Commission followed Planning staff’s recommendation to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. In addition, the Commission included the following with its recommendation. Whereas the community and the public should have the opportunity to plan the neighborhood with the large and potentially impactful project. We recommend that the Council ask the City staff to work with the applicant, businesses, and the community to prepare a development agreement prior to conveying the property. This plan needs to look at infrastructure, including transportation, services, Commercial development, and the buffering and protection of the existing business and the needs of the nearby residents. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to discuss how impacts such as additional residents and traffic in this area would be managed. 2. Rezoning portions of the subject parcels will result in “split-zoning.” The Council may wish to ask the Administration if there are plans to subdivide the lots or leave them with multiple zoning designations. 3. The Council may wish to discuss rezoning only the approximately 8 acre proposed pilot project site rather than the larger area. 4. During small group meetings with Council Members, TOSV envisions “thousands of visitors” to the Village each year. The Council may wish to ask if there are parking areas and restroom facilities anticipated to accommodate visitors. 5. Again, in small group meetings, TOSV representatives stated there would potentially be on-site short-term rentals available. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if the proposed zoning designation permits this use. 6. The Council may wish to ask what determines if the pilot project is deemed a success, and what thresholds will be judged to determine future phases. Note: this is partially discussed in the staff report pertaining to the public benefits analysis. Page | 3 2 1 7 4 2 Zoning Map with subject parcels outlined in yellow. Areas proposed for rezoning are outlined in orange. Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Planning staff identified four key considerations with this proposal. They are summarized below. Please see pages 4-8 of the Planning Commission staff report for full details. Consideration 1-Neighborhood and City-Wide Master Plan Considerations Planning staff reviewed the proposal and found it is not in conflict with, and generally supported by the Westside Master Plan, the 9-Line Community Reinvestment Plan, Plan Salt Lake, and Growing SLC. Consideration 2-Change in Zoning and Compatibility with Adjacent Properties Planning staff noted concerns raised about impact the village might have on neighboring properties due to more people in an area that hasn’t had a residential presence. Planning stated “…it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict the scale of these impacts other than to acknowledge that some impacts are likely to occur with such a change in land use. The Master Plan recognizes future changes in this area which Page | 4 2 1 7 4 2 assumes that some impacts are likely to occur with land use changes. Additional infrastructure improvements such as sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians will help to lessen these impacts.” When reviewing the proposed zoning change, Planning staff also noted the following: “Given the location of the property, development pattern, and surrounding zoning, it is staff’s opinion that the change in zoning from PL to FB-UN2 would not lead to changes that are incompatible with the existing development process.” However, Planning recommended the City Council consider a requirement for additional buffering between the industrial and residential uses during the site development process. Consideration 3-Consideration of Alternate Zoning Districts Planning staff considered other potential zoning designations and found the proposed FB-UN2 zoning district is the only one that would accommodate most uses listed by the applicant. (A memo with the analysis is included on pages 11-12 of the Planning Commission staff report.) Some uses are not listed, but zoning interpretations may allow some of these depending on scale, or they may be allowed as accessory uses. These will be reviewed in detail during any development proposal review. Planning staff does not recommend changing to a zoning district other than the requested FB-UN2 designation. Consideration 4-Site Conditions and Infrastructure The subject properties are vacant and do not have infrastructure to support the proposed use as a “tiny home village.” Significant infrastructure improvements will need to be made if the village is developed, however, the extent of any improvements is unknown until a development proposal is submitted. Portions of both parcels were previously used as a landfill site. The Administration is involved with sampling and will work with State agencies on any needed site cleanup and mitigation. Any future development plan may be impacted but to what extent is unknown at this point. In their application materials the petitioner acknowledged the former landfill site and said that area could be utilized for non-housing uses such as additional green space with walking paths and trees, parking for large community events, or potentially a solar farm to provide electricity to the village. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment E (pages 29-30) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. Planning staff found the proposed amendment complies with all applicable standards. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for full details. PUBLIC PROCESS • August 13, 2021-Early notification announcement mailed to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the project site. Information included project details and information about how to access the online open house and provide input. • August 23, 2021-Planning staff attended West Side Community Councils Open Forum. The applicant presented the proposal and answered questions about the project. • August 31, 2021-Notice of the project and request for comments sent to Poplar Grove Community Council Chair. Courtesy notice also sent to Glendale Community Council Chair. (The Glendale Page | 5 2 1 7 4 2 Community Council is outside of the 660-foot boundary of official notice but is the closest recognized organization adjacent to the project boundary.) Neither community council provided comments to Planning staff. • Planning staff hosted an online open house from August 16, 2021-September 30, 2021 to solicit public comments about the proposal. • October 27, 2021-The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposal. Numerous comments supportive of and opposed to the project were received by Planning staff prior to, during, and following the hearing. Comments supportive of the proposal noted it is an innovative approach to a complex issue. Those opposed primarily expressed concerns about impact the village may have on crime and other activities in the area. Comments sent to Planning staff are found in Attachment F (pages 31-103) of the Planning Commission staff report, and in Exhibit 5 (pages 32-59) of the Administration’s transmittal to the City Council. • October 27, 2021-The Planning Commission closed the public hearing and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. 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:September 6, 2022 RE: RESOLUTION: REVIEWING THE PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS FOR THE OTHER SIDE VILLAGE PILOT PROJECT AT 1850 WEST INDIANA AVENUE AND CONSIDERING A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE LEASE RATE AND TERM ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive a briefing on the public benefits analysis and the proposed lease rate and term for a pilot project to test the viability of The Other Side Village (TOSV), a tiny home community that would offer “recovery housing” for people experiencing homelessness, particularly those who struggle with substance abuse, mental health and/or physical disabilities. Its services would be similar to those at permanent supportive housing developments, and it would be located on eight acres at 1850 West Indiana Avenue and part of an adjacent parcel, on a portion of vacant land owned by Salt Lake City that was formerly a landfill. The Other Side Academy (TOSA), a Utah nonprofit corporation would lease the area for 40 years at $1 per year. TOSA has agreed to pay for all costs to remediate the site of the pilot project, which includes part of the former landfill, as well as the costs of development and operation of the pilot project. Any request to lease the remainder of the City properties for less than fair market value would be submitted later and with a supplemental public benefit analysis. The Council will hear public comment on this resolution at the September 20 Formal Meeting. In conjunction with this project, the Administration has requested the Council consider a zoning amendment for the City property. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed zoning change on October 27, 2021, and the City Council will be briefed on that issue on September 13 with a public hearing also on September 20. Goal of the briefing: Review the public benefit analysis for the pilot project of The Other Side Academy’s Village and consider authorizing the below-market lease rate and 40-year term. Item Schedule: Briefing: September 6, 2022 Set Date: August 29, 2022 Public Hearing: September 20, 2022 Potential Action: October 4 Page | 2 2 1 7 4 1 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND BACKGROUND A.The Properties and Proposed Lease. Since learning of TOSA’s interest in establishing a “village” of tiny homes, the Mayor’s Administration has worked with the organization to identify potential sites large enough for the planned full build-out, which was envisioned as at least 30 acres. Parcels of this size with access to public transit are not available in most areas of Salt Lake City, but two abutting candidate parcels totaling approximately 83.5 acres of City-owned property were identified, one at 1850 West Indiana Avenue and the other at 1965 West 500 South. Parts of these parcels served as a City landfill between 1923 and 1962, and they will require environmental remediation before they can be used for the TOSV (see section B). In addition, a fault line runs through the property and the Utah Geological Survey is currently conducting a trenching study to gather additional information. The fault line and precise locations of environmental contamination could affect the boundaries and site plan of future phases of the development. The Public Benefits Analysis in the transmittal states that the 2022 assessed value of the Indiana Avenue property is about $4.20 per square foot, or $8,230,000 for the full parcel, excluding remediation, mitigation, and cleanup costs. The City and TOSA agreed to phase in the development, starting with a pilot project to test its viability (see section D below). The proposal before the Council would allow TOSA to site the pilot project on eight acres at the southeast corner of the properties. This area is assessed at approximately $1,460,000. TOSA would not have rights or obligations related to the other areas of these properties, unless and until another phase of the project is approved by the City. The City would continue to secure and maintain these areas, and TOSA states that it is committed to ensuring that residents of the Pilot Site are respectful of the surrounding property and neighborhood. The Administration proposes a lease term of 40 years at the reduced lease rate of $1 per year, with an option to renew during the last year of the lease, subject to review and approval by the Council. The below-market lease terms would be offered as the City’s contribution to TOSA’s effort to provide creative solutions for people experiencing homelessness. Utah State law provides that a municipality may “authorize municipal services or other nonmonetary assistance to be provided to a nonprofit entity, whether or not the municipality receives consideration in return,” under certain conditions. 1. The purpose of these services or assistance must be approved by the municipal legislative body and provide for “the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality.” 2. A public hearing must be held by the legislative body before the decision is made. ➢The Council may wish to ask the Administration and the Attorney’s Office about some issues that could be addressed in the terms of the lease agreement, including: o an operating covenant; o ensuring that the pledges and guarantees offered in the transmittal are in a form acceptable to the City; and o any potential termination of the lease, should TOSV not meet the mutually- agreed expectations. B.Environmental Remediation. Under the lease, the City would relinquish any responsibility for environmental remediation, construction, operation, or maintenance of the pilot site and project. All of these would be assumed by TOSA. The organization also would accept full liability for the costs and claims related to the remediation and mitigation. Current cleanup efforts are limited to the pilot site, which is believed to be the area where the smallest amount of trash was buried. Page | 3 2 1 7 4 1 The transmittal reports that the City’s Department of Sustainability is already involved with the identification, sampling, and site investigation process and will work with State and other agencies to ensure that requirements are met for site cleanup, remediation, and mitigation. Department of Sustainability staff plans to work closely with regulators, an environmental consultant, and TOSA through the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). The Sustainability Department reviews and provides input on sampling plans, reviews findings and recommendations, and coordinates the implementation of the selected remediation pathway. UDEQ will examine historical reports and environmental sampling results, and may recommend additional sampling, depending on the results of the first round. The Sustainability Department estimates one additional round of sampling and associated reporting by the consultant would cost $70,000, which would be drawn from the City’s non-departmental environmental fund. This fund was set up to be used for environmental assessments on City property and received $100,000 in the FY23 budget. The Administration reports: “Additional budget allocations may be necessary depending on the extent of the environmental work recommended by UDEQ, the City’s desire to continue participating in the VCP, and other city properties that require environmental assessments or remediation.” Once the VCP program is completed, the City would receive a “Certificate of Completion” for the project area. This indicates that all necessary precautions were taken to protect environmental and public health and provides liability protection for the City. The Sustainability Department notes that because the pilot project would be sited in the area where it is believed the smallest amount of trash was buried, remediation there may be simpler than in other areas of the property. The Department estimates that sampling and evaluation of remediation options for subsequent phases could take a year or longer, depending on what is discovered, and the proposed uses of the property. ➢The Council may wish to request additional information from the Administration about the extent of the work already completed by the Sustainability Department on this project, including the cost of any staff time that exceeded services normally provided for potential City leases. C.Informal Public Benefits Analysis. Unlike many other cases the Council considers, a formal public benefits analysis conducted by an outside consultant was not required in this case due to the non-profit status of TOSA. Still, the Administration requested that the Attorney’s Office conduct an “informal” public benefits analysis with help from the Department Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) to identify the potential benefits of the proposed agreement between Salt Lake City and The Other Side Academy (TOSA), the entity which proposes to develop The Other Side Village (TOSV). These public benefits are identified in Exhibit C of the transmittal. 1.Benefits to City. The Informal Public Benefits Analysis notes that in exchange for the property lease to TOSA for the Pilot Project the City and its residents would receive the following benefits: a. Development, operation, and management of a Pilot Project at TOSV that offers a new model for supporting people experiencing homelessness, including “a path to secure housing.” b. Case management for residents, including help accessing benefits and entitlements; healthcare; behavioral and mental health services; education and employment supports; and other community resources. Page | 4 2 1 7 4 1 c. New housing units for households with incomes at or below 30% of Area Median Income, which in 2022 is no more than $21,510 for a single person. Maximum rents would be set at 25% of the area median income and adjusted annually, which is currently $448 monthly, including basic utilities. (Tenants would be allowed to increase their income after signing their leases.) d. Potentially, reduced costs of public care for unsheltered people who likely use emergency services; more alternatives to scarce shelter beds and services; reductions of population in living in encampments. e. The activation of currently vacant property; mitigation of former landfill space; reduction of criminal activity in the vicinity of TOSV; additional investments in nearby neighborhoods in grocery and other retail stores, recreation, and transit. 2.Growing SLC and Council Priorities. The transmittal states that the proposal aligns with both the City’s 2018-2022 Housing Plan, and the Council’s longtime priorities in the following ways: a. Offering solutions to address housing for incomes below 40% AMI; b. Providing housing and services to the City’s most vulnerable populations; c. Creating a net increase in affordable housing units while avoiding displacement of existing affordable housing; d. Retaining and expanding the diversity of AMI and innovative housing types. D.The Pilot Project. As the site map in the transmittal’s Exhibit A indicates, TOSA ultimately intends to expand its operations to cover much of the property on Indiana Avenue and a portion of the 500 South property. For now, though, it has agreed with the Administration to demonstrate the feasibility of its tiny home village concept through a pilot project that would extend over approximately eight acres. The focus would be on “Recovery Housing,” treating people who are considered chronically homeless, that is, those who have experienced homelessness for at least one year, or repeatedly over several years, and who are struggling with substance use disorder, serious mental illness, and/or physical disability. The pilot project would consist of at least 54 deed-restricted tiny homes, six tiny homes for on-site staff who provide 24-hour coverage, and 25 tiny homes that would be offered as nightly rentals. The homes would measure between 280 and 400 square feet each. In addition, the pilot project would include community space, commercial space for income-generating projects, and space for on-site supportive services, as well as utility serve and related infrastructure, and roads, curbs, and gutters. All tenants would be required to pay a standardized rental rate, since this project does not have project- based rental vouchers attached to the units, unlike many other housing developments that serve people who were formerly homeless or have extremely low-incomes. TOSA states that it is committed to assisting prospective and actual tenants obtain and maintain a source of income to pay rent, such as employment, Social Security Disability Insurance, or a Housing Choice tenant-based rental voucher. Page | 5 2 1 7 4 1 1.The Recovery Housing Model. TOSV’s organization and supportive services would conform to National Alliance for Recovery Residence Standards for “Recovery Housing,” a model designed for people suffering from substance use disorders who need supportive transitional housing. Recovery housing provides an alcohol and drug-free living environment and may require residents to participate in recovery activities as a condition for residency. The Recovery Housing Model is recognized and supported by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which recognizes the importance of providing individual choice to support various paths towards recovery. This support is outlined in a HUD Policy Brief on the topic. As described by TOSA: “In this Policy Brief, HUD states that some people pursuing recovery from addiction express a preference for an abstinence-focused residential or housing program where they can live among and be supported by a community of peers who are also focused on pursuing recovery from addiction–environments that are provided by Recovery Housing programs. HUD defines “Recovery Housing” as housing in an abstinence-focused and peer-supported community for people recovering from substance use issues. The Village would meet this definition. The Policy Brief continues to describe characteristics of “Recovery Housing”, which include residents choosing to actively participate together in community activities focused on supporting recovery. The Policy Brief states that: “Many Recovery Housing programs include a high percentage of staff in all areas of the organization that are in recovery themselves. Not only does this type of staffing advance the goals of the program through peer support, but it provides program participants, in some cases, with an opportunity to become employed in a mission-oriented work environment. This creates an environment that benefits both the organization and the individual program participants.” The Village has all of the above components: residents choosing to actively participate in community to support recovery, staff that are in recovery themselves, and employment opportunities for residents.” In response to a staff question, TOSA outlined the process for residents who break their sobriety commitments: “The Other Side Village is a sober community following the HUD defined Recovery Housing Model. TOSA understands that the path to sobriety is challenging and sometimes involves setbacks. If a resident is found to have violated sobriety commitments, there is not an automatic eviction, but rather they will be assisted in every way to regain their sobriety. This could range anywhere from a period of regular drug and alcohol testing and outpatient support to a requirement to participate in residential treatment. All residents will be offered the option of returning to the Welcome Neighborhood for some period of time as a way of restoring sobriety. A resident will be evicted from the Village if they are unwilling to agree upon a reasonable plan to return to sobriety. These policies are in alignment with the HUD guidelines in their Policy Brief on Recovery Housing that was previously mentioned.” Like other housing providers, TOSA would be required to comply with the Fair Housing Act and could face regulatory and legal action for any violations. Page | 6 2 1 7 4 1 2.Tenant Selection. To ensure compliance with Federal and State fair housing laws, the term sheet that accompanies the proposed ordinance changes would require that TOSA: a. not deny housing to protected classes; b. not unreasonably limit the ability of families with children to obtain housing; c. develop and make public written tenant selection policies and procedures that include descriptions of the eligibility requirements; d. ensure that all applicants to the project go through the coordinated entry process used by the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness to ensure coordination and efficiency; e. enter any new resident into the Homeless Management Information System (“HMIS”) coordinated entry system; f. give preference to Salt Lake City residents for placement; and, g. submit annual compliance reports to the City. In addition, an admission preference may be established for individuals with a commitment to sobriety. To be able to afford to pay rent, tenants may be required to have employment or another source of income, such as social security disability or a tenant-based voucher. TOSA intends to lease units on a month-to-month basis, but tenants may remain in their homes indefinitely while they continue to meet the basic obligations of tenancy. If no applications from chronically homeless people are received and TOSV homes are available, the Administration intends to ensure that these are filled with people who are most critically in need of housing, using the coordinated entry system and intake/assessment tools of the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness to match the needs of each unique individual and household. This system generally prioritizes those with longer lengths of homelessness and certain other vulnerabilities for housing. 3.Programming. The Term Sheet for the proposed lease agreement requires supportive services including “on-site case coordination or management that ensures tenants’ access to a wide variety of services and on-site location of services provided by professional service providers as evidenced through an agreement” with appropriately licensed providers. These are to be made available on a “flexible and voluntary basis” and address the following: mental health; substance and alcohol use; health; case management; independent living skills; employment; peer support; and community involvement and support. TOSA is still developing partnerships with service providers, so the scope and scale of on-site health and case-management has not yet been finalized. Because of widely reported staff shortages in social services, staff requested information about how TOSA would handle this issue should it occur in the organizations they are preparing to engage. The reply was as follows: “It is possible that there could be staffing shortages among the service providers and that those staffing shortages could lead to a reduction of services for the residents of the Village. If this were to occur, the Village management would simultaneously pursue two options. One would be to bring in the services of other service providers. The Other Side Village has already had discussions with other medical and mental health service providers who are interested in providing services to the residents of the Village. The other option would be to try to fill the gaps in service through volunteers. The Other Side Village has a number of doctors and clinicians who have volunteered to help at the Village.” Page | 7 2 1 7 4 1 Since, in addition to on-site services, TOSA would coordinate access to off-site services, the organization stated: “TOSA assumes responsibility to coordinate and facilitate access to both on-site and off-site services. This will be accomplished by the Village Coaches, the full-time non-clinical case managers. Each resident will have a Village Coach assigned to them and part of the Village Coach's responsibilities is to facilitate and coordinate access to services, including arranging transportation for them for any off-site appointments.” E.Pilot Project Financing. The financing models include both constructions expenses and operational expenses and revenue. TOSA currently projects breaking ground on the pilot project in early 2023. 1.Construction Costs. Full buildout of the TOSV Pilot Project was estimated at nearly $13.8 million at the end of April 2022, approximately $162,000 per unit, not including land costs. This included environmental remediation, architect fees and building permits, roads and utilities, construction of homes and other buildings, and landscaping, as shown in the figure below. TOSA believes that most of these costs will be covered through in-kind contributions and donations. As of July 6, 2022, TOSA reports having received nearly $2.2 million in cash for this project, with another $3.1 in cash pledged. The exhibits to the transmittal include letters from various individuals promising in-kind support and guarantees. The Administration has committed to ensuring that TOSA has adequate funds to move the project forward prior to closing on the land lease. ➢To increase the likelihood that these pledges are enforceable, the Council could consider asking the Administration to include a condition on the ground lease that any pledge or guarantees is in a form acceptable to the City (this was also noted in an earlier policy question). TOSV PILOT PHASE - CAPITAL COSTS Environmental Remediation $232,500 Permit / Fees $400,000 Civil Work $1,045,440 Tiny Home Construction $4,350,000 Welcome Neighborhood Homes $875,000 Neighborhood Center $441,000 Community Center / Clinic $3,146,400 Social Enterprise Building $2,300,000 Landscaping $320,000 Architectural Fees $666,744 Total $13,777,084 Source: TOSA, dated 4/29/22 as provided to City staff on 6/24/22 Note: Excludes land costs Page | 8 2 1 7 4 1 2.Operations Costs. The primary source of revenue to cover TOSV’s operating costs will be the “social enterprise” businesses located on-site, which are designed to provide job opportunities for residents. These include a thrift store, cookie manufacturing, and rental of the 25 purpose-built tiny homes to the public, including Pilot Project visitors and volunteers. This would be known as the Community Inn. Rent from TOSV residents would cover approximately 10% of operating costs. TOSA indicated that the years noted on the pro forma included in the transmittal (Exhibit G) would shift to reflect that the bulk of revenues and expenses would begin to accrue in 2023, rather than 2022. In response to staff questions, TOSA provided the following additional information: “The Other Side Village has had 2 market studies for the cookie production. The two studies were done independently by University of Utah as well as by Brigham Young University business and MBA students. Both studies showed a growing cookie market and strong indicators for a viable cookie production business. In regards to the Thrift Store, no additional market study was conducted. The Other Side Village is drawing on the experience of the Academy running the two thrift stores in Millcreek and Murray, plus their experience of launching and running a Thrift Furniture store in Denver. There would be a relationship between the Village thrift store and the Academy’s stores. The most obvious relationship is for the Academy to provide inventory for the Village store. The Academy has excess inventory available that would be easy to place at the Village thrift store at little expense or effort.” ➢The Council may wish to ask the Administration about the strategy to be used in the event the operational revenues are not sufficient to cover operational costs. F.Assessment of Pilot Project. The transmittal states that the purpose of the pilot project is to demonstrate the feasibility of the concept. The Administration would assess this using the following criteria: 1. Financial feasibility, successfully generating sufficient positive cashflow to maintain and grow its operations. 2. Social outcomes of the target populations, reducing the number of chronically homeless individuals and improving the well-being of residents. 3. At the neighborhood level, the project’s positive impact on the surrounding community. ➢The Council may wish to ask the Administration about the assessment process: Which department or division would be charged with the assessment? Which indicators and sources of information would be used? What would become of the pilot site and the construction on it should the pilot not demonstrate feasibility? ➢The Council may wish to ask the Administration how success will be evaluated and/or confirmed prior to the authorization of future phases. ➢The Council could ask the Administration to consider adding terms to the lease to lay the groundwork for termination if the Village does not meet operational expectations and/or cover expenses. PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: David J. Gellner, AICP, Senior Planner; 385-226-3860; david.gellner@slcgov.com Date: October 27, 2021 Re: Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00787) Zoning Map Amendment PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1850 W Indiana Avenue & 1965 West 500 South PARCEL SIZE: Total of approximately 37.1 acres PARCEL ID: 15-10-101-001-0000 and 15-03-351-003-0000 MASTER PLAN: Westside Master Plan (2014) ZONING DISTRICT: PL – Public Lands (Requested change to FB-UN2) REQUEST: Tim Stay, CEO of The Other Side Academy, is requesting that the City amend the zoning map for portions of the properties located at 1850 W Indiana Avenue and 1965 W 500 S respectively. Both properties are owned by Salt Lake City and are zoned PL - Public Lands. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning of the properties to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District), in order to develop a walkable urban neighborhood of mixed uses to be known as “The Other Side Village”. The rezoning would be applied to approximately 28.5 acres of the property at 1850 W Indiana and approximately 8.6 acres of the property at 1965 S 500 W. The proposed uses on the approximately 37.1-acre site would include permanent supportive housing for homeless individuals, as well as services and resources to include on-site healthcare, medical services, and community gathering spaces. This request only relates to the zoning designation of the property. No specific site development proposal has been submitted or is under consideration at this time. This zoning map amendment does not require an amendment to the Westside Master Plan. The Planning Commission’s role in this application is to provide a recommendation to the City Council, who will make the final decision on the requested zoning map amendment. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis and findings of fact in this staff report, planning staff finds that the zoning map amendment petition meets the standards, objectives and policy considerations of the city for a zoning map amendment and recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to change the identified properties from PL (Public Lands) to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District). ⚫ Page 2 ATTACHMENTS: A. Future Land Use Map B. Staff Zoning Recommendations C. Applicant Information D. Existing Conditions E. Analysis of Standards F. Public Process and Comments G. Department Comments VICINITY MAP & PROPERTY AREA ⚫ Page 3 Proposed Area to be Rezoned – Includes 28.5 acres of the parcel located at 1850 W Indiana Avenue and 8.6 acres of the parcel Located at 1865 W 500 S respectively. An area of 13.5 acres has been left out from the parcel located at 1850 W Indiana Avenue. ⚫ Page 4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reason for Request The applicants are requesting the change from PL - Public Lands to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District), in order to develop a walkable urban neighborhood of mixed uses to be known as “The Other Side Village”. The rezoning would be applied to 37.1 acres of property including 28.5 acres of the parcel at 1850 W Indiana and 8.6 acres of the parcel at 1965 S 500 W. The applicants are proposing a variety of uses including permanent supportive housing as well as on-site healthcare, medical services, and community gathering spaces. The purpose of the zoning amendment is due to the majority of the envisioned future uses not being allowed under the current PL zoning designation. This request only relates to the zoning designation of the property. No specific site development proposal has been submitted or is under consideration at this time. The applicant has however indicated that the future development of the parcel would likely follow a “phased approach”. One scenario that has been discussed with City Staff includes using a 5-acre portion of the total rezoned area as a “demonstration” project with approximately 50 tiny homes being developed. Subsequent phases would use other sections of the rezoned property area. The applicant’s narrative explaining the rationale for the zoning map amendment request and conceptual plans can be found in Attachment C of this report. KEY CONSIDERATIONS: The key considerations associated with this proposal are: 1. Neighborhood and City-Wide Master Plan Considerations 2. Change in Zoning and Compatibility with Adjacent Properties 3. Consideration of Alternate Zoning Districts 4. Site Conditions and Infrastructure Key considerations are discussed further in the following paragraphs and were identified through the analysis of the project (Attachment D) and department review comments (Attachment F). Consideration 1: Neighborhood and City-Wide Master Plan Considerations Westside Master Plan (2014) The subject area falls within area discussed in the Westside Master Plan (WSMP or Plan). The WSMP recognizes a need to encourage growth, redevelopment, and reinvestment in the Westside, in order to support the vision of the Westside Community as a “beautiful, safe, sustainable place for people to live, work, and have fun.” The WSMP includes the following goals that would support the proposed zoning map amendment: 1. Promote reinvestment and redevelopment in the Westside community through changes in land use, improved public infrastructure and community investment to spur development that meets the community’s vision while maintaining the character of the Westside’s existing stable neighborhoods. 2. Protect and encourage ongoing investment in existing, low density residential neighborhoods while providing well designed, compatible and high density residential development where needed, appropriate or desired. 3. Recognize, develop and foster opportunities for unique, mixed use neighborhood and community nodes in the Westside that reflect the diverse nature of the community and provided resources to allow for their growth. ⚫ Page 5 The Plan (pg. 12) recognizes the area west of Redwood Road as historically industrial and attributes some of the development of the area in this form to the nationwide economic growth of the 1950s and the expansion of the Salt Lake International Airport in the 1960s. The Plan shows this property as part of the nebulous “Industrial Districts” mapped on pg. 25 which are further described in the Plan section called “Industrial Districts” on pg. 69. The Plan recognizes “…that anticipated zoning changes and long-term redevelopment of the Redwood Road corridor will lead to a gradual change away from industrial uses on its west side.” (pg. 71). Conversely, the Plan contradicts some of this through the inclusion of the following language: “In the Westside, Redwood Road has long been the edge of residential land uses and this boundary should be maintained.” (pg. 54) The WSMP recognizes that through the development of the Plan there were viewpoints and opinions as to how the west side of Redwood Road should be used in the future. Many people favored the long-term replacement of industrial uses with more commercial uses. “There was little to no discussion about residential development west of Redwood Road, as most people acknowledged that it was nearly impossible to do so with the area’s land use history.” (pg. 27). The lack of discussion about having residential development west of Redwood should not be interpreted as a prohibition of that change being considered or taking place. The Plan was developed in 2014 and represents a “snapshot in time” of the community and the participants and community engagement that took place. The development pressures and persistent issues of homelessness today are undoubtedly different than they were when the Plan was adopted. In other words, the conditions of the time were not such that the idea of developing residential uses in the area was considered as a necessary option at the time and so it was not discussed. It is Staff’s position that the proposed change is not in conflict with the Westside Master Plan. Statements in the Plan indicate that it was anticipated that change would take place in this area, even if there was no agreement or direction in terms of the form that these changes should follow. Redevelopment Agency (RDA) – 9 Line Community Reinvestment Area Plan The 9-Line Community Reinvestment Area Plan is a document that was produced by the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA). The purpose of the 9-Line Plan is to help create funding mechanisms and opportunities to help implement the community vision established through the development of the Westside Master Plan. This Plan is intended to “…assist in closing the gap in identified disparities by providing housing stability, economic development and improved neighborhood conditions.” (Introduction - pg. 4) The subject properties are located within the study area of the Plan, but not within a specific Geographic Target Area (pg. 17) identified in the plan. The closest target area is at the intersection of Redwood Road and Indiana Avenue. While they are City-owned properties and would not be eligible for funding within the Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) established by the Plan, the goals and vision of the Plan are relevant to the general discussion of envisioned west side improvements within the study area. Standards to Guide Project Area Development (pg. 15) – this section of the Plan references numerous goals from the Westside Master Plan to be used as standards in the project area including the three goals cited above in the section on the WSMP. The Objectives in the 9-Line plan including those of Neighborhood Revitalization – Object 1 (pg. 16) speak to the development of underutilized properties while Objective 4 (pg. 19) speaks to developing a variety of housing for all income level. The proposed change is generally supported by the standards and objectives referenced in the 9-Line Community Reinvestment Plan. ⚫ Page 6 Plan Salt Lake Elements and Considerations Plan Salt Lake (December 2015) outlines an overall vision of sustainable growth and development in the city. This includes the development of a diverse mix of uses which is essential to accommodate responsible growth. At the same time, compatibility, which is how new development fits into the scale and character of existing neighborhoods is an important consideration. New development should be sensitive to the context of surrounding development while also providing opportunities for new growth. Guiding Principles outlined in Plan Salt Lake that would relate to the proposed change include the following: 1) Neighborhoods that provide a safe environment, opportunities for social interaction, and services needed for the wellbeing of the community therein. 3) Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics. 11) Ensure access to all City amenities for all citizens while treating everyone equitably with fairness, justice and respect. The Housing chapter of Plan Salt Lake includes a number of initiatives intended to help implement the Plan. The initiative to “Support homeless services” is specifically identified. The Plan also references “collaboration with community partners…” in terms of access and equity to City services and amenities. The proposed change is in concert with the general principles and strategies identified in Plan Salt Lake. Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan – 2018-2022 (2017) Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan – 2018-2022 (aka – the Salt Lake City Housing Plan) was adopted in late 2017 as the City’s first housing plan since 2000. The Housing Plan is intended to advance the vision that Salt Lake City is a place for a growing diverse population to find housing opportunities that are safe, secure, and enrich lives and communities. A big focus of the Plan is the protection and development of affordable housing opportunities throughout the City as identified in Goal 2: Affordable Housing. The plan describes the linkages and interaction between a lack of affordable housing and very low-income renters and the City’s most vulnerable citizens. This lack of affordable housing can push some citizens into homelessness as they are priced out of the market. The Housing Plan was developed using existing housing policy, primarily Plan Salt Lake and the Salt Lake City Comprehensive Housing Policy. The guiding principles of Plan Salt Lake are incorporated by reference including the initiative to “Support homeless services”. The proposed change is in concert with the principles and strategies identified in Growing SLC. Consideration 2: Change in Zoning and Compatibility with Adjacent Properties The subject properties have frontage on Indiana Avenue, which is identified as City Arterial in the SLC Transportation Master Plan. Abutting properties to all sides are zoned M-1 – Light Manufacturing. The requested FB-UN2 zoning would allow residential and commercial uses that are not allowed by the current zoning. The proposal would create an area of residential development within a historically industrial area of the City. This is not a typical scenario as there is usually a desired separation between industrial and residential uses. The reasoning behind this is due to anticipated impacts of the industrial areas on the residential areas and not ⚫ Page 7 the other way around. In that sense, the anticipated development of the village would not have a significant impact on the surrounding industrial properties in terms of noise and pollution that would be comparable to normal activities and uses that could take place on these properties. Some concerns have been raised about the impact of the village on neighboring properties through an increased presence of people in an area that historically has not had a residential presence. Various concerns included a worry about crime, pedestrian traffic and other impacts that the village would introduce to neighboring properties. It is difficult, if not impossible, to predict the scale of these impacts other than to acknowledge that some impacts are likely to occur with such a change in land use. The Master Plan recognizes future changes in this area which assumes that some impacts are likely to occur with land use changes. Additional infrastructure improvements such as sidewalks to accommodate pedestrians will help to lessen these impacts. Given the location of the property, development pattern, and surrounding zoning, it is staff’s opinion that the change in zoning from PL to FB-UN2 would not lead to changes that are incompatible with the existing development in the area. The nature of surrounding uses or potential uses on the future village site and its residents are a concern, however. There is no buffering required to separate the current uses on the M-1 properties from the FB-UN2 property. A 15 foot buffer would only be required if the M-1 properties were re-developed. During the site development phase of the project appropriate buffering should be considered. Staff is recommending that the City Council consider a requirement for additional buffering between the industrial and residential uses during the site development process. Consideration 3: Consideration of Alternate Zoning Districts The applicant is specifically requesting a change to the FB-UN2 zoning district. In June of 2021, Planning Staff considered and analyzed different zoning districts for the property that would support a proposed mixed use village concept. Analysis of the different zoning districts that could potentially support the proposed uses was completed by Brooke Olson, Associate Planner and sent to the applicant on June 3, 2021. A copy of the memorandum from Planning to The Other Side Academy is included in Attachment B of this report. In making their recommendation, Planning Staff considered the following: • The main driver for this change is the applicant’s desire to develop a mixed use village on the property. The village will be largely self-contained and include commercial uses and health services. • Many of the desired uses are not allowed under the current PL zoning designation. • The zoning district to support this village concept would have to allow different dwelling types as well as retail uses and services. • A focus on a high-quality and pleasing design for the development was desired. Changing to either the FB-UN2 or FB-SC district would accommodate most of the uses described by the applicant. Various TSA – Transit Station zoning districts and the MU – Mixed Use zoning district were also considered. The TSA zoning districts did not fit the location context of the site as they are intended to be located around transit stations. The MU district was not considered a viable option due to the lack of emphasis on the form of development and the incorporation of design standards to help achieve a high-quality development. It should be noted that the applicant’s narrative includes a long list of desired uses in the proposed village and within the development. As stated above, the proposed FB-UN2 zoning district is the only zoning district that would accommodate the majority of uses that the applicant has listed. There are some uses that are not specifically listed in the FB-UN2 zoning district; however, staff determined that similar scaled uses may be allowed. Zoning interpretations may allow uses that are not specifically listed depending on the scale and ⚫ Page 8 configuration or some uses may be considered as accessory to listed uses and could be allowed. These issues will be looked at in more detail at the time a specific development proposal is under review by Staff. For these reasons and the issues identified in the Key Considerations and Analysis of Standards sections of this report, as well as the analysis included in the Memorandum included in Attachment B, a change to an alternate zoning district in lieu of the applicant’s request for the FB-UN2 zoning district is not being recommended by staff. Consideration 4: Site Conditions and Infrastructure The subject properties are vacant and lack infrastructure to support the proposed “tiny home village”. The property will need substantial infrastructure improvements to facilitate future development on the property. The City can provide services and infrastructure to the property to facilitate development. The extent of infrastructure improvements, including the provision of utilities, will be dependent upon the location and scale of any future development proposals. Assuming the rezoning is approved, at the time a specific development proposal is submitted, proposed uses will need to comply with the applicable requirements for development of the site. Public Utilities and other City departments will review any specific development proposals submitted and identify any additional requirements that would apply. Parts of the property at 1850 W Indiana was previously used as a landfill site. This landfill use also extended northward onto portions of the property located at 1965 W 500 S. The extent of the site that was used for these activities and any contamination is unclear. Other City departments are involved with the identification, sampling and site investigation process and they will work with State and other cognizant agencies to meet any requirements for site clean-up, site remediation and mitigation. This may impact the site development plan in terms of the location of future uses. This issue is outside of the purview of the Planning Commission but is mentioned for the purpose of process clarification, since some public comments pointed out the previous use of the site for landfill activities and raised questions about how this would impact the proposed future development. DISCUSSION: The applicant has proposed to rezone the properties from the existing PL – Public Lands zoning designation to FB-UN2 in order to develop the proposed “tiny home village” on the site. It is staff’s opinion that the change in zoning for these properties would not negatively impact the character of the area. As such, staff finds that the requested zone change is appropriate when considered in the context of the area and is recommending that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. NEXT STEPS: The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration as part of the final decision on this petition. If ultimately approved, the applicant may proceed with the submission of plans for the development under the parameters of the new zoning designation. Other applications will be required that don’t require Planning Commission or City Council approval. This is aside from any site development applications that may be required and are mentioned here for the sake of process clarity. Those applications may include: • Lot line adjustments for the two (2) existing parcels. • Lot consolidation application for the newly created parcel. ⚫ Page 9 ATTACHMENT A: Future Land Use Map in the Master Plan ⚫ Page 10 ATTACHMENT B: Staff Zoning District Recommendations On June 3, 2021, Brooke Olson, Associate Planner provided the applicant with a Memorandum and analysis in regard to a question about zoning that would support the uses that were listed in the applicant’s preliminary proposal. The memo on the following pages also addresses Consideration 3: Consideration of Alternate Zoning Districts found in the Key Considerations section of this report found on Page 7. Planning Division Community & Neighborhoods Department Memorandum To: Tim Stay From: Brooke Olson, Associate Planner Date: 3 June 2021 Re: 1850 W Indiana Avenue Rezone Recommendations 1850 W Indiana Avenue The Other Side Village- The Planning Division has reviewed a property narrative for The Other Side Village mixed use development at approximately 1850 W. Indiana Avenue. The proposed mixed-use village would consist of 400-500 small residential dwelling units of various typologies, neighborhood and community centers, open spaces, general retail, commercial, and institutional uses. The property is currently located in the PL (Public Lands) zone which allows for a diversity of public facilities and public land uses. However, mixed use developments and residential uses are not permitted under the current PL land use zoning designation. Therefore, the property must be rezoned to allow The Other Side Village development as proposed. Staff completed an analysis of the land use tables in section 21.A.33 of the Salt Lake City zoning ordinance and concluded the proposed development is permitted within the following zoning districts: Of the seven zoning district options listed above, the zoning district which would likely best accommodate the proposed use is a Form Based District. While TSA (Transit Station Area Districts) allow mixed use development, transit districts were created to provide a compact support base around core transit stations which the site in question does not fit that description. The proposed mixed-use village would also be permitted within the MU (Mixed Use District) however, the MU district lacks zoning regulations which focus on scale, form of development and any significant design standards. The purpose of the Form Based District is to create walkable urban neighborhoods which provide people-oriented places, options for housing types, proximity to amenities and public transportation, and access to recreational and employment opportunities. In addition, the Form Based District ordinance provides specific zoning regulations that focus on the scale and form of development to create pedestrian oriented communities to live, work and play within a close proximity. As shown in the table above, there are two Form Based subdistricts the proposed development is permitted within, FB-SC (Special Purpose Corridor Subdistrict) and FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood 2 Subdistrict). The FB-SC subdistrict is intended for high intensity development in the special purpose corridors. The FB-SC zone is characteristically supported by multiple street types and contains buildings that are generally 6-7 stories in height. This zone is currently mapped along the S-Line streetcar in the Sugar House neighborhood. The FB-UN2 subdistrict regulations provide the framework for a lower intensity urban neighborhood generally consisting of buildings up to four stories in height with taller buildings located on street corners, which may contain a single use, or mix of uses. This zone is currently mapped in the Central Ninth neighborhood. In considering the scope and development objectives of The Other Side Village, the FB-SC and FB-UN2 zone accomplish the goals of the proposal as stated. If you have questions or need additional information, please contact me at 385-707-6770 or brooke.olson@slcgov.com Thank you. ⚫ Page 11 ATTACHMENT C: Applicant Information The narrative and other exhibits found on the following pages were submitted by the applicant in relation to the requested zoning map changes. Other Side Village – Zoning Map Amendment – 1850 W Indiana Avenue Rezoning Application PLNPCM2021-00787 A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. 1850 W Indiana Avenue - The Other Side Village The purpose of the amendment is to rezone the parcel of ground currently designated as Public Lands (PL Zone) to a Formed Based District (FB-NU2) to accommodate the development of a walkable urban neighborhood of mixed uses. The proposed mixed-use village would consist of 400-500 small residential dwelling units of various typologies for the chronically homeless, including neighborhood and community centers, open spaces, general retail, commercial, and institutional uses. The property is currently located in the PL (Public Lands) zone which allo ws for a diversity of public facilities and public land uses. However, mixed use developments and residential uses are not permitted under the current PL land use zoning designation. Therefore, the property must be rezoned to allow The Other Side Village development as proposed. The zoning district which would likely best accommodate the proposed use is a Form Based District. The purpose of the Form Based District is to create walkable urban neighborhoods which provide people-oriented places, options for housing types, proximity to amenities and public transportation, and access to recreational and employment opportunities. In addition, the Form Based District ordinance provides specific zoning regulations that focus on the scale and form of development to create pedestrian oriented communities to live, work and play within a close proximity. The FB-UN2 subdistrict regulations provide the framework for a lower intensity urban neighborhood generally consisting of buildings up to four stories in height with taller buildings located on street corners, which may contain a single use, or mix of uses. This zone is currently mapped in the Central Ninth neighborhood. In considering the scope and development objectives of The Other Side Village, the FB -UN2 zone accomplish the goals of the proposal as stated. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. The Village The Village is a permanent supportive housing development for the chronically homeless, where those coming out of chronic homelessness can find not only tiny homes to rent affordably, but services and resources to help them along the way, in a hand -up, not handout model. It is anticipated that the Village will house up to approximately 400+ residents in cottage homes and similar sized attached housing units as duplexes (two-family residences) and triplexes (row houses) as provided for in the FB-NU2 Zone. The support services for the Village will include on-site health care, dental, and social services along with a convenience store, deli, and pet supplies. In addition, community gathering spaces will include an auditorium, non- denominational church, and an amphitheater. Housing will be arranged in neighborhoods of approximately 30 homes each with neighborhood amenities to include a small pavilion, laundry, commercial kitchen, and a multipurpose room for social gatherings. To encourage self-sufficiency, social enterprises will be incorporated into the Village to provide opportunities for work and community service. The Homes The homes will be sized between 250 and 400 sf each. The majority will be stand -alone homes, but the development will have some duplexes and trip lexes. Each home will be attractively furnished, and will have a bed, a kitchen, with standard appliances, a bathroom with a shower, and heating and AC. This will be a gated community, where the residents will be able to come and go as necessary, but there can be controlled access of visitors to maintain safety and order within the Village. The homes will be situated in small neighborhoods of 25-35 homes to create the opportunities for close connected neighborhoods. Each neighborhood will be a mix of single units, duplex units, and triplex units. Connected to every 2-4 neighborhoods will be a Neighborhood Center. The Neighborhood Center will have a common area, a kitchen, laundry equipment, and a outdoor grill space with some picnic tables. Wrap-Around Services The Village will include facilities to provide services and resources for the residents of the Village in a Community Center. These services will include: • A medical exam room • A dental exam room • Mental health therapy rooms • A room big enough for a group session • A dog wash room • A veterinarian exam room • A room for employment services • Space for other supportive services, such as legal aid • A training room for finances literacy and other similar classes • Space for community gathers, meals, fitness activities (such as yoga or aerobics) • A commercial kitchen The medical, dental, and mental health services will be provided by third -party providers, who will provide these services directly to the residents. Community volunteers will be involved in providing many of the other services. Retail Services The Village will have a range of retail services, primarily focused on providing nearby services for the residents, but these will also be accessible to the surrounding neighborhoods. Planned retail services will include: • A small deli and coffee shop • A small grocery store • A hair salon and barbershop • A gift shop • A place that tells the Village story for tours These services will be situated outside of the gated community and will be located to have ea sy access and parking for clientele that will be frequenting these services from outside the Village. Community Amenities The Village will have the following amenities spread throughout the development for the benefit of the residents: • A small non-denominational chapel • A multi-use basketball/pickleball sports court • A cantina / food truck spot / coffee station near the center or north end of the village with an outdoor seating area nearby to be frequented primarily by the residents. • A picnic area • A memorial garden for residents that pass on • A memorial garden for pets • A horseshoe pit • A dog park • A Food Pantry (with access for Food Bank truck deliveries, storage and distribution space) • Open lawn space for active use • A fitness path that creates an integrated feel between neighborhoods with outdoor stations along the way. • A Children’s play area for visiting kids and grandkids • Trail systems that make for comfortable and natural movement between neighborhoods and attractive amenities spread between neighborhoods that encourage interaction. Performing Arts Center The Village will have a world-class 600 seat Performing Arts Center to host local and national performers as well as host plays, concerts, and community events. We are envisioning this facility to be able to have TV broadcast abilities as well as a recording studio so that this facility can be a revenue generating source for the Village. Residents would have access to the performances at free or significantly reduced rates and the surround ing community would be able to attend as well. The operations of the Performing Arts Center will also create employment opportunities for residents. One possibility for parking is to have parking up on the landfill for large events and have people walk down or have shuttles down, much like they do at USANA. Outdoor Amphitheater The Village will have an outdoor events space and amphitheater, where we can have performances, show movies, or have outdoor events, such as Farmer’s Markets, a Christmas Market or other such events. These would be available to both the residents as well as the surrounding community. This space will also create additional employment opportunities for the residents of the Village. We would want to be able to seat around 600 peopl e. We anticipate being able to have outside Food Trucks to be able to come onsite to provide additional food services. Social Enterprises The Village will have an onsite food production facility that will be manufacturing cookies to be sold through wholesale channel and retail channels. The facility will need access for delivery trucks. This social enterprise will provide employment opportunities for the residents of the Village. The Landfill Zone While the Landfill Zone would be challenging to build homes and structures upon it based upon the unstable material below the surface, there are still ways to utilize this difficult parcel. The Village would be able to utilize this land to create additional green space with trees and paths, construct a modest solar farm to provide electricity for the Village, and to provide additional parking for large community events at the Village. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. The site was the former location of the City’s landfill and as such was designated as Public Lands. While the west side of the parcel contains the buried landfill material and is not developable, the east half of the parcel has passed an environmental analysis and is appropriate for development. The proposed mixed-use development is ideally suited for this parcel that is bounded by I-215 on the west, the City’s Parks & Recreation property on the north, a wrecking yard on the east, and Indiana Avenue on the south with industrial development on the south side of the street. While the site is thus isolated from the residential neighborhoods east of Redwood Road, it will still serve as an integral part the Salt Lake community at large. The property is currently located in the PL (Public Lands) zone which allows for a diversity of public facilities and public land uses. However, mixed use developments and residential uses are not permitted under the current PL land use zoning designation. Based upon 21A.33.070: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses For Special Purpose Districts, the following uses are not permitted in a Public Lands zone: Not Permitted in Public Lands zone: • Agricultural Use • Amphitheater, formal • Veterinary office • Artisan Food production • Clinic (Medical, Dental) • Commercial Food Production • No Residential of any kind (except care taker residence) • Mixed Use Development • Performing Arts Production Facility • Philanthropic Use • Place of Worship • Restaurant • Retail Goods Establishment • Retail Sales Therefore, the property would need to be rezoned to allow The Other Side Village development as proposed. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? Yes. If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. All of this parcel: Parcel Record 15101010010000 Owner SALT LAKE CITY CORP Address 1850 W INDIANA AVE A portion of this parcel: Parcel Record 15033510030000 Owner SALT LAKE CITY CORP Address 1965 W 500 S Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? No. EXCLUDED PARCEL 13.5 ACRES PARCEL B 8.6 ACRES PARCEL A 28.5 ACRES PROPOSED PROPERTIES THE OTHER SIDE VILLAGE N Frequently Asked Questions What is the Village? The Other Side Village is a self-reliant, master-planned neighborhood that provides affordable, permanent quality housing, access to social services, and a robust and supportive community for men and women coming out of chronic homelessness. The Village is founded on the conviction that housing alone will never solve homelessness, but community will. The combination of high quality, permanent housing and a strong culture of personal growth, support and connection is the heart of our model. Who is it for? To be eligible to live in The Other Side Village, an individual must have experienced chronic homelessness. We expect many of our residents to have at least one disabling condition, either mentally or physically. We define chronic homelessness as any person with a disability who has been living unsheltered for the last 12 months continuously or on multiple occasions that cumulatively total at least 12 months. All potential residents are required to complete an assessment, be fingerprinted and agree to a criminal background check processed by the FBI. Those with past sex offenses or arson convictions are not eligible for residence. Who are we? And why do we think we can do it? For decades in Utah, we’ve wrung our hands about what to do with criminal offenders with long histories of addiction. Who would have thought that the solution was to have 100 longtime felons move into a home in downtown Salt Lake City? And yet, in 2015, that is exactly what began. Since then, The Other Side Academy has become one of Utah’s gems – a model of citizenship, cleanliness, professionalism and integrity. The students you see here have been arrested an average of 25 times. And yet when racial tension erupted into riots in downtown Salt Lake City in the summer of 2020, it was students of The Other Side Academy who rushed to the scene to clean up. When police spent sleepless nights preparing for civil unrest, it was students of The Other Side Academy who brought them coffee and encouragement. When the Salt Lake City Council was considering whether to give The Other Side Academy permission to remain in its downtown location, over fifty neighbors turned out to say that the neighborhood was better because they were there. And the police officials gave a report that crime had actually gone down since we moved into the neighborhood. And amazingly, all of this was done without any government funds. Students of The Other Side Academy pay their own way by running some of the most respected businesses in the state. For decades in Utah, we’ve wrung our hands about how to help the growing number of people experiencing homelessness in our cities. We believe the same principles that have enabled students at The Other Side Academy to create a model community point the way to what must be done. While those experiencing chronic homelessness face different challenges than TOSA students, we contend that there are universal principles for creating healthy communities that give us a responsibility to step in. Why? Because we understand what it is to be marginalized. We understand what it takes to become self-reliant. We have experience creating a peer community with strong values and shared accountability. And so, in coming months, The Other Side Academy is partnering with the City of Salt Lake to create The Other Side Village – a self-reliant, peer-led village that provides a safe, dignified and uplifting life for people who are chronically unsheltered, and which brings them and the larger community into mutually ennobling relationships. Just like The Other Side Academy. Why are we a Village and not a tiny home project? It is not about Tiny Homes. You’ll notice that residents live in what are called “Tiny Homes.” But be careful, the size of the homes is the least important part of this effort. Some communities are building tiny home neighborhoods that will likely become tiny slums in short order. The key is not the physical structures, but the social system. The primary ingredient for success, like at The Other Side Academy, is creating a strong culture that lifts and changes all who are part of it. This is what The Other Side Academy has learned to do. And we are committed to creating this same opportunity for our homeless brothers and sisters. The most important part is to create an environment, socially and physically, that facilitates connection with others. Homelessness is the result of a catastrophic loss of family. So the solution must be to build a new family. The second most important part is establishing a community with strong social norms. This is what brings out the best in all of us. These strong norms will invite all to strive to achieve their potential, allowing them the dignity of being part of the solution, not just a problem to be solved. Work and self-improvement are fundamental principles of happiness. As all are invited to contribute at the level of their ability, The Other Side Village will remain prosperous, safe and strong. The Other Side Village believes that the single greatest cause of homelessness is a profound, catastrophic loss of family. That’s why our focus at The Other Side Village is to do more than just provide adequate housing. We are developing a community with supportive services and amenities to help address an individual’s relational needs at a fraction of the cost of traditional housing initiatives. We seek to empower our residents to build relationships with others, and to experience healing and restoration as part of engaging with a broader community. What will the houses be like? One of the irreplaceable ingredients to solving homelessness is providing affordable, high quality, permanent housing. And that’s exactly what the homes in the Village will do. Our homes will provide approximately 350 to 400 square feet to each resident, including a bedroom, a living room, a bathroom with a shower, and a kitchen with all the appliances. If we intend to create a community where people can thrive, it must be centered on homes that provide the comfort and amenities that each of us expects for ourselves. What services will be provided at The Other Side Village? There is a broad range of services that will be available on-site to our residents with facilities designed specifically to accommodate their unique needs. These include: ● Full-time behavioral health case managers ● Primary healthcare service ● Social enterprise business opportunities through The Other Side Village Social Enterprises ● Regular farmers market to provide residents with healthy, nutritious, and free vegetables harvested from the Village’s main gardens ● Employment opportunities ● Supportive community services and activities What will be the rules of the Village? Individuals living in The Other Side Village are required to follow three primary community covenants. Residents must: 1. Pay rent on time. 2. Abide by civil law. 3. Follow the rules of the community itself (similar to HOA or Homeowners Association for a neighborhood). What was this site previously? Looking at the site, there is the historic landfill that was used from 1920 to 1962. This western portion on the site is the elevated portion on the parcel along the west side, adjacent to I-215. The landfill has been dormant for the last 60 years and has 5 feet of fill over the top of the landfill. We do not plan to build any housing or offices on the westside landfill portion of the parcel. We have already done a number of environmental tests on the site and we continue to do additional testing until we are satisfied that this is a safe and healthy place. The eastside of the parcel is largely native soil with some green waste at the southern and northern ends of the parcel. We plan to build the housing on the eastside of the parcel and avoid building on the western landfill portion. To date, none of the test results has disqualified the eastern portion of the site from being considered as a viable site. We continue to do further testing as well as working closely with local and state regulatory agencies, including the Salt Lake City Office of Sustainability and the Utah State Department of Environmental Quality. As we do continued testing, if we find anything that makes the site not viable for humans that cannot be safely remediated , we will abandon this site and pursue other locations. Are you concerned about crime in the Village? How will you police the community? One of our goals at The Other Side Village is to transform the way people view the stereotype of individuals who find themselves homeless. After years of serving and working with criminal addicts at The Other Side Academy as well as the homeless population in Salt Lake, we believe the stereotype of chronically homeless individuals as it relates to crime is actually wrong. Chronically homeless individuals are among the most vulnerable and most often are the victims of crime, as opposed to being the perpetrators of crime. Every neighborhood in any city at any time is susceptible to some level of criminal activity. Neighborhoods can mitigate potential criminal activity through strong vigilance. The very essence of The Other Side Village is neighbor looking after neighbor. We will have a robust Neighborhood Watch Program and will work to resolve as many issues as possible within the community. As a data point, crime statistics from the Salt Lake Police Department in the area surrounding The Other Side Academy shows a significant reduction in crime in the neighborhood after we moved in. It is also what has happened since Community First! Began building a village for formerly homeless individuals that will ultimately have over 1,500 tiny homes in it. The crime rate has dropped, neighbors are regular visitors to these campuses, and property values have been enhanced. We are confident that the same will happen with the establishment of the Village. ⚫ Page 12 ATTACHMENT D: Existing Conditions ⚫ Page 13 Conditions The subject properties are located north of Indiana Avenue to the west of Redwood Road. Redwood is a major State Arterial, while Indiana Avenue is identified as City Arterial in the SLC Transportation Master Plan. Abutting properties in all directions are zoned M-1 – Light Manufacturing. The location context is also described more fully in the Key Considerations section of this report. Adjacent Land Uses and Zoning All Directions: Zoned M-1 – Light Manufacturing District Adjacent & Nearby Uses: Car storage and salvage, trucking and transportation related uses, City Fleet Operations, City Parks operations and open (vacant) land. Development Pattern The overall development pattern of the area is dominated by commercial and light industrial uses along Redwood Road and Indiana Avenue. On the east side of Redwood, the development turns to residential uses. Much of the land bound roughly by Interstate 80, Indiana Avenue, I-215 on the west and Redwood Road on the east has not been intensely developed. Development typically consists of industrial buildings in one portion of the property with large areas devoted to surface storage or other industrial operations on the rest of the property. As such, from an aerial photograph perspective, much of the land appears to be under-utilized or largely vacant. The area lies to the west of a future node identified in the West Side Master Plan. The Plan envisions a Community Node centered at the intersection of Redwood and Indiana Avenue. While the subject property is located approximately one-quarter to one-half mile to the west of this node, future development of the proposed village could benefit from the proximity of development at this node and the services that may exist there. Comparison of the Existing and Proposed Zoning The subject property is zoned PL – Public Lands. The purpose of the PL zoning district follows: The purpose of the PL Public Lands District is to specifically delineate areas of public use and to control the potential redevelopment of public uses, lands and facilities. This district is appropriate in areas of the City where the applicable master plans support this type of land use. The applicant has requested that the property be changed to the FB-UN2 – Form Based Urban Neighborhood zoning district. The purpose of the FB-UN2 zoning district follows: The purpose of the form based districts is to create urban neighborhoods that provide the following: 1. People oriented places; 2. Options for housing types; 3. Options in terms of shopping, dining, and fulfilling daily needs within walking distance or conveniently located near mass transit; 4. Transportation options; 5. Access to employment opportunities within walking distance or close to mass transit; 6. Appropriately scaled buildings that respect the existing character of the neighborhood; ⚫ Page 14 7. Safe, accessible, and interconnected networks for people to move around in; and 8. Increased desirability as a place to work, live, play, and invest through higher quality form and design. Some highlights of the differences in allowed uses between the existing PL and proposed FB-UN2 zoning districts are: • The focus of the PL zone is for public or community uses as the name would suggest. • Housing, other than institutional uses are prohibited and the focus is not on people-oriented uses such as retail services or other services that would be provided to individuals. • The purpose of the FB-UN2 zone is to support people-oriented places which provides for living options, goods and services, and transportation options in a walkable setting. • The FB-UN2 zone allows a variety of dwelling types as well as public and community uses. It also allows for commercial business and retail with an emphasis on high-quality design. Existing Zoning – PL – Public Lands 21A.33.070: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS: • Accessory use • Adaptive reuse of a landmark site • Antenna – communication tower • Art gallery • Botanical garden • Community garden • Daycare Centers – various • Exhibition hall • Fairground • Farm stand, seasonal • Golf course • Government facility or office • Jail • Library • Municipal service uses • Museum • Office • Open space • Park • Parking • Reception center • Recreation uses • Research facility • Retail – accessory use only • Schools • Solar array • Stadium • Theater • Urban farm Proposed Zoning – FB-UN2 – Form Based Urban Neighborhood 21A.33.080: TABLE OF PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES IN FORM BASED DISTRICTS: • Accessory use • Alcohol uses • Animal, vet office • Antenna – communication tower • Art gallery • Artisan food production • Bed & breakfast misc. • Clinic – medical and dental • Commercial food preparation • Community garden • Community recreation center • Daycare centers – various • Dwelling – assisted living & congregate care • Group homes – various • Support housing • Single-family homes – various types • Single family cottages ⚫ Page 15 • Multi-family homes • Single room occupancy • Farmer’s market • Financial institution • Funeral home • Government facility • Health & fitness facility • Hotel/motel • Laboratory • Library • Mixed use • Municipal service uses • Museum • Nursing care facility • Office • Open space • Park • Parking • Place of worship • Plazas • Recreation uses • Research facility • Restaurant • Retails goods establishment • Retail services • Sales & displays • Schools – various • Seasonal farm stand • Solar array • Specialty stores • Studio – art • Theater • Urban farm • Utility uses • Wireless telecommunications ⚫ Page 16 ATTACHMENT E: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS 21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following: Factor Finding Rationale 1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Complies The Westside Master Plan speaks to creating opportunities through changes in land use and recognizes the need for well-designed higher density developments as well as unique neighborhoods. Various purposes, goals, objectives, and policies identified in City documents including Plan Salt Lake, Growing SLC, and the RDA 9 Line Plan are consistent with the proposed changes. This is further articulated and discussed in the Key Considerations section of this report in regard to the Westside Master Plan and other documents cited here. 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of the city, and, in addition: A. Lessen congestion in the streets or roads; B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers; C. Provide adequate light and air; D. Classify land uses and distribute land development and utilization; E. Protect the tax base; F. Secure economy in governmental expenditures; G. Foster the city's industrial, business and residential development; and H. Protect the environment. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(1-3), 1995) The proposed zone change from PL to FB-UN2 would support the purposes of the zoning ordinance found in Chapter 21A.02.0303: Purpose and Intent as outlined above. It would promote the health, safety and welfare of some of the City’s most vulnerable residents, those experiencing homelessness. It would also help implement the applicable Master Plan for the area and support the purpose statement of the proposed FB-UN2 zoning district. 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; Complies The proposed FB-UN2 zoning district would allow residential and commercial uses which are not currently allowed by the PL – Public Lands zoning designation. The overall scale and allowed uses in the proposed zone would not be out of scale with the surrounding industrial zoning. Additional future infrastructure improvements such as sidewalks will help to lessen impacts on neighboring properties. Additional consideration related to buffering between the neighboring industrial uses and this property is being recommended. ⚫ Page 17 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards Complies The subject properties are within the Airport Flight Path Protection Influence Zone H. This area has specific height restrictions. The Airport Planner indicated that: 1) Salt Lake City does not require an avigation easement for new development in this zone. 2) This project creates no observed impacts to airport operations. 5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Complies The proposed development of the subject properties was reviewed by the various city departments tasked with administering public facilities and services. The infrastructure in this area is lacking and will require significant upgrades to accommodate development of the village. The city has the ability to provide services to the subject property. The extent of required infrastructure improvements will be dependent upon the scale of any specific site development proposals that are reviewed at a future time. If the rezone is approved, any new use will need to comply with the applicable requirements for redevelopment of the site. Public Utilities and other departments will review any specific development proposals submitted at that time and additional comments and requirements may apply to that development proposal. ⚫ Page 18 ATTACHMENT F: Public Process and Comments Public Notice, Meetings, Comments The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to this project: Public Notices: • Notice of the project and a formal letter requesting comments was sent to the Chair of the Poplar Grove Community Council on August 13, 2021. • Notice sent to the Glendale CC Chair as a courtesy. The Glendale CC is outside of the 600 feet boundary for official notice but is the closest recognized organization adjacent to the project boundary. • Staff sent an early notification announcement postcard about the project to all residents and property owners located within 300 feet of the project site on August 13, 2021. The mailed notice included project details, that recognized community organizations were aware of the proposal and included information on how to access the online open house and give public input on the project. • Staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on the proposal. The Online Open House period started on August 16, 2021 and ended on September 30, 2021. • Staff attended an online meeting for a West Side Community Councils Open Forum held on August 23, 2021. • The 45-day recognized organization comment period expired on September 30, 2021. Public Hearing Notice: • Public hearing notice mailed: October 14, 2021 • Public hearing notice signs posted on properties: October 14, 2021 • Public notice posted on City and State websites & Planning Division list serve: October 14, 2021 Public and Recognized Organization Comments: To date approximately 70 public comments have been submitted to staff via email in relation to the proposal. The combined redacted public comments received via email can be found on the following pages of this report. Many of the comments received by staff cite opposition to the idea of providing services to persons experiencing homelessness within the community. The most commonly cited concerns about the proposal relate to worries about how the village will impact crime and other activities in the area. There were also many comments in support of the proposal. The comments in support recognized that the solutions to issues of homelessness were not simple and that this was an innovative approach. Many of the comments simply indicate support or opposition to the proposal without providing a reason for that opinion. The Planning Commission and Staff are charged with reviewing and applying the Planning standards applicable to a Zoning Map Amendment in making a recommendation to City Council. September 4, 2021 David Gellner Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S State St., Rm 406 P.O. Box145480 Salt Lake City, UT. 84114-5480 david.gellner@slcgov.com RE: PLNPCM2021-00787 The Otherside Village Proposed Location on Mr. Gellner I am writing to provide my comment against the rezoning and subsequent build of The Other Side Village on 1850 W Indiana Avenue & a Portion of the Property at 1965 W 500 S. See the problem is the project isn’t well researched, well planned or well funded. The only other “community” they claim to be similar to is a place based in Austin Texas. Excuse me 20 miles outside of Austin because it was shut down by Austin city proper. The academy keeps saying look at our stats in reference to the high density housing building in sugar house but that is an apples to oranges comparison because it houses only ex cons. It doesn’t compare to this facility because an ex-con who has been court ordered or let out of prison early to be in the program is highly highly motivated to stay in their lane because they don’t want to go back to prison. A homeless addict or mentally ill person has zero motivation to live by any set of rigorous rules placed upon them by tosa. The worst thing that could happen is once they’ve been brought to our neighborhood and don’t comply they’ll just go back to what they’ve been doing for however many years and years they’ve been homeless. Which unfortunately will happen around our homes and kids and public spaces. As far as well planned goes the academy has put out a bunch of renderings of nice courtyards and shiny new buildings to make us feel good about what’s going on there but in reality nothing has really been planned out. As of the last public meeting they had a week ago the land hasn’t even been zoned for residential use and has a biohazard easement in place because it was a former landfill for Salt Lake City. DocuSign Envelope ID: 14F93CEA-6C01-409F-9C8D-A9194FC24720 They also constantly flip flop back and forth with statements about whether or not it will be a gated community for the homeless or open to the public with venues and fancy new stores. I suppose most people have heard the idea from tosa that it will be open to the public because they’re trying to make it seem like an “asset” to our community. It is not an asset. As far as the funding is concerned it is not well funded at all. They don’t even have enough funds yet to start on phase 1 if it gets approved by the city. They say nothing will be funded through tax payer dollars but that’s simply a lie. They’re seeking millions from the American relief plan money that the state received which is supposed to be set aside and utilized to give relief to businesses and infrastructure hit most harshly from COVID restrictions. The funny thing about funding as well is that the other side academy hasn’t put up or plans to put up any of their on average 2-7 million dollars in net profit every year to fund this venture. They want donations and other pathways to fund the project. Joseph Grenny just wants to continue to run his “non profit” and continue to rake in millions of dollars every year, pulling at peoples heart strings. As far as people being assets I agree people can be assets when they choose to be. Unfortunately chronically homeless people have chosen to be chronically homeless. Whether that’s through a crippling addiction or lack of motivation or drive they have chosen this life. There are so many current programs and facilities that they could be utilizing everyday to end their homelessness that they chose not to use. Honestly the homeless people in our neighborhoods and city are the opposite of an asset. They breed crime, violence, and filth and then expect people to feel sorry for them and give them money on the streets. Compassionate people try to help them by starting programs and getting groups together just to be turned down by the homeless because it’s too limiting or hard to do. Nothing with the track record of homeless people gives me confidence that this profitable venture for Joseph Grenny will help our community get lifted out of the pit it’s currently and successfully trying to crawl out of. I want our community to be cleaned up and turn into a nice inviting neighborhood exactly like sugarhouse did 20 years ago when they were approved for the state RDA funds. We just started our direct funding from the state and we need to have things that bring our community up without the risk of potentially ruining everything we’ve worked so hard for. Thank you, Erik Sansom DocuSign Envelope ID: 14F93CEA-6C01-409F-9C8D-A9194FC24720 , Resident Poplar Grove September 23, 2021 Re: Downtown Alliance support for The Other Side Village proposal Dear Salt Lake City Council Members and Planning Commission Members: I write to convey Downtown Alliance’s support for the proposed Other Side Village. We appreciate that Mayor Mendenhall and Salt Lake City have partnered with The Other Side Academy to develop this innovative option for needed shelter, community and belonging. Homelessness continues to rise to the top of concerns among our downtown stakeholders. We support expanding housing options in order to prevent homelessness and to assist those who are currently homeless. This project will add a significant number of additional affordable housing units to the City’s inventory. The Downtown Alliance supports the creation of The Other Side Village. We realize this effort will not eliminate homelessness, but we believe the village will fill a specific housing need that provides a safe and stable alternative to more than 400 people who are currently chronically homeless. We encourage the Planning Commission and the City Council to approve the proposed Zoning Amendment and we urge the City Council to approve the lease of the Indiana parcel for the development of this property. Respectfully, Dee Brewer Executive Director 201 South Main Street, Suite 2300, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 September 24, 2021 Re: The Other Side Village Proposal Dear Salt Lake City Council Members: The Salt Lake Chamber commends Mayor Mendenhall and Salt Lake City for partnering with The Other Side Academy to facilitate the development of The Other Side Village. I write to express our support and belief in this noble endeavor to give people a chance to build their lives after a hardship. The project will not only provide much needed affordable housing for those most in need but also strengthen our sense of community and belonging. Many in our downtown community, from patrons to businesses, face a significant problem with homelessness and its side effects. This issue consistently ranks as a top concern for businesses. These businesses care about their employees’ and customer safety, public health issues, impact on already tight revenue margins, and honest concern for this vulnerable homeless population. The impact of this cascading human tragedy is felt by all stakeholders, most importantly the homeless population themselves. We care for their well-being and support efforts to change outcomes on the ground, as the creation of The Other Side Village will accomplish. We want you to know that the Salt Lake Chamber fully supports the creation of The Other Side Village. While this will not solve our homelessness problem it will change the lives of 400 people who are experiencing chronic homelessness and get them off the streets. This rezoning will provide a way to help these individuals and the space for life transformation out of homelessness. The Other Side Village will have a positive impact on Salt Lake City. We encourage the City Council to approve the Zoning Amendment and we urge the City Council to approve the lease of the Indiana parcel for the development of this property. This is our chance to turn a property with marginal utility into a better environment for place and people through its cleanup and transformation. Respectfully, Derek Miller, President & CEO, Salt Lake Chamber 201 South Main Street | Suite 2300 | Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 | Phone 801.364.3631 | Fax 801.328.5098 www.slchamber.com September 30, 2021 RE: The Other Side Village Project – Indiana Avenue To whom it may concern, I am corresponding on behalf of the Alvie Carter Trust regarding the proposed Other Side Village (“Project”). We have been retained to represent the Carter family, along with legal counsel, in providing input to the City and developer as it relates to the Cater properties which are located adjacent to the proposed site on the east side. Collectively, the Carters own 6 parcels comprising some 3.88 +/- acres with approximately 650 linear feet of shared property line with the Project and 330 feet of frontage on Indiana Avenue. That being the case, we believe that the Carter properties will be the most significantly affected by the proposed Project. First, we would like to state that conceptually we are in favor of the Project and hope to interact with the City and developer in a proactive and positive manner that will protect the Carter assets while offering the Project its best chance of success. Our primary concerns at this stage are: Traffic – We want to insure that our use as industrial with the likelihood of large commercial vehicles entering and leaving the Carter property is not impeded, and that safety for all drivers and pedestrians is maintained. Security – Given the scale of the Project, we want to make sure that property boundaries are respected, and that public frontage areas for properties surrounding the Project are kept free of trash and do not become an area of loitering that would negatively impact the future businesses that will occupy the Carter property. Buffering – We believe that it is important to create a sensible and aesthetically acceptable buffer between the uses, given their diverse nature and would like to engage actively in the site planning discussions. Utilities – It is important that the Project not over tax the utilities and services for the area so that all other properties and development can operate within industry standards. Site Design – We want to make sure that adjacent uses are compatible (Not putting Project dumpsters next to our entrance for example). 2 We are excited to participate in the public process and hope that we can create mutually viable and vibrant new development for this area. Please let us know if we should be addressing others in our correspondence and how we can most easily collaborate with your team. We deeply appreciate your time and consideration and look forward to working with you. With respect, Graig Griffin, SIOR Managing Partner – Utah Advisors Windermere Commercial Real Estate cc: Chris Carter, Daniel Fale, Stephen Hester, Esq. 1 Gellner, David From:Alejandro Avila <> Sent:Monday, September 20, 2021 11:06 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Homeless village on redwood and Indians Avenue Hi David I’m writing this email to let you know that I am against this developing project . I live in the area and feel like  there is already a problem with homelessness and drugs in my neighborhood and a lack of police presence as it is. Even  if we call police they never show up!! So please re consider the location I think it is for a good cause but as far as location  goes I feel like there are plenty of other areas we’re this would be a better fit but not in our nieghborhood.     Sent from my iPhone  1 Gellner, David From:Alison Lewis <> Sent:Thursday, September 30, 2021 8:22 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Opposed to re-zoning parcel off of Indiana for the Other Side Village Hi David,    I'm writing because I live in Poplar Grove (just off Indiana and 1500 W) and am opposed to rezoning the parcel proposed for a homeless village. We are already a delicate community with a large transient and homeless population living along our multi-use paths (JRPT and 9-line), have homeless service centers already, are in need of a larger and nicer grocery store (this development would tax that resource) and in general, are trying to create a neighborhood environment where children can walk the sidewalks without parents feeling uneasy. The Other Side Village will have a program where if a prospective residents doesn't comply with their rules and structure, they will be asked to leave. We are concerned as a community about this fact.     Please, we ask the city to consider another neighborhood with more resources to accommodate what will eventually be up to 500 tiny home units.     Thank you,  Alison Lewis      1 Gellner, David From:Amanda Penrose Sent:Wednesday, September 29, 2021 12:04 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other side village on Indiana Avenue. Hi David,    Just reaching out I know today is the last day to give input on the proposed Other side Village on Indiana Ave. My  Mother lives just past redwood on Indiana Ave and has grand‐kids visiting her frequently Including my kids. This would  only be 2 minutes walking from  her house I am very worried about the safety of my children, other children, and the  residents in general in the area. My sister and other friends also live nearby. Please do not approve this project for this  area.    Thanks,      1 Gellner, David From:Deborah Williams > Sent:Wednesday, September 29, 2021 12:39 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Homeless Village Dear David,     I live near the proposed site for the homeless village. I have not received any city notice but was informed my time to  respond runs out tomorrow. I have young children that would no longer be able to play outside, and after over a decade  of living at my current residence I would consider moving if this village is constructed.    There are countless reasons why adding the proposed homeless village would be a very bad idea. Reasons that would be  detrimental to our community and our families safety.     I ask that you DO NOT REZONE THE PARCEL ON INDIANA for the homeless village. We already have issues with crime  that we should address before adding to it.       Thank You,  Amy Williams  1 Gellner, David From:Ana Manavahe <> Sent:Sunday, September 19, 2021 11:42 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Against the Other Side Village Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed I am a resident of popular grove and I am against the “Other Side Village” project. We already have too many of a  problem in our area and we do not want any more.    Regards,  Ana Manavahē   Sent from my iPhone  1 Gellner, David From:Ashley Stone > Sent:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 11:16 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Hello David Gellner,    My name is Ashley Stone. I’m writing to tell you that I support The Other Side Village. I strongly believe that they are  building a community that will help people. It is so important that we create an environment of safety, love, and support  for our unsheltered community. I know that if they are shown some compassion, given safe shelter, food, community,  access to health care and the opportunity to learn and grow they will take it and begin to flourish.    Thank you,    Ashley Stone     ‐‐   Ashley Belle Stone     1 Gellner, David From:Beth J < Sent:Sunday, September 26, 2021 1:45 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Support of otherside village 1850 Indiana Ave, slc Hello David!    My name is Beth Johnston and I am a home owner and resident in poplar grove, a short walk NE of the proposed  Otherside Village development.  My home is located directly across from Sherwood Park on 400 S and as such my  neighbors and I have seen our fair share of homeless "regulars" passing through or camping in the park as long as they  are able before being removed by police.      I understand there are many voices against the proposed village, citing concerns of increased vagrancy, litter, and crime  in our neighborhood should the village build in the proposed location.  To the contrary, however, I am completely IN  SUPPORT OF the proposed village and its location.     The Otherside facilities currently in existence in downtown slc clearly show this organization is professional and able to  provide a much needed hand up to our less fortunate residents who not only desire a place to live and transition off the  streets but also willing to work for it.  The other locations are clean, well‐managed, and a positive solution to a problem  the city seems to struggle finding solutions for.  I would be proud to have this type of development in my neighborhood.   The facilities offered by the proposed village also provide much needed positive attention to the west side of downtown,  which suffers from a kind of neglect and dismissal by the city.  We are not a dumping ground for the valley, but rather  take pride in our diverse ethnic community and strong family values despite what may be deemed negatively as low  income living.  The village proposes possible amenities such as a farmers market or craft market, outdoor entertainment  venues, even a theatre and food trucks!  These are all desirable changes we would love to have here.  I believe properly  educating other less informed dissenters, who seem to envision hoardes of mentally disturbed and unkempt vagrant  zombies wandering their streets, will sway opinion toward development.    (If you could also put a bug into the city's ear about developing a similar project blended with KOA type lot rental  services for the many RV dwellers we are accumulating, that would also be...most welcome.  They exist in a grey area of  mobile homelessness that have little to no services available yet I have spoken to several who would love to have this  type of community option to help get them back into a stable situation.)    Please feel free to share my support at up coming meetings regarding this project or contact me with any  questions.  Thank you for your time,    Beth (Elizabeth) Johnston         Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone  Get Outlook for Android  1 Gellner, David From:Gellner, David Sent:Monday, September 20, 2021 4:52 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:FW: (EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Rezoning concerns   From: brennan <b >   Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 3:45 PM  To: Gellner, David <David.Gellner@slcgov.com>; Mayor <Mayor@slcgov.com>  Subject: (EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Rezoning concerns      My name is Brennan Gallegos and I live near 1500 W and Indiana Ave.   I was just informed that The Other Side intends to request that property only a few blocks away from me be rezoned  to allow a homeless camp to be established.   I would like to formally address my concerns in regards to the matter. While I do think that something needs to be  done about the homeless problems in Salt Lake City, this proposal is not the solution.   I feel that the project does not consider what resources the homeless community utilize on a day to day basis. These  resources are all located downtown. If the proposed Village is created, it would mean that every day, the homeless  population would need to walk over an hour to get to these resources and then walk an hour to get home. It is not  reasonable to have people be expected to walk 2 hours a day just to be able to survive.    In addition to the logistical issues above, I feel that there is a conflict of interest in the proposed plan from the Other  Side Academy who own lots of property near downtown Salt Lake City. By moving the homeless population out of the  city, they are going to have large profit gains from property value at the expense of the primarily ethnic community of  Popular Grove who are already affected by discrimination and racism when it comes to property value. It is not  appropriate for Tim Stay, a white CEO, to put another financial burden on this community. The state property in  question should be used for something that benefits our local community instead of hurting it.   Lastly I am concerned for the safety of my children with the introduction of a large homeless population only a few  blocks from our house. Homeless individuals are sometimes drug addicts who leave their used heroin needles on the  street. Or are convicted felons who should not be allowed near children or the various schools in our area.   Please forward these concerns to the appropriate party because The Other Side Village is not the solution to the  homeless issue in Utah.   Respectfully,  ‐Brennan Gallegos        1 Gellner, David From:Bonnie Wolsey-Dickinson <> Sent:Friday, September 3, 2021 9:28 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Rezoning for homelessness Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Completed Please consider rezoning for The other Side homeless initiative. We need this desperately.   1 Gellner, David From:brian.diggs <> Sent:Tuesday, September 28, 2021 10:39 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Hello David,    I am writing in full support of the Other Side Village proposal.  As the Executive Director of Family Promise Salt Lake, I  know the struggles homeless people face daily.  Having a place to call home empowers the unsheltered to build  community, find employment, and assimilate into the wider culture.      Moreover, the work of The Other Side Academy is invaluable to so many.  Their commitment to building an  accountability structure has proven effective.  I believe this is integral to addressing homelessness here and around the  country.      Thanks for letting me express my opinion!    Rev. E. Brian Diggs Executive Director Family Promise Salt Lake Salt Lake City, UT 84104       1 Gellner, David From:B Wurts < Sent:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 10:52 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Village Project Good Morning David,    I wanted to take a moment to show my support for the Village Project that has been proposed for SLC.  While I am sure  you have received letters, calls and emails from concerned individuals in the area; I wanted to let you know that I  believe in a project like this.  Too often I hear "What is Salt Lake going to do about the homeless population?" but it is  quickly followed by "just keep them away from my area".  Which is an unfortunate way to look at the growing  issue.  People want it to be taken care of, but only when it is not going to affect them.     ‐ Bryce Wurtsbaugh  1 Gellner, David From:Celia Grenny > Sent:Saturday, September 4, 2021 5:45 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Completed Dear David,  My name is Celia Grenny and I am a Salt Lake City resident. I just wanted to let you know that I support the Village in the  proposed location by The Other Side Academy. My husband and I are the founders of TOSA, and we have been amazed  by what a small group of about 100 students have been able to accomplish over the past six years.  We believe that  giving them a supportive environment where they are also held accountable for their actions has been a large  component in their success.  Our students have flourished in an atmosphere of love and nurture. We plan to offer this  same environment to those who are presently unable to help themselves, but are willing to live in a clean, supportive  and safe place.  We have every intention of, and are willing to exert every effort to elevate the surrounding area as well.   Together we can create a jewel for area residents to access services and recreation opportunities on the property.  I implore you to help us in this effort and approve the rezone application.   Thank you,  Celia Grenny    1 Gellner, David From:Caitlin Howell Sent:Sunday, September 5, 2021 6:08 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other side village support Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed  Please approve this requested amendment change as it will allow The Other Side Village to  help those currently living in chaos and squalor  1 Gellner, David From:C JAY LARSON < Sent:Saturday, September 11, 2021 8:29 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Zone change approval recommendation for The Other Side Village. Dear Commissioner Gellner,    I am writing you requesting for your approval of the zone change for "The Other Side Village".   I was taken on  an inspection tour of the parcel of land where  The Other Side Village is proposed to be built by Joseph  Grenny.  I can understand why some of the local residents on the east side of that property would be  concerned‐‐‐‐‐who would want several hundred homeless people to be living so close to our homes and our  neighborhood?       When a permit was requested of the Salt Lake Planning Commission to establish the Other Side Academy as a  future home  for former felons, the surrounding neighborhood people all asked similar questions of great  concern, "Who would want a bunch of felons to live in our neighborhood?"  All that is required of the  neighbors and people who currently live in the locality of  the proposed site of The Other Side Village is to be  open minded and inquire themselves of any of the current neighbors of TOSA, right up in the heart of Salt Lake  City, as to their present opinions of TOSA.  Their response will be most assuring‐‐‐‐‐"The best neighbors we  have ever had!"    I have made several visits to TOSA with my family.   Each visit was an uplifting experience.   I can assure you  that the Leadership people at TOSA are intelligent, professional people who have but one motive:  To lift up  people out  of their seemingly helpless condition of chaos and squalor.  They have the talents and knowhow to  make The Othe Side  Village a highly successful pursuit‐‐‐a blessing, rather than a curse for all the potential  future residents of The Other Side Village.      With all that is said above, I ask of you, Commissioner Gellner for your support in favor of approving the  zoning change which would give the go‐ahead for establishing The Other Side Village.    With appreciation, I am,    C. Jay Larson      1 Gellner, David From:Courtney Giles <c > Sent:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 10:30 AM To:Gellner, David Cc: Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village To Whom it May Concern,    I.E David Gellner     I am writing this letter in support of The Other Side Village. I have actively worked with the homeless population in Salt  Lake City for going on 15 years now. The issue has become unprecedented when it comes to safe, reliable and long‐term  solutions for this demographic. The Other Side Village will offer a place of Community, family, solace, self sufficiency and  above all a place to call home. The city has gone about affordable housing and options for our unsheltered community in  some of the worst ways possible. We need a solid solution to address the real need for housing for the chronically  homeless members of our community. It is vital and for some at this point life or death. Please consider this plea from a  person who spends countless hours weekly with these people. Knowing that this project is underway is the only relief of  helplessness I have felt in some time for our unsheltered family! I and many others support The Other Side Village.    Thank you kindly,  Be blessed   Courtney Giles       1 Gellner, David From:David Mceuen <> Sent:Thursday, September 23, 2021 9:44 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Support The Other Side Village Hi David, I'm writing to show my support for The Other Side Village project that is open for public comments. I support  the zoning change needed for this project. This is an important project to assist the city and its residents who are  experiencing homelessness. I know the leaders at the Other Side Village will do a tremendous job and I know they have  spent an enormous amount of time working on this project to provide the best outcomes possible for the project's  residents. This would be a great use of that property and a great asset to the community.    I am a business owner and commercial property owner in Salt Lake City, next to Pioneer Park and I'm very familiar with  the homelessness, street camping, substance abuse, crime and other problems in our community. This project will be  major step in providing additional resources to serve the community's needs in addressing homelessness.     Regards,    David McEuen  1 Gellner, David From:Dayne Bechtold > Sent:Sunday, September 26, 2021 7:47 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The other side village Hi Mr. Gellner,    My name is Dayne Bechtold and I’m a resident of South Jordan. While this reasoning won’t directly effect me I believe if  it can help end the homeless epidemic here in the greater salt lake area for those who truly want to be better, than  there is no reason we shouldn’t help get this village built. I took a look at the properties that are being requested and I  see no reason why we shouldn’t use it to help the homeless of our city.     Thanks for the work you do!    Sent from my iPhone  1 Gellner, David From:Deborah Williams > Sent:Wednesday, September 29, 2021 10:01 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Oppose rezoning for homeless village Dear Mr. Gellner, I have lived on Indiana Ave just a few blocks away from the proposed site for over 30 years. I have grandchildren that visit often. Please don't make our neighborhood even more unsafe. I feel that the homeless village would violate my right to feel safe in my own home. I understood that we should've been able to attend a public meeting where we would have the opportunity to give our comments but we were never notified of such a meeting. I ask that you please reconsider this project. Respectfully, Deborah Williams 1 Gellner, David From:Debra DeFa <> Sent:Thursday, September 30, 2021 1:49 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Rezoning Good Afternoon,    My name is Debbie DeFa and as a resident of Poplar Grove and I am AGAINST the rezoning to allow The Other Village to  build at their requested site on Indiana Avenue.  I hope that this will be taken into consideration as the vote moves  forward.    Thank You!!!  1 Gellner, David From:D Kent Walker < Sent:Sunday, September 26, 2021 8:48 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Opposition to homeless village Dear Sir,    Please be advised that I oppose the re zoning of 1850 W Indiana Ave., SLC; as well as the construction of a homeless  village and said address.    Thank you    Kent Walker  1 Gellner, David From:Devin Thorpe <t > Sent:Saturday, September 4, 2021 11:25 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hi David,    I'm a new‐media journalist who ran for Congress last year. I've been honored to know Tim Stay for almost 20 years. I've  written extensively about the work of The Other Side Academy. I consider it to be Utah's most successful and impactful  poverty eradication tool.     Tim and his team are great humans, focused on solving real problems in our community. I can't be emphatic enough that I support and encourage you to support rezoning to allow for the Other Side Village to proceed. It will improve that  neighborhood. It will improve our community.    I lack the data you have, but I have lived downtown for 20 years. I've seen the ups and downs of homelessness in our  city. From my vantage point, things have never been worse. I attribute this to the lingering opioid crisis, the lack of a  meaningful minimum wage and the dire lack of affordable housing. The Other Side Village will address the latter  problem. As you likely know, success in helping people overcome their other challenges has been demonstrated to  improve if they are housed first.    The Other Side Village is not a complete solution for Salt Lake City but this isn't reason to oppose it. That is the reason to  do it faster and to look for opportunities to replicate what works there elsewhere.    Thanks for your consideration.    Let's do some good!    dt   Devin D. Thorpe      P.S. The best part of email is that it is asynchronous. I've sent this message at a time that is convenient for me. Life  features a bountiful trove of human activities more important than reading my note. Please don't ever feel pressure to  respond before it is easy for you.  1 Gellner, David From:Ellen Garn Sent:Thursday, September 23, 2021 4:49 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other side village zoning change  I support this zoning change as it will bring additional permanent supportive  housing to the Salt Lake market and give those experiencing homelessness a  safe and sober environment to change their lives.    Thank you, Ellen Garn  SLC resident     1 Gellner, David From:Elna Hamp <> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 11:32 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village - Support David,  I am in support of The Other Side Village!    I have been to Community First in Austin three times and seen what  works and doesn’t work to change lives. In addition, I have been to TOSA and talked to the folks who have benefited  from the “community as method” that Joseph, Tim, Dave, and others are deploying.    The results are remarkable and  will be a framework for The Other Side Village.        Salt Lake City’s village plan will be an example to the world of how Utah cares and treats people in desperate need.   A  place where those that need help can live in a home and have a village that will help them lead productive and  meaningful lives amongst friends.    Elna Hamp  Clinic Administrator  Jordan Landing Clinic  1 Gellner, David From:Esther Stowell <e > Sent:Thursday, September 2, 2021 11:27 AM To:Gellner, David Cc:Ima Mmi; Poplar Grove 2; Faris, Dennis Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM: 2021-00787 - Zoning Map Amendment for The Other Side Village David,    My name is Esther Stowell, Resident of Poplar Grove, the location for the referenced zoning application.    I want to draw your attention to the Facebook Page residents in our neighborhood are using to voice their opinion about  this map amendment request: https://m.facebook.com/145826534316844/    We'll continue to raise awareness and submit the necessary comments, in opposition of this request, as requested in  your letter to the Poplar Grove Community Council dated Aug 13, 2021.    Thank you for your time.      Esther Stowell      1 Gellner, David From:Heidi Van Ert <> Sent:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 4:00 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side village Dear Mr. Gellner:     Please approve the amendment change so that The Other Side Village will be able tp assist and help those currently  living without homes.        Heidi Van Ert, retired teacher and community member  1 Gellner, David From:Ilauna Gurr < Sent:Saturday, September 25, 2021 9:43 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:Re: (EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Dear Mr. Gellner,    I have been very impressed with the success of The Other Side Academy and am hopeful that the same principles of self‐ reliance , peer accountability, and connectedness could bring the same help and success to The Other Side Village. This  seems like a good formula for helping the homeless help themselves. Please make the zoning change necessary so The  Other Side can bring services to residents and hopefully the surrounding neighborhoods.     ilauna gurr    Sent from my iPhone      On Sep 24, 2021, at 2:56 PM, Gellner, David <David.Gellner@slcgov.com> wrote:            1 Gellner, David From:Jackie Daniels-Brown <j Sent:Thursday, September 23, 2021 10:53 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Hi there,    I am writing in support of The Other Side Village. Our community is in desperate need of what the village could offer to  our unsheltered friends and relatives ‐ safety, dignity, respect, compassion, resources and services, consistency ‐ I could  go on and on about the benefits that the village would provide but I’d like to say also that the city’s current responses  toward unsheltered folk’s existence have fallen drastically short of what is needed. The Village offers what IS needed.  The city has been sending messages not just to unsheltered folks but to the entire city and state (and frankly, to the rest  of the country) that the way SLC addresses mental health, addiction, and homelessness is to displace, provide scant  resources, and throw the rest in the trash. I am very happy that the city has decided to consider the Village as it sounds  like the city has chosen to set a different example. I am not originally from UT but have lived here half my life, and I’ve  noticed that SLC likes to talk about how different of a city it is but actions speak louder than words. All last year we  heard gov Herbert say “if you love your neighbor wear a mask” ‐ this city emphasizes caring for your neighbor a LOT. The  village is the ultimate expression of caring for your neighbor. I have spent time at many camps and have met many folks  living on the street. They are kind, caring, giving people. They are creative, they are accountable to themselves and  others. They create family when their own is gone. They have incredible hopes and dreams for their futures that could  really get them places. They are helpful and respectful and many just want to have peace, just like I do and probably just  like you do. As a city, we need our officials to teach the community as a whole, through actions, that our unsheltered  friends are just that ‐ friends, neighbors, family ‐ not dehumanized beings. Please continue with this Village project. Help  us educate people who oppose this project. Our current way of doing things is not sustainable and it is not working. It is  literally traumatizing hundreds if not thousands of people over and over again. We need this project as a community to  heal and to truly actually be good neighbors.     Thank you for your time,  Jackie Daniels‐Brown    SLC,UT 84105  1 Gellner, David From:Jaden McCarrey > Sent:Monday, September 27, 2021 2:33 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Village an Asset to SLC To whom it may concern, The Village has created a self-sustaining model that will help address homelessness in SLC. This program will be an invaluable asset to the city and I give it my full recommendation. Kindly,   ‐‐   Jaden McCarrey  1 Gellner, David From:Jeff Howell < Sent:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 9:36 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Support zoning changes Hi David,    I support the zoning change for the other side academy.    Thank you,    Sent from my iPhone  1 Gellner, David From:Joseph Grenny < Sent:Saturday, September 4, 2021 8:27 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Completed Hello, David,  Thank you for your service to our city. I have lived in Salt Lake City for the past four years. I love it. And yet I can see that  some things are terribly broken. We continue to add resources for the homeless and little seems to improve. I am a  supporter of The Other Side Village because I believe it is a new and different solution that might help some to  permanently change their lives. I believe the land under consideration on Indiana Avenue is an ideal location – close  enough to the city but far enough from immediate neighbors that it will have time to prove that it is a safe place. I have  great confidence in The Other Side Academy to do this in a way that the neighbors will be very happy with once they see  it.    Please approve their request for use of the land so that Salt Lake City can start helping some of these suffering people to  change their lives.    Thank you,  Joseph Grenny    1 Gellner, David From:John Gurr <> Sent:Thursday, October 7, 2021 1:11 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Villages Importance:High I support this zoning change for The Other Side Villages … it will bring additional permanent supportive housing to the Salt Lake market and give those experiencing homelessness a safe and sober environment to change their lives. Living in the Rio Grande area, I know full well how dire circumstances can be for the homeless and recognize that this would be a meaningful way to assist those in greater need. Thank you.       Residence:  Salt Lake City, Utah       1 Gellner, David From:Joseph Williams > Sent:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 7:16 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Homeless proposal Dear Mr. Gellner,    I am emailing you today because I oppose the other side village proposal on Indiana Avenue. I live just less than 10  minutes away from the proposed site, and I am opposed to the project, because of the drug use and the level of crime it  will bring to the area. Not to mention the affect it will undoubtedly have on property values for the surrounding area.  1 Gellner, David From:Jesselie Anderson Sent:Saturday, September 4, 2021 1:09 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other Side Academy Village Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed I’m writing to urge your support for The Other Side Academy Village. They have the expertise and experience to assure  that the village is successful and gives those that live there a chance for a better more stable and productive life.  Please support this!  Jesselie and Scott Anderson      Jesselie B. Anderson  1 Gellner, David From:Julie F < Sent:Wednesday, September 29, 2021 12:02 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Vote NO for Indiana Ave Village Dear Mr. Gellner,    I am writing this email in regards to the project being planned for the Other Side Village on Indiana Avenue. My mother  is a long time resident of Salt Lake City, specifically, directly on Indiana Avenue, having purchased her home in 1991.     Throughout the years, living here, we have encountered homeless concerns, break ins, car fires, drug raids at  neighboring homes, shootings, and hit and runs, all in our small block area.     We are extremely concerned that the if there is approval of this new homeless community that it will bring an already  stressed area, so much more crime. Please, our police force is already completely maxed out even to the point of  highlighting the death of the University of Utah student #22 Mr. Aaron Lowe, where the response time was over 2 hours.  Our city does not have the resources for this.    Please do the West side of Salt Lake City right and vote NO!! on the Other Side Village.     Thank you!  1 Gellner, David From:Justin McKelvy > Sent:Thursday, September 30, 2021 8:31 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Oppose removing the Indians Parcel for the homeless village Hello David,    I am writing to oppose removing the Indians parcel proposed for the homeless village. Though I support the idea of  helping provide infrastructure to assist a population in need. I feel that the area of poplar grove is already supporting a  large population of displaced homeless and already supports this community with other resources. I would like to see  this in the valley of Salt Lake if responsibly executed, but Poplar Grove has already done it's fair share to help and is in  need of additional community building infrastructure for non‐homeless residents. Every day my family and I see  homeless people around our home and on the 9 line trail where they leave significant piles of trash and sleep at night,  they are in our bushes near our homes and parks and at times can be unsettling. There is human feces and needles  being reported around our neighborhoods from those displaced from existing resources in the area. I see this proposed  community as another draw for more homeless to the area where those who will not be able to make it in the  community will be pushed into our green spaces, alleys, and backyards where there is no capacity to manage it. I want  help and resources like this, but I don't think this community is safely able to shoulder more than what it is already  carrying.    Thank you,  Justin McKelvy  Resident of Poplar Grove  1 Gellner, David From:Keri Keech > Sent:Monday, September 27, 2021 8:08 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other Side Villages Sir,  I am opposed to the building of the village for the homeless. I know it is a big problem. I deal with it every day. I will not  go for a walk by myself in my own neighborhood due to the amount of the homeless in my area. If that village is built it  will make the matters worse.    Sent from my iPhone  1 Gellner, David From:Kristina Pulsipher < Sent:Thursday, September 23, 2021 7:30 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Good evening, Mr. Gellner, I wanted to express my support for The Other Side Village and their efforts. I feel this will be  a tremendous asset to the community. Not only will it provide much needed housing, but also teach trades and  employable skills. This is not just a place to put people who are then out of sight, out of mind, but truly will change lives  and enrich our city, county, and state.     Sincerely,   Kristina Pulsipher   1 Gellner, David From:l Sent:Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:34 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Support for Zoning Change for The Other Side Village Dear Mr. Gellner,  I support the zoning change for The Other Side Village.  Thanks for your consideration.  Larry Brown    1 Gellner, David From:Lew Swain < Sent:Monday, September 6, 2021 12:01 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other side village Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed David I have followed the few news pieces that have addressed the proposed Other Side Village project that is proposed  for the West side of Salt Lake. It is my understanding that the site for this project is currently being considered for a  rezone. I believe this project will do more to address the needs of the homeless community in Salt Lake than any of the  existing shelters or food kitchens could ever do. I have spoken to those who are proposing this project. This is a site that  will help displaced people achieve significant help in their desires to become self reliant. People will be in their own  homes with accessibility to medical, dental, and counseling services on site. They will have a small grocery store which  will lessen the need to travel some distance for their food. The residents will have employment opportunities in the  village and employment support for jobs in the community. Those who will become residents of the village will agree to  the village rules, all of which will direct behavior towards being good law abiding members of a supportive community  within the larger community of Salt Lake.   It is my understanding that the city will be contributing the land but private funds will be used for the improvement of  the project. This seems like the best offer the city of Salt Lake has ever been presented with to address the huge social  costs associated with homelessness.  I am in full support of this rezoning request and hope that this can be the first of many such projects throughout the  state.  Lewis Swain  1 Gellner, David From:Lisa Adams Sent:Thursday, September 30, 2021 5:59 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Zoning Change for The Other Side Village Dear David,    Just a quick note to offer support for the requested change of zoning for  the proposed Other Side Village.      As a former planning commissioner and former council member, I do not  take zoning changes lightly.  I know that long‐term repercussions,  precedent, and unintended consequences must be taken into  account.  Knowing all of that, I still support this zoning change as a way to  help our city tackle the significant problems we have with the unhoused  and with affordable housing.  The Other Side Academy has a proven track  record.  Consistently, TOSA improves the community where it is  located.  Witness the change on Seventh East between South Temple and  First South.  Where once there were two eyesores that attracted  squatters, there are two beautiful homes where new lives begin, and  pages are turned.  I have no doubt that the Other Side Village will be a  force for good in the area surrounding it.    Sincerely,  Lisa Ramsey Adams  1 Gellner, David From:Lisa Hansen < Sent:Thursday, September 23, 2021 3:51 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Supporting the Village David:    I'm writing as a Utah licensed mental health professional not associated with the Village to offer my experience that the  Village as proposed will be an asset to Salt Lake City that will be envied by other cities in the mountain west as the  highest standard of care. The Village and The Other Side Academy demonstrate that we know how to lift and change  people, and we know how to make this work as an integral part of our classy and beautiful city.    Our community wants to do the right thing. This is it. I encourage you to support the re‐zoning of property that would  allow the Village to move forward.    Lisa T. Hansen       Lisa Tensmeyer Hansen  She, Her, Hers  PhD, LMFT  Center for Couples and Families            In compliance with the Health Portability and Accountability Act "HIPAA" (rule 104‐91), this message and any attachments  are intended only for use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is  privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this electronic message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error or it was forwarded to you without permission from Dr. Hansen, please FORWARD this message back to the sender at the email address above, DELETE this message from all mailboxes and any other electronic storage medium and DESTROY all copies. Thank you.      1 Gellner, David From:Ella Griffin <> Sent:Monday, September 20, 2021 8:36 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) No to the other side village on Indiana ave and redwood road arena Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged My mom says I won’t be able to ride my bike by myself anymore if the other side village gets built 5 blocks away from  my house. I am 9 year old.    Marce   1 Gellner, David From:Mary Kingston < Sent:Tuesday, September 21, 2021 11:23 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLEASE DO NOT REZONE THE INDIANA PARCEL!!! Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged PLEASE do not use the parcel on indiana ave. for the proposed homeless village. there are mulitple residents  and schools within walking distance of that area and multiple kids that the homeless community could  potentially pose a threat to. our family has lived on indiana for decades and has multiple children who  frequently visit and live on indiana. Placing the homeless village there would force us to relocate and leave our  precious home with concerns for the safety of our children. its not just our family either, like i mentioned  before there are multiple residental neighborhoods, schools, churches, etc. again PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE  RECONSIDER THIS DECISION AND PLACE THE VILLAGE SOMEWHERE ELSE!   1 Gellner, David From:melinda richards <ri > Sent:Sunday, September 26, 2021 7:34 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Please support The Other Side Village! I absolutely support the zoning change to allow The Other Side Village to be built! It will bring additional permanent supportive housing to the prohibitively expensive Salt Lake market and give those experiencing homelessness a safe home base as a foundation to change their lives.  Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android  1 Gellner, David From:michelle smith <> Sent:Monday, September 20, 2021 8:45 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) No to the Other Side Village on Indiana Ave and Redwood Road area Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed I moved to Glendale 47 years ago. My dad passed away last year and I bought his house in Glendale also.     There were two roads to get to my house, but a couple of years ago they blocked off my road to make it nicer for people  to walk on the 9line trail.     The 9line trail would turn into the pathway for the Other Side Village to get to Smith’s Food King, the park next to it, the  Jordan River trail, and the Peace Gardens. I drive public transportation. I see everywhere in the valley where the shelters  and programs are placed, riffraff tends to surround it.     Our neighbor hood is already too fragile to bear this weight. I already have to call the police on average of 4 times a  year. If the Other Side Village gets build there, I anticipate that I will have to call the police 12 times a year. Please  explore other avenues for this tiny home village.     Thank you,     Michelle Smith    Sent from Mail for Windows    1 Gellner, David From:Mindy Young <> Sent:Saturday, September 4, 2021 8:37 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Support for The Other Side Academy Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hello!    My name is Mindy Young and I am the Managing Director of Equality Utah.  I am writing to ask for support for The Other  Side Academy.     I have been personally volunteering with this group for a few years now and have been thrilled by the collaboration  between Equality Utah and TOSA‐ so much good happens when we work together.  I have also served on the board of  the Salt Lake Salvation Army and I have been so grateful for all the volunteer hours that TOSA has been willing to do for  The Salvation Army.  I have seen the lives that are affected by this beautiful organization and want to do all I can to see it  grow and flourish.     I fully support this zoning change and know it will do so much good for our community ‐ especially those experiencing  homelessness. What a beautiful way to help them become sober in a beautiful environment that they can change their  lives for good.    Please feel free to call me on my cell phone if I can offer anything further 4356913575.    Best,           ‐‐   Mindy B. Young, MFA  Managing Director  She, Her, Hers        www.equalityutah.org     Become a Business Equality Leader Today!    Our work continues, become a sustaining donor today!  1 Gellner, David From:Miriam Lopez Sent:Wednesday, October 6, 2021 2:15 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) We oppose!!!!!!! Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed We oppose the rezoning of the indiana parcel for a homeless village!!!!!  1 Gellner, David From:Moe Egan < @theothersidevillage.com> Sent:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 9:54 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village David, this is an opportunity for the chronically homeless to get the American Dream back on the table. This is a human  problem that demands a human response. I’m confident that we can address this issue, person to person, human to  human and heart to heart. That’s how you move the needle with this population…I know. I’m 16 years clean and  sober…smoked drugs for 25 years and I was homeless in San Francisco for 10 years. This model and culture of peer  accountability worked for me and it will work for Salt Lake City‘s homeless population as well.    Moe Egan  Director of Neighbor Recruitment     1 Gellner, David From:NICHOLAS CRAIG JACKSON <u > Sent:Wednesday, September 29, 2021 11:40 AM To:Gellner, David Cc:samgrenny@gmail.com Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Academy - Village Hi David,     My name is Nick Jackson, and I am a Finance Major at the University of Utah. I am a member of the Goff  Strategic Leadership Center and have been placed on a team in charge of developing a sustainable business  plan to implement at the proposed village for The Other Side Academy. I understand that support for  developing this village has been contested, but I would like to demonstrate to you that this matter is being  taken very seriously. I believe plans for this project should be approved, and I believe this community will  combat the homeless crisis Salt Lake City has faced for years.     We have decided to address how this community will become self‐sufficient. Donations are great, but we  hope to have this community be able to sustain itself as soon as possible. We have been studying other  successful communities for individuals experiencing homelessness, such as Community First! in Austin, Texas,  and La Fageda in Spain. These communities have found a way to employ homeless individuals in their  community‐based social enterprises, thus allowing them to gain work experience and pay their rent. In both  cases, the social enterprises implemented have generated a significant amount of revenue, attracting more  residents and allowing for expansion. We have several ideas for social enterprises that can generate revenue  for the community. Now, we are conducting market research and a series of financial analyses to determine if  and how these ideas can support the community. We have access to some of the finest business professionals  in the state, and plan on utilizing their expertise to help this project succeed.     I would love to keep you updated on our work if you are interested. We are high‐achieving students who are  enthusiastic about the idea of helping our community. However, all our efforts will be in vain if this project is  not approved by you and your associates. I urge you to give us a chance to succeed in our goal of developing a  sustainable social enterprise for this community to combat homelessness in Utah.     Thank you for your time,     Nick Jackson      1 Gellner, David From:Nigel S < Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1:48 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other Side Village Public Comment David, My name is Nigel Swaby. I'm the Chair of the Fairpark Community Council whose boundaries are also adjacent to the proposed project. I'm writing to express conditional support of the Other Side Village project proposed at 1850 West Indiana Ave. This is my opinion and independent of the Fairpark Community Council. I fully support the mission of the Other Side Academy. They have been a good neighbor at their current location and run an effective program. I have no reservations about their ability to successfully operate the Other Side Village. My concern lies in the location being part of the 9-Line RDA zone which requires commerce and sales tax to replenish the funds loaned for the development. Whether the Other Side Village uses RDA funding in this project is immaterial as there is an opportunity cost for acquiring such a large parcel in that zone. I have spoken to the operators about this challenge. As long as some of the planned amenities like the grocery store and theater are structured as for profit entities and not rolled into the Other Side Village as non-profit, then they have my support. Thanks for your consideration. Best regards, Nigel Swaby 1 Gellner, David From:Swaby Real Estate < Sent:Thursday, September 30, 2021 2:15 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other Side Village Rezone David,    I'm writing to express my support for the Other Side Village rezone on Indiana Ave. I live in the Fairpark neighborhood  and grew up in Glendale. I'm well aware of the inequities the west side of Salt Lake has faced for my entire life.    At first look, adding 400 deeply affordable units to the west side looks inequitable. Frankly, if this was another developer  or provider, I would be completely opposed to this project. But it's not. It's the Other Side Academy who has a great  track record for community improvement and business development. Their current project is effectively invisible to  neighbors, except for the improvements to the community it has made.    There has also been discussion about the property being in the 9‐line RDA. Andrew Johnston has assured me that it's  not. Regardless, the neighbors in the area have an expectation of community amenities being built in the area. I think it's  critical their requests for specified amenities be met. I believe TOSA will at least discuss it with them, if not agree.    I've toured TOSA many times, had them present this plan at Fairpark Community Council and have spoken to them  privately about it. I believe they are capable of making this project work and they have my support.    Thanks for your consideration.    Best regards,    Nigel Swaby      1 Gellner, David From:Nicholas Smith Sent:Saturday, September 4, 2021 8:50 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Support For The Other Side Village Zoning Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed David,  I support the zoning change for The Other Side Village.  This change would provide much needed support for the  homeless population and also enrich the surrounding community.  Please approve this request . If we all do our part we can create something that creates lasting change in the lives of so  many.     Sincerely,  Nicholas Smith  The Other SIde Village Supporter  1 Gellner, David From:'Olivia Manavahe <f > Sent:Sunday, September 19, 2021 2:00 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Opposed to "Other Side Village" Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Hello,   My name is Olivia Manavahe, and I am from the Poplar Grove area. I am opposed to the idea of building the "Other Side  Village" as there are problems we already face within the area, resulting in being cautious and attentive. Building the  "Other Side Village" near a school isn't very ideal, as children should feel safe in their learning environment . I may sound  biased, but there are people within these areas that aren't safe to be around especially for kids. Please reconsider this  matter, as it not only affects the children but the neighborhood as a whole.   Thank you for your time.   1 Gellner, David From:Cathryn Graham > Sent:Saturday, October 2, 2021 7:22 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Zoning Amendment Please add me to the list of Salt Lake City residents who SUPPORT the Other Side Village concept and its Zoning  Amendment Application currently under review by your department.    I support the Zoning change!  I know this land parcel very well; managed its use for over 30 years as a City administrator and believe it is an  appropriate final use for this site!  I support this Zoning Amendment because it helps address a very critical, and currently unmet Salt Lake City issue and it  is in alignment with the City’s goals.  The Zoning Amendment will bring additional permanent and supportive housing to  the Salt Lake City market and give those who experience homelessness  a safe and respectful environment to live and  change their lives!  I know very well the issues of homelessness in Salt Lake City by volunteering on a daily basis as an advocate and voice for  these underserved residents.  This land parcel has sat underutilized for over 40 years.  Time to place it to good use!  The Other Side Academy community is the REAL DEAL!!!!!    Rick Graham    Salt Lake City, Utah.          1 Gellner, David From:Richard Stowell > Sent:Monday, September 6, 2021 2:44 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM: 2021-00787 - Zoning Map Amendment Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Mr. Gellner:    Please note my opposition to rezoning land currently under consideration for The Other Side Village near 1850 Indiana  Avenue.    I object to the rezoning as strongly as possible.    Our neighborhood needs many things. A village along the lines The Other Side describes is not one of them, and to  rezone to make it easier to allow them to proceed with their plans is an affront to the interests of our neighborhood and  those who live here.    Thank you.    Rich Stowell    1 Gellner, David From:sara day <s Sent:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 10:29 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) I Support The Other Side Village Hello, My name is Sara Day, I live on the west side of Salt Lake City and I am a strong supporter of The Other Side Village. I believe this project will both help the unsheltered of our city and will be an asset to the neighborhood. Here is my information: Sara Day Salt Lake City, UT 84116 Thank you! Sara 1 Gellner, David From:Seth Andrews <> Sent:Sunday, September 26, 2021 5:02 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other Side Village zoning Please approve the Other Side Village zoning request. I support this zoning amendment because it helps to address the  critical issue of homelessness in Salt Lake City. The land in question is currently under‐utilized to its potential.    Seth Andrews      1 Gellner, David From:Sheila Cancilla <> Sent:Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1:00 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other Side Villages zoning support Hi David,    I am writing in support of zoning changes for The Other Side Villages project.     There are many chronically homeless citizens who cannot afford stable housing nor access section 8 housing support  due to multiple circumstances, some related to previous history of substance use disorder and poor decisions made  which adversely affected their criminal background while under the influence.     Additionally this population really needs the level of community support which would be provided in this project, further  this population would likely fail in the mainstream housing environments due to lack of support and sense of community  among people who have experienced similar circumstances.     I ask you to consider the zoning changes required to allow this valuable project to move forward.     The model that The Other Side Academy uses has demonstrated clear and proven success. There are multiple states  who have also utilized similar models with proven success.     I feel quite confident that with the planned on‐site support from Fourth Street Clinic and Valley Behavioral Health, these  citizens will be able to achieve the goal of long term stable housing and also be able to receive the necessary mental and  physical health support.     Thank you for your consideration     Sheila Young RN     Sent from my iPhone  1 Gellner, David From:Samuel Mills Sent:Tuesday, September 14, 2021 5:30 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) The other side village Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Hi David     I am a long time resident of the Glendale community. And am extremely concerned with this project. I am worried that  the public comments will not be taken seriously and it seem the city has ready made a decision on the location. I have  contemplated the benefits of this. And I do have empathy and an open mind towards those in our community  experiencing homelessness. For a period of my life I was struggling with homelessness. And I have had family members  and friends who have as well. I understand there are limited and complicated nuances and resources available. Yet  having been close to this lifestyle I have seen what it can bring to a community.  I have worked with our public schools  on the west side for over 15 years. And the amount of drug paraphernalia and mentally ill individuals I have had to clear  out before children show up to the grounds is immeasurable.  This location is withing 5 miles of multiple elementary  schools and a junior high. Adjacent to the nine line trail that is already declining. That nine line trail will be the only way  to connect this to the downtown city. All this will do is bring a huge influx of traffic to this already struggling  neighborhood.  I understand the other side has strict rules for individuals in the program and I respect the work they  have done. Yet there has been nothing said about the surrounding community of homeless or crime that is not living or  allowed in the community that will undoubtedly still have ties to individuals in the community. Are there additional  police resources or community resources to protect tax payers properties families children or neighborhood... I have yet  to see that. This neighborhood is already struggling. And once again this is something just pushed on the west side.  Where the majority of the demographic will not reach out to the city due too the fear of even talking to a government  official. This will undoubtedly bring a huge amount of crime and even more people living and openly using drugs into this  community l. That is already struggling. There is no equity in this being pushed on the west side. As a minority I'm  extremely offended that the mayor declared racism a public health crisis. And then openly supported pushing this into a  struggling community that is primarily minorities who will not speak out. Because it's the only parcel of land they could  find. It took me three hours of searching to even find this means of public comment. Quite frankly the city should be  ashamed of how it is handling this proposal.     Sam mills       1 Gellner, David From:Samantha Perez > Sent:Monday, September 20, 2021 2:40 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Fwd: The Village at Poplar Grove Please see below.     Samantha P.   Sent from my iPhone    Begin forwarded message:  From: Samantha Perez <  Date: September 20, 2021 at 1:38:54 PM MDT  To: mayor@slcgov.com  Subject: The Village at Poplar Grove  Hello,     As a resident of Poplar Grove, I do not support the construction of The Other Side Village in my  neighborhood, mere blocks from my house. This is placing an already predominantly ethnic community  with more hardships and I do not support this vision. If you have any additional questions, please reach  out.     Thanks,     Samantha Perez     Sent from my iPhone  1 Gellner, David From:Sarah Winkler <s > Sent:Sunday, September 5, 2021 11:13 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) support of The Other Side Village's zoning amendment application Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Good Morning,     Personally and professionally I strongly support The Other Side Village's application for zoning amendment at 1850  Indiana Avenue from PL to FB‐UN2.    Thank you for your consideration.    Sincerely,   Sarah L. Winkler, AIA, S.E., LEED AP      1 Gellner, David From:Tim Glenn <t > Sent:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 8:09 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other Side Village public comment Hi David,     My name is Tim Glenn. I live in the Poplar Grove neighborhood ‐ about a half mile from the proposed Other Side Village  property. I'd like to offer public comment on the rezoning and the project itself. Thanks for the opportunity.     I think it's important to start off by saying that I support this project. It's important for people experiencing  homelessness to have dignity and access to housing. Being someone who lives within walking distance of the project  location, with kids who also go to school down the street from this location, I want to make it clear I support the rezone.  Thanks to the city for their efforts. That said, I think it's important the city is proactive in considering how this fits in with  the west side master plan and what steps they plan to take in order to continue to support this project going forward.    The perception that a person might have about this project is just a little too close to the classic stereotypes of Salt Lake  City. When looking at this location, it would be pretty easy to come to the conclusion that the city is pushing people  experiencing homelessness as far west as it can, asking them to live on an old landfill, an area of the city that the West  Side Master Plan calls unsuitable for living, in the middle of M1 manufacturing zoning and with little infrastructure. I'm  not saying this is the actual motivation, but it's easy enough to tell that story.     The M1 zoning surrounding this plat of land will impact access to food, services, jobs, and more. I won't claim to be an  expert on zoning across the city, but I wonder if there is any other location in the valley where a new neighborhood  would be completely surrounded by M1 zoning? Will the city be proactive in revisiting zoning for the surrounding area?    Currently, the West Side Master Plan describes the west side of Redwood Road as not suitable for housing because of  the type of manufacturing that has existed there. That plan calls for more commercial type zoning and using I‐215 as a  natural barrier to M1 zoning going forward. This was based on community input and the hope that Redwood Road could  become a gateway to the neighborhood and commercial nodes. How does this project fit into that plan and impact that  plan?     Currently this is a plat of land that has zero sidewalks connecting to it. Are there any new plans in development for  improving the infrastructure connected to this location? Not only is it not currently accessible to someone in a wheel  chair, but it doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the project. As I understand it, the village will likely house a population  that does not have a high percentage of vehicle owners. How does the city plan to add foot‐centric infrastructure and  improve the walkability of this area?     Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit public comment. I think the rezone may be beneficial in many ways. But I  strongly believe the city needs to be proactive in finding solutions to these other issues as well or it could be seen as an  action that only pushes a problem out of view rather than trying to solve it.    Thanks,   Tim Glenn  Poplar Grove    1 Gellner, David From:Tracy Walker <> Sent:Sunday, September 26, 2021 10:25 AM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) Oppose Homeless Village Mr. Gellner,    I am a Poplar Grove resident and I am writing to express my OPPOSITION to the proposed location at 1850 Indiana  Avenue for the homeless village.  I would prefer to see the land used for community based opportunities like a grocery  store, coffee shop, restaurants, etc.    Thank you,    Tracy Walker  1 Gellner, David From:Tyler Clancy <> Sent:Wednesday, September 22, 2021 2:37 PM To:Gellner, David Subject:(EXTERNAL) In support of The Other Side Village Good Afternoon David! I just wanted to send in a note of my support for The Other Side Village. I believe this is not the silver bullet to help end homelessness but it is absolutely a critical factor in this complex issue. Thanks again, Tyler Clancy   ‐‐   Tyler Clancy  Executive Director          1 Gellner, David From:Umu Tafisi <> Sent:Wednesday, September 8, 2021 1:24 AM To:Gellner, David; Mayor Subject:(EXTERNAL) Other Side Village Proposal - Public Commenting Period Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Mayor Mendenhall and Mr. Gellner: I write to request that you not approve the Other Side Village plans (“OSV Project”) to build a massive homeless service and housing site for the chronically homeless, on the City-owned parcel at 1850 W. Indiana (900 South). A major concern that’s critical for you and local councils to thoroughly evaluate and assess, in understanding “why” the Other Side Village should not be placed in Glendale/Poplar Grove, is that they are high crime locations. Moreover, several questions and concerns remain yet to be answered about the OSV Project. I am personally connected to Glendale and Poplar Grove. I am a former resident of Council District 2. I have many close family members still residing in Glendale and Poplar Grove. I visit the community regularly and often, at least once a week to visit family members and support local businesses. I know and care about Glendale and Poplar Grove. Unfortunately, data publicly available (including by the city PD) clearly indicates that crime rates are high in these locations. This data doesn’t surprise me, and it is material and should not be ignored. This is especially important when comparing crime rates to other cities and locations across Salt Lake County and the State of Utah. For example, NeighborhoodScout.com rates the proposed Glendale/Poplar Grove location as a “Most Dangerous” area, and surrounding areas are similarly designated. So, why would it make sense to place a service and housing site for populations that are vulnerable to drug-use and crime, in a communities already wrestling with high rates of drug-use and crime? It doesn’t make sense. Furthermore, there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of safer vacant lots that could house the OSV project across the County and across the State. What other locations have been considered? How can the community, residents and our families be assured that a thorough, impartial, and methodical due diligence process has or will take place addressing the OSV Project proposal? Otherwise, the OSV Project is just rushed at light-speed without fair consideration for legitimate concerns, including with respect to safety and impact on the communities as well as impact on the OSV Project’s vulnerable populations. Notably, I was informed at the Glendale Community Council meeting for the OSV Project (in August 2021), that the proposed site was targeted because OSV needs at least 30-45 2 acres to build on. If this is true, there are several open lots throughout the Salt Lake Valley, Salt Lake County, and across the State of Utah, that have at least 30-45 acres. What other specific expansive locations have even been considered for the OSV Project? What criteria disqualified those sites from being selected? Importantly, why would the OSV Project be concentrated in just one location, when they should be spread out across the County and State? Why must Glendale and Poplar Grove shoulder a significant undertaking that should instead be spread out and carried by multiple communities across the County and across the State of Utah? Please be prepared to discuss specific details and confirmed and impartial analyses during Glendale Community Council’s upcoming September meeting. I was informed that the OSV Project will be a topic of discussion at the meeting - which would be helpful to have since the public commenting period for the OSV Project is only 45 days and ends September 30th (can this date also be extended to ensure fair due process and transparency for residents)? I appreciate your immediate feedback on the above points and concerns. These are just a few of the concerns and questions that I have right now. Regards, Umu ⚫ Page 19 ATTACHMENT G: Department Comments CITY DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Engineering – Scott Weiler Engineering has no objections to the proposed zoning amendment. Some of the issues that will need to be addressed as this progresses include: Is this going to require a subdivision plat? Will dedication of public R/W occur? If yes, who will maintain the public R/W? Fire – Ken Anderson In reviewing this zoning map amendment, we see that there is not an associated site development proposal. Based on this, Fire and Building code have no issues. Salt Lake City Police Department – Lamar Ewell The Police Department has no issue with the zoning change. Salt Lake City Airport – David Miller, Senior Airport Planner The parcel for address 1965 W 500 S. is the Salt Lake City's Airport Influence Zone "H" this area having specific height restrictions. Salt Lake City does not require an avigation easement for new development in this zone. This project creates no observed impacts to airport operations. Sustainability – Debbie Lyons Residential waste and recycling services are provided by the Sustainability Department for residences, defined in Salt Lake City Code Chapter 9.08. If the development has 4 or more residential dwelling units on a single lot, it would be considered a multi-family property and would not be eligible for the city’s residential waste and recycling services. The development would be required to arrange for waste and recycling services through a privately contracted hauler. Chapter 9.08.200 requires the development to arrange for a recycling service in addition to waste hauling service if the development is expected to generate and average of 4 or more cubic yards of solid waste or recyclable items per week Public Services – Lorna Vogt There are not any service delivery issues for Public Services that would affect the zoning amendment. Service delivery is not a problem to this location but will be dependent on how sidewalks, roads internal to the property, and roadway improvements along Indiana Ave are installed. I assume those issues will be addressed in the development process Transportation – Kevin Young The proposed site at 1850 W Indiana Avenue is served by Indiana Avenue, which is classified as an arterial on the City’s Major Street Plan and has one travel lane in each direction, a center turn lane, and on-street bike lanes. The speed limit along Indiana Avenue at this location is 35 MPH. The average daily traffic volume on Indiana Avenue at this location is approximately 4,600 vehicles. There is inadequate pedestrian access to this location since there is no sidewalk on either side of Indiana Avenue between Redwood Road and this site. This parcel is located approximately .25 miles from Redwood Road, which currently has north/south bus service provided by UTA. Direct transit service could be provided to this parcel if UTA were to provide bus service to the site along Indiana Avenue or if Trips to Transit On-Demand service was implemented for this location. ⚫ Page 20 The 9 Line Trail is planned to extend west of Redwood Road, either along Indiana Avenue or within the existing UPRR right-of-way (if the UPRR right-of-way can be acquired at some future time). When built, the 9 Line Trail would go directly by this site under either scenario, providing pedestrian and other trail use access to this location. Public Utilities – Jason Draper These properties have limited utility infrastructure. Water System: There is a culinary 2” meter to the property connected to a 8” water main in Indiana Avenue. The public water system loops back to redwood road through the bending river subdivision but is a dead end main west of bending river road. There are two fire hydrants along the Indiana frontage. To avoid conflicts connection to the water main should be done before it crosses the rail tracks. New water mains will need to be run through the site. Sewer System: There is a 42” sewer trunk line that runs through this property from the south to north approximately 350 feet west of the East Property line. This is a major trunkline for the city and connects to the new Sewer Pump Station at 500 South. Maintenance and access easement will be required to be retained for this sewer main. This will need to be 40 feet wide with no building and improved access along the pipe. Direct connections to this main will not be possible, however a 8” sewer main could be connected to one of the manholes to provide service to this subdivision. New sewer mains will be required through the site. Storm Drain System There is a 24” storm drain line in Indiana Ave. Groundwater is generally shallow in this area. Storm drain will need to be managed onsite to limit discharge to the storm drain system to 0.2 cubic feet per second per acre with the additional requirement of the 80th percentile storm water quality capture volume. Low Impact Development or other site improvements may be required to meet this requirement. Drainage from the site may be difficult and significant retention of stormwater may be necessary. Street Lighting System There are two streetlights along the Indiana frontage. Streetlighting on public roadway swill need to meet the current street light standards. We can model the system to verify, however, the existing infrastructure should be adequate to provide utility service without any offsite improvements. Onsite improvements will require an 8” sewer main and an 8” water main to provide service to these homes as well as individual connections to each residence. Assumptions used will be for 100 gallons per day per person for water and sewer demand. If the roads are to be private roads, then we will need to evaluate options for water and sewer mains and easements. Public mains would require 30 foot exclusive easement. Private mains may put a burden on the property and residents for maintenance. Separate water and fire lines may be an option with meters and detector checks connected to the public mains. If the roads are to be public, configuration of the public mains can be evaluated. Housing Stability – Tony Milner Our comments are, in regards to, “The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire ⚫ Page 21 protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection,” are: • This proposed development would significantly increase residential units on this parcel. FB-UN2s are optimal when integrated with other residential zoning. If approved, this FB-UN2 parcel would be an island among M-1 and CC zoning. What are the developer’s proposals to connect tenants to existing or new amenities such as transit, parks/trails, groceries stores, etc.? • If approved, has the developer provided the City with an maximum density estimated and related developer contributions to related utilities enhancements? • If approved, this may spur other residential rezoning applications in the area, which would then stress future City utilities. • This proposed development would primarily serve low- to moderate-income residents and thus be eligible for the City’s Impact Fee Waivers. Therefore, the City would possibly not collect on this one-time impact fee that supports police and parks. RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2022 (Authorizing the Lease Rate and Term for The Other Side Village Pilot Project located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Salt Lake City) WHEREAS, The Other Side Academy (“TOSA”), a Utah nonprofit corporation, desires to develop a community of small homes, community space, support services, and commercial uses to provide affordable housing and life skill development for some of the City’s unsheltered population, to be known as The Other Side Village (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the first phase of the Project (the “Pilot Project”) will include affordable housing, supportive services, community space, social enterprise buildings, and additional tiny homes to be offered as nightly rentals, as further described on the attached term sheet (the “Term Sheet”); and WHEREAS, TOSA and the City desire to locate the Pilot Project on approximately 8 acres of the real property owned by the City and located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Salt Lake City (the “Pilot Site”); WHEREAS, the primary beneficiaries of the construction of the Pilot Project will be individuals experiencing chronic homelessness who are transitioning into housing as part of the City, County, and State’s efforts to address the homelessness and housing crisis in Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, a below-market ground lease to TOSA will facilitate the development of the Pilot Project, which would otherwise be financially unfeasible; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to provide assistance to TOSA in the form of a ground lease rate for the Pilot Site in the amount of $1.00 per year for a term of 40 years, so long as the conditions of the ground lease between City and TOSA, or another nonprofit approved by City, are met (the “Lease Fee Waiver”); and 2 WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 10-8-2(1)(a)(i) allows public entities to provide nonmonetary assistance and waive fees to and for nonprofit entities after a public hearing; and WHEREAS, though Utah Code Section 10-8-2 does not require a study for such waiver or assistance, in this case the Administration voluntarily performed an analysis of the nonmonetary assistance to the nonprofit corporation (the “Analysis”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing relating to the foregoing, in satisfaction of the requirements of Utah Code Section 10-8-2; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Analysis, and has fully considered the conclusions set forth therein, and all comments made during the public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby adopts the conclusions set forth in the Analysis, and hereby finds and determines that, for all the reasons set forth in the Analysis, the Lease Fee Waiver is appropriate under these circumstances. 2. The terms outlined on the Term Sheet represent the approved terms for the Pilot Project, and the City Council hereby authorizes the City administration to negotiate the final terms consistent with the Term Sheet or more beneficial to the City, and execute the ground lease and any other relevant documents consistent with this Resolution and incorporating such other terms and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, on _________, 2022. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: ______________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ____________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office By: ___________________________ Kimberly Chytraus, Senior City Attorney ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: The Other Side Village Rezoning Application PLNPCM2021-00787 STAFF CONTACT: David J. Gellner, AICP, Senior Planner, david.gellner@slcgov.com (801) 535-6107 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve an Ordinance to amend the zoning map for the subject properties, changing them from PL (Public Lands to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District). The Planning Commission recommendation of approval included the following additional recommendation: Whereas the community and the public should have the opportunity to plan the neighborhood with the large and potentially impactful project. We recommend that the Council ask the City staff to work with the applicant, businesses, and the community to prepare a development agreement prior to conveying the property. This plan needs to look at infrastructure, including transportation, services, Commercial development, and the buffering and protection of the existing business and the needs of the nearby residents. BUDGET IMPACT: None December 29, 2021 Lisa Shaffer (Dec 29, 2021 15:02 MST) 12/29/2021 12/29/2021 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Tim Stay, CEO of The Other Side Academy, is requesting that the City amend the zoning map for portions of the properties located at 1850 W Indiana Avenue and 1965 W 500 S respectively. Both properties are owned by Salt Lake City and are zoned PL - Public Lands. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning of the properties to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District), in order to develop a walkable urban neighborhood of mixed uses to be known as “The Other Side Village”. The rezoning would be applied to approximately 28.5 acres of the property at 1850 W Indiana and approximately 8.6 acres of the property at 1965 S 500 W. The proposed uses on the approximately 37.1-acre site would include permanent supportive housing for homeless individuals, as well as services and resources to include on-site healthcare, medical services, and community gathering spaces. This zoning map amendment does not require an amendment to the Westside Master Plan. The subject properties are highlighted on the map exhibit below. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Notice of the project and a formal letter requesting comments was sent to the Chair of the Poplar Grove Community Council on August 13, 2021. • Notice sent to the Glendale CC Chair as a courtesy. The Glendale CC is outside of the 600 feet boundary for official notice but is the closest recognized organization adjacent to the project boundary. • Staff sent an early notification announcement postcard about the project to all residents and property owners located within 300 feet of the project site on August 13, 2021. The mailed notice included project details, that recognized community organizations were aware of the proposal and included information on how to access the online open house and give public input on the project. • Staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on the proposal. The Online Open House period started on August 16, 2021 and ended on September 30, 2021. • Staff attended an online meeting for a West Side Community Councils Open Forum held on August 23, 2021. The applicant presented the proposal to the Forum and answered questions about the project. • The 45-day Recognized Organization comment period expired on September 30, 2021. • No formal comments were submitted to Staff by either the Poplar Grove or Glendale Community Councils. • Numerous public comments were submitted to staff in advance of the Planning Commission Hearing as well as after the staff report was published. The most commonly cited concerns about the proposal related to worries about how the village will impact crime and other activities in the area. There were also many comments in support of the proposal. The comments in support recognized this as an innovative approach to a complex problem. • The public comments can be found in the Planning Commission Records – Attachment C – Planning Commission Staff Report of October 27, 2021. • Additional written public comments received after the staff report was published can be found in Exhibit 5 - Written Comments Received after the Staff Report was Published. • A Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on October 27, 2021. By unanimous vote, the Planning Commission forwarded a Positive recommendation to City Council for the proposed zoning map change. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of October 27, 2021 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of October 27, 2021 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of August 11, 2021 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3. Original Petition 4. Mailing List 5. Written Comments Received after the Staff Report was Published SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2022 (Amending the zoning map pertaining to a portion of a City-owned parcel of property located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue and a portion of a City-owned parcel located at 1965 West 500 south to rezone the parcel from PL Public Lands to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to a portion of a City-owned parcel located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue and a portion of a City-owned parcel located at 1965 West 500 South to rezone the property from PL Public Lands to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2021-00787. WHEREAS, Tim Stay, CEO of the Other Side Academy submitted an application to rezone a portion of a City-owned parcel located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue and a portion of a City-owned parcel located at 1965 West 500 South, as more particularly described in “Exhibit A” attached hereto and incorporated by reference (the “property”), to rezone the property from PL Public Lands to FB-UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2021-00787 (the “petition”); and WHEREAS, at its October 27, 2021 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said petition; 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 a portion of the City-owned parcel located at 1850 W Indiana Avenue (Tax ID No. 15-10-101-001-0000) and a portion of the City-owned property located at 1965 West 500 South (Tax ID No. 15-03-351-003-0000), more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated by reference, is rezoned from PL Public Lands to FB- UN2 Form Based Urban Neighborhood. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-713. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ___ day of ____________, 20__. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 20__ Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: _________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Hannah Vickery, Senior City Attorney By: ___________________________________ Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney 12/9/2021 Exhibit “A” Legal description of the property parcels: Tax ID No 15-10-101-001-0000 - Identified as 1850 West Indiana Avenue A part or portion of that certain property as described in the Warranty Deed recorded September 2, 1944 as Entry No. 983619 in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder, located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 3 and the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point located 903.56 feet North 89°52’50” East and North 00°05'12" West 21.99 feet from the Salt Lake County Survey monument found marking the Southwest Corner of Section 3, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian; thence North 89°54'48" East 748.00 feet: thence South 00°05'12" East 1337.85 feet to the Northerly right of way line of Indiana Avenue; thence South 89°53'01" West 304.90 feet along said line; thence South 89°53’18” West 198.52 feet along said line to the Northeasterly line of the Union Pacific Railroad right of way, thence North 74°11'41" West 991.63 feet along said line to the Easterly right of way of Interstate 215 and a point of non-tangency with a 4009.72 foot radius curve to the left (radius point bears North 89°12’57”W); thence northerly 350.00 feet along the arc of said curve through a central angle of 05°00'04" (chord bears North 01°42'59" West 349.89 feet); thence South 74°11'41" East 541.51 feet; thence North 53°06'04" East 247.67 feet; thence North 00°05'12" West 716.70 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains ± 28.914 acres, ± 1,259,476 sq. ft. Tax ID No. 15-03-351-003-0000- A portion of 1965 West 500 South A part or portion of that certain property as described in the Warranty Deed recorded September 2, 1944 as Entry No. 983619 in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder, located in the Southwest Quarter of Section 3 and the Northwest Quarter of Section 10, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point located 483.50 feet North 00°01’30” West along the West line of the said Section 3, and 776.03 feet North 89°52’50” East from the Salt Lake County Survey monument found marking the Southwest Corner of Section 3, Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Salt Lake Base and Meridian, running thence North 89°52'50" East 875.01 feet to and along the South line of that certain parcel described in Entry No. 13021960 in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder; thence South 00°05'12" East 461.94 feet; thence South 89°54'48" West 748.00 feet; thence North 15°28'31" West 478.59 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Contains: ± 8.601 Acres, ± 374,678 SQ. FT. Both of these descriptions are graphically represented on the following pages. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3. Original Petition 4. Mailing List 5. Written Comments Received after the Staff Report was Published 1. Project Chronology PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PETITION: PLNPCM2021-00787 – The Other Side Village Rezoning Application August 4, 2021 Petition for the zoning map amendment received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division August 16, 2021 Petition assigned to David Gellner, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing. August 13, 2021 Notice of the project and a formal letter requesting comments was sent to the Chair of the Poplar Grove Community Council on August 13, 2021 in order to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. Notice was also sent to the Glendale CC Chair as a courtesy. The Glendale CC is outside of the 600 feet boundary for official notice but is the closest recognized organization adjacent to the project boundary. August 13, 2021 Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. August 16, 2021 Staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on the proposal. The Online Open House period started on August 16, 2021 and ended on September 30, 2021. August 23, 2021 Staff attended an online meeting for a West Side Community Councils Open Forum held on August 23, 2021. September 30, 2021 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. No formal comments were submitted to staff by recognized organizations to date related to this proposal. October 14, 2021 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting and Public Hearing notice mailed. October 14, 2021 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing posted on the properties. October 27, 2021 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on October 27, 2021. By unanimous vote, the Planning Commission forwarded a Positive recommendation to City Council for the proposed zoning map amendment. 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2021-00787 – Zoning Map Amendment for The Other Side Village at 1850 W Indiana Avenue and 1965 W 500 S – Tim Stay, CEO of The Other Side Academy is requesting that the City amend the zoning map for portions of the properties located at 1850 W Indiana Avenue and 1965 W 500 S respectively. Both properties are owned by Salt Lake City and are zoned PL - Public Lands. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning of the property to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District) in order to develop a walkable urban neighborhood of mixed uses to be known as “The Other Side Village”. The rezoning would be applied to a 28.5 acres of the property at 1850 W Indiana and 8.6 acres of the property at 1965 S 500 W. The proposed uses on the approximately 37.1-acre site would include permanent supportive housing for homeless individuals as well as services and resources to include on-site healthcare, medical services, and community gathering spaces. This request only relates to the zoning designation of the property. No specific site development proposal has been submitted or is under consideration at this time and the Westside Master Plan is not being changed. The properties are located within Council District 2, represented by Dennis Faris. (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at (801) 535-6107 or david.gellner@slcgov.com ) As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held electronically: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No.2 of 2020(2)(b). Please visit https://www.slc.gov/council/news/featured-news/virtually-attend-city- council-meetings/ to learn how you can share your comments live during electronic City Council meetings. If you would like to provide feedback or comment, via email or phone, please contact us at: 801-535-7654 (24- Hour comment line) or by email at: council.comments@slcgov.com . If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call David Gellner at 801-535-6107 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at david.gellner@slcgov.com People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711.(P 19-19) 3. Original Petition Updated 7/1ϱ/Ϯϭ Zoning Amendment F Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance F Amend the Zoning Map OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project #: Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): Name of Applicant: Phone: Address of Applicant: E-mail of Applicant:Cell/Fax: Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property: F Owner F Contractor F Architect F Other: Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): E-mail of Property Owner:Phone: ©©Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION ©©If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City Planning Counter at (801) 535-7700 prior to submitting the application. REQUIRED FEE ©DĂƉŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚ͗Ĩiling fee of $ϭ͕Ϭϳϱplus$121per acre in excess of one acre ©dĞdžƚŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚ͗ĨŝůŝŶŐĨĞĞŽĨΨϭ͕Ϭϳϱ͘ ©Plus additional fee for mailed public notices. SIGNATURE ©If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: SA L T L A K E C I T Y P L A N N I N G Anna 08/04/2021 PLNPCM2021-00787 Other Side Village – Zoning Map Amendment – 1850 W Indiana Avenue The Other Side Academy Erin.Mendenhall@slcgov.com 1850 W Indiana Avenue, Salt Lake City 667 E 100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Salt Lake City hƉĚĂƚĞĚϳͬϭϱͬϮϭ St a f f R e v i e w SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Project Description (please attach additional sheets.) A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION Mailing Address: Planning Counter PO Box 145471 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 In Person: Planning Counter 451 South State Street, Room 215 Telephone: (801) 535-7700 INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED ______ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. x x x x TVS ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS BLAKE THOMAS Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145460, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5460 TEL 801.535.6230 August 4, 2021 Nick Norris Salt Lake City Planning Director Dear Nick, Salt Lake City authorizes The Other Side Academy to initiate a planning application for the proposed zone change for the property located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue which is owned by Salt Lake City Corporation. Please let me know if you need any additional information Sincerely, Dan Rip Policy and Program Manager Department of Community and Neighborhoods cc: Blake Thomas Orion Goff Shellie Finan Other Side Village – Zoning Map Amendment – 1850 W Indiana Avenue Rezoning Application PLNPCM2021-00787 A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. 1850 W Indiana Avenue - The Other Side Village The purpose of the amendment is to rezone the parcel of ground currently designated as Public Lands (PL Zone) to a Formed Based District (FB-NU2) to accommodate the development of a walkable urban neighborhood of mixed uses. The proposed mixed-use village would consist of 400-500 small residential dwelling units of various typologies for the chronically homeless, including neighborhood and community centers, open spaces, general retail, commercial, and institutional uses. The property is currently located in the PL (Public Lands) zone which allo ws for a diversity of public facilities and public land uses. However, mixed use developments and residential uses are not permitted under the current PL land use zoning designation. Therefore, the property must be rezoned to allow The Other Side Village development as proposed. The zoning district which would likely best accommodate the proposed use is a Form Based District. The purpose of the Form Based District is to create walkable urban neighborhoods which provide people-oriented places, options for housing types, proximity to amenities and public transportation, and access to recreational and employment opportunities. In addition, the Form Based District ordinance provides specific zoning regulations that focus on the scale and form of development to create pedestrian oriented communities to live, work and play within a close proximity. The FB-UN2 subdistrict regulations provide the framework for a lower intensity urban neighborhood generally consisting of buildings up to four stories in height with taller buildings located on street corners, which may contain a single use, or mix of uses. This zone is currently mapped in the Central Ninth neighborhood. In considering the scope and development objectives of The Other Side Village, the FB -UN2 zone accomplish the goals of the proposal as stated. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. The Village The Village is a permanent supportive housing development for the chronically homeless, where those coming out of chronic homelessness can find not only tiny homes to rent affordably, but services and resources to help them along the way, in a hand -up, not handout model. It is anticipated that the Village will house up to approximately 400+ residents in cottage homes and similar sized attached housing units as duplexes (two-family residences) and triplexes (row houses) as provided for in the FB-NU2 Zone. The support services for the Village will include on-site health care, dental, and social services along with a convenience store, deli, and pet supplies. In addition, community gathering spaces will include an auditorium, non- denominational church, and an amphitheater. Housing will be arranged in neighborhoods of approximately 30 homes each with neighborhood amenities to include a small pavilion, laundry, commercial kitchen, and a multipurpose room for social gatherings. To encourage self-sufficiency, social enterprises will be incorporated into the Village to provide opportunities for work and community service. The Homes The homes will be sized between 250 and 400 sf each. The majority will be stand -alone homes, but the development will have some duplexes and trip lexes. Each home will be attractively furnished, and will have a bed, a kitchen, with standard appliances, a bathroom with a shower, and heating and AC. This will be a gated community, where the residents will be able to come and go as necessary, but there can be controlled access of visitors to maintain safety and order within the Village. The homes will be situated in small neighborhoods of 25-35 homes to create the opportunities for close connected neighborhoods. Each neighborhood will be a mix of single units, duplex units, and triplex units. Connected to every 2-4 neighborhoods will be a Neighborhood Center. The Neighborhood Center will have a common area, a kitchen, laundry equipment, and a outdoor grill space with some picnic tables. Wrap-Around Services The Village will include facilities to provide services and resources for the residents of the Village in a Community Center. These services will include: • A medical exam room • A dental exam room • Mental health therapy rooms • A room big enough for a group session • A dog wash room • A veterinarian exam room • A room for employment services • Space for other supportive services, such as legal aid • A training room for finances literacy and other similar classes • Space for community gathers, meals, fitness activities (such as yoga or aerobics) • A commercial kitchen The medical, dental, and mental health services will be provided by third -party providers, who will provide these services directly to the residents. Community volunteers will be involved in providing many of the other services. Retail Services The Village will have a range of retail services, primarily focused on providing nearby services for the residents, but these will also be accessible to the surrounding neighborhoods. Planned retail services will include: • A small deli and coffee shop • A small grocery store • A hair salon and barbershop • A gift shop • A place that tells the Village story for tours These services will be situated outside of the gated community and will be located to have ea sy access and parking for clientele that will be frequenting these services from outside the Village. Community Amenities The Village will have the following amenities spread throughout the development for the benefit of the residents: • A small non-denominational chapel • A multi-use basketball/pickleball sports court • A cantina / food truck spot / coffee station near the center or north end of the village with an outdoor seating area nearby to be frequented primarily by the residents. • A picnic area • A memorial garden for residents that pass on • A memorial garden for pets • A horseshoe pit • A dog park • A Food Pantry (with access for Food Bank truck deliveries, storage and distribution space) • Open lawn space for active use • A fitness path that creates an integrated feel between neighborhoods with outdoor stations along the way. • A Children’s play area for visiting kids and grandkids • Trail systems that make for comfortable and natural movement between neighborhoods and attractive amenities spread between neighborhoods that encourage interaction. Performing Arts Center The Village will have a world-class 600 seat Performing Arts Center to host local and national performers as well as host plays, concerts, and community events. We are envisioning this facility to be able to have TV broadcast abilities as well as a recording studio so that this facility can be a revenue generating source for the Village. Residents would have access to the performances at free or significantly reduced rates and the surround ing community would be able to attend as well. The operations of the Performing Arts Center will also create employment opportunities for residents. One possibility for parking is to have parking up on the landfill for large events and have people walk down or have shuttles down, much like they do at USANA. Outdoor Amphitheater The Village will have an outdoor events space and amphitheater, where we can have performances, show movies, or have outdoor events, such as Farmer’s Markets, a Christmas Market or other such events. These would be available to both the residents as well as the surrounding community. This space will also create additional employment opportunities for the residents of the Village. We would want to be able to seat around 600 peopl e. We anticipate being able to have outside Food Trucks to be able to come onsite to provide additional food services. Social Enterprises The Village will have an onsite food production facility that will be manufacturing cookies to be sold through wholesale channel and retail channels. The facility will need access for delivery trucks. This social enterprise will provide employment opportunities for the residents of the Village. The Landfill Zone While the Landfill Zone would be challenging to build homes and structures upon it based upon the unstable material below the surface, there are still ways to utilize this difficult parcel. The Village would be able to utilize this land to create additional green space with trees and paths, construct a modest solar farm to provide electricity for the Village, and to provide additional parking for large community events at the Village. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. The site was the former location of the City’s landfill and as such was designated as Public Lands. While the west side of the parcel contains the buried landfill material and is not developable, the east half of the parcel has passed an environmental analysis and is appropriate for development. The proposed mixed-use development is ideally suited for this parcel that is bounded by I-215 on the west, the City’s Parks & Recreation property on the north, a wrecking yard on the east, and Indiana Avenue on the south with industrial development on the south side of the street. While the site is thus isolated from the residential neighborhoods east of Redwood Road, it will still serve as an integral part the Salt Lake community at large. The property is currently located in the PL (Public Lands) zone which allows for a diversity of public facilities and public land uses. However, mixed use developments and residential uses are not permitted under the current PL land use zoning designation. Based upon 21A.33.070: Table of Permitted and Conditional Uses For Special Purpose Districts, the following uses are not permitted in a Public Lands zone: Not Permitted in Public Lands zone: • Agricultural Use • Amphitheater, formal • Veterinary office • Artisan Food production • Clinic (Medical, Dental) • Commercial Food Production • No Residential of any kind (except care taker residence) • Mixed Use Development • Performing Arts Production Facility • Philanthropic Use • Place of Worship • Restaurant • Retail Goods Establishment • Retail Sales Therefore, the property would need to be rezoned to allow The Other Side Village development as proposed. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? Yes. If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. All of this parcel: Parcel Record 15101010010000 Owner SALT LAKE CITY CORP Address 1850 W INDIANA AVE A portion of this parcel: Parcel Record 15033510030000 Owner SALT LAKE CITY CORP Address 1965 W 500 S Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? No. Frequently Asked Questions What is the Village? The Other Side Village is a self-reliant, master-planned neighborhood that provides affordable, permanent quality housing, access to social services, and a robust and supportive community for men and women coming out of chronic homelessness. The Village is founded on the conviction that housing alone will never solve homelessness, but community will. The combination of high quality, permanent housing and a strong culture of personal growth, support and connection is the heart of our model. Who is it for? To be eligible to live in The Other Side Village, an individual must have experienced chronic homelessness. We expect many of our residents to have at least one disabling condition, either mentally or physically. We define chronic homelessness as any person with a disability who has been living unsheltered for the last 12 months continuously or on multiple occasions that cumulatively total at least 12 months. All potential residents are required to complete an assessment, be fingerprinted and agree to a criminal background check processed by the FBI. Those with past sex offenses or arson convictions are not eligible for residence. Who are we? And why do we think we can do it? For decades in Utah, we’ve wrung our hands about what to do with criminal offenders with long histories of addiction. Who would have thought that the solution was to have 100 longtime felons move into a home in downtown Salt Lake City? And yet, in 2015, that is exactly what began. Since then, The Other Side Academy has become one of Utah’s gems – a model of citizenship, cleanliness, professionalism and integrity. The students you see here have been arrested an average of 25 times. And yet when racial tension erupted into riots in downtown Salt Lake City in the summer of 2020, it was students of The Other Side Academy who rushed to the scene to clean up. When police spent sleepless nights preparing for civil unrest, it was students of The Other Side Academy who brought them coffee and encouragement. When the Salt Lake City Council was considering whether to give The Other Side Academy permission to remain in its downtown location, over fifty neighbors turned out to say that the neighborhood was better because they were there. And the police officials gave a report that crime had actually gone down since we moved into the neighborhood. And amazingly, all of this was done without any government funds. Students of The Other Side Academy pay their own way by running some of the most respected businesses in the state. For decades in Utah, we’ve wrung our hands about how to help the growing number of people experiencing homelessness in our cities. We believe the same principles that have enabled students at The Other Side Academy to create a model community point the way to what must be done. While those experiencing chronic homelessness face different challenges than TOSA students, we contend that there are universal principles for creating healthy communities that give us a responsibility to step in. Why? Because we understand what it is to be marginalized. We understand what it takes to become self-reliant. We have experience creating a peer community with strong values and shared accountability. And so, in coming months, The Other Side Academy is partnering with the City of Salt Lake to create The Other Side Village – a self-reliant, peer-led village that provides a safe, dignified and uplifting life for people who are chronically unsheltered, and which brings them and the larger community into mutually ennobling relationships. Just like The Other Side Academy. Why are we a Village and not a tiny home project? It is not about Tiny Homes. You’ll notice that residents live in what are called “Tiny Homes.” But be careful, the size of the homes is the least important part of this effort. Some communities are building tiny home neighborhoods that will likely become tiny slums in short order. The key is not the physical structures, but the social system. The primary ingredient for success, like at The Other Side Academy, is creating a strong culture that lifts and changes all who are part of it. This is what The Other Side Academy has learned to do. And we are committed to creating this same opportunity for our homeless brothers and sisters. The most important part is to create an environment, socially and physically, that facilitates connection with others. Homelessness is the result of a catastrophic loss of family. So the solution must be to build a new family. The second most important part is establishing a community with strong social norms. This is what brings out the best in all of us. These strong norms will invite all to strive to achieve their potential, allowing them the dignity of being part of the solution, not just a problem to be solved. Work and self-improvement are fundamental principles of happiness. As all are invited to contribute at the level of their ability, The Other Side Village will remain prosperous, safe and strong. The Other Side Village believes that the single greatest cause of homelessness is a profound, catastrophic loss of family. That’s why our focus at The Other Side Village is to do more than just provide adequate housing. We are developing a community with supportive services and amenities to help address an individual’s relational needs at a fraction of the cost of traditional housing initiatives. We seek to empower our residents to build relationships with others, and to experience healing and restoration as part of engaging with a broader community. What will the houses be like? One of the irreplaceable ingredients to solving homelessness is providing affordable, high quality, permanent housing. And that’s exactly what the homes in the Village will do. Our homes will provide approximately 350 to 400 square feet to each resident, including a bedroom, a living room, a bathroom with a shower, and a kitchen with all the appliances. If we intend to create a community where people can thrive, it must be centered on homes that provide the comfort and amenities that each of us expects for ourselves. What services will be provided at The Other Side Village? There is a broad range of services that will be available on-site to our residents with facilities designed specifically to accommodate their unique needs. These include: ● Full-time behavioral health case managers ● Primary healthcare service ● Social enterprise business opportunities through The Other Side Village Social Enterprises ● Regular farmers market to provide residents with healthy, nutritious, and free vegetables harvested from the Village’s main gardens ● Employment opportunities ● Supportive community services and activities What will be the rules of the Village? Individuals living in The Other Side Village are required to follow three primary community covenants. Residents must: 1. Pay rent on time. 2. Abide by civil law. 3. Follow the rules of the community itself (similar to HOA or Homeowners Association for a neighborhood). What was this site previously? Looking at the site, there is the historic landfill that was used from 1920 to 1962. This western portion on the site is the elevated portion on the parcel along the west side, adjacent to I-215. The landfill has been dormant for the last 60 years and has 5 feet of fill over the top of the landfill. We do not plan to build any housing or offices on the westside landfill portion of the parcel. We have already done a number of environmental tests on the site and we continue to do additional testing until we are satisfied that this is a safe and healthy place. The eastside of the parcel is largely native soil with some green waste at the southern and northern ends of the parcel. We plan to build the housing on the eastside of the parcel and avoid building on the western landfill portion. To date, none of the test results has disqualified the eastern portion of the site from being considered as a viable site. We continue to do further testing as well as working closely with local and state regulatory agencies, including the Salt Lake City Office of Sustainability and the Utah State Department of Environmental Quality. As we do continued testing, if we find anything that makes the site not viable for humans that cannot be safely remediated , we will abandon this site and pursue other locations. Are you concerned about crime in the Village? How will you police the community? One of our goals at The Other Side Village is to transform the way people view the stereotype of individuals who find themselves homeless. After years of serving and working with criminal addicts at The Other Side Academy as well as the homeless population in Salt Lake, we believe the stereotype of chronically homeless individuals as it relates to crime is actually wrong. Chronically homeless individuals are among the most vulnerable and most often are the victims of crime, as opposed to being the perpetrators of crime. Every neighborhood in any city at any time is susceptible to some level of criminal activity. Neighborhoods can mitigate potential criminal activity through strong vigilance. The very essence of The Other Side Village is neighbor looking after neighbor. We will have a robust Neighborhood Watch Program and will work to resolve as many issues as possible within the community. As a data point, crime statistics from the Salt Lake Police Department in the area surrounding The Other Side Academy shows a significant reduction in crime in the neighborhood after we moved in. It is also what has happened since Community First! Began building a village for formerly homeless individuals that will ultimately have over 1,500 tiny homes in it. The crime rate has dropped, neighbors are regular visitors to these campuses, and property values have been enhanced. We are confident that the same will happen with the establishment of the Village. 4. Mailing List OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR own_unit OWN_CITY OWN_STATE OWN_ZIP BAJR, LLC 3185 E DESERET DR         ST GEORGE UT 84790 SALT LAKE CITY CORP PO BOX 145460             SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 MIRAMICHI PROPERTIES, LLC PO BOX 25906              SALT LAKE CITY UT 84125 BENEFICIAL INTERNATIONAL INC 1780 W 500 S              SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 MIRAMICHI PROPERTIES, LLC 1852 W 500 S              SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 VERTICAL SPACE, LLC 169 W 400 N               SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SHACKLETON'S ENDURANCE, LLC 2471 S 150 W              BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 1530 S WESTTEMPLE ST      SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 VERTICAL SPACE, LLC 1450 S 400 W              SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 ISSB, LLC 2082 W GARDNER LN         WEST JORDAN UT 84088 M‐13, LP LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 221 S 35TH AVE            PHOENIX AZ 85009 ALVIE CARTER TRUST  1810 W INDIANA AVE        SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1810 W INDIANA AVE        SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 MANTAS INVESTMENTS, LLC 3380 S 500 W              SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 C L W PROPERTIES, LLC 642 E EIGHTEENTH AVE      SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 JP GODWIN PROPERTIES IV, LLC PO BOX 1147               DUNN NC 28335 STEVEN M CLINGER; MARGARET K CLINGER (JT) 19839 N 85TH DR           PEORIA AZ 85382 LIVAN, LLC 1036 W 1850 N             WEST BOUNTIFUL UT 84087 BKR HOLDINGS, LLC 5845 CRESTRIDGE ROAD      BILLINGS MT 59101 HILLCREST INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC 5230 S 900 E              SALT LAKE CITY UT 84117 Current Occupant 460 S ORANGE ST Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1990 W 500 S  Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1850 W 500 S  Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1784 W 500 S  Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1853 W 400 S  Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1965 W 500 S  Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1855 W 500 S  Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1965 W 500 S  #1      Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1759 W 500 S  Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1759 W 500 S  #NFF1   Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 622 S REDWOOD RD Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1875 W 500 S  #NFF1   Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1875 W 500 S  Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1835 W 500 S  Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1837 W 500 S  #NFF1   Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1805 W 500 S  Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1775 W 500 S  Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1815 W 500 S  Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1811 W 500 S  Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 715 S DELONG ST Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 719 S DELONG ST Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 2105 W INDIANA CIR Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1850 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1818 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1816 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1804 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1808 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1806 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1802 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1802 W INDIANA AVE WEST   Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 652 S REDWOOD RD Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1995 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1925 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1907 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1795 W INDIANA AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 850 S REDWOOD RD Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1810 W REDWOOD DEPOT LN Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1830 W REDWOOD DEPOT LN Salt Lake City UT 84104 Salt Lake City Planning ‐  David Gellner PO BOX 145480 Salt Lake City  UT 84114 5. Written Comments Received after the Staff Report was Published 1 Gellner, David From:Deborah Hunt <> Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 7:46 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) My comments in favor of Other Side Village I would like to speak at the meeting in favor of the Other Side Village. I live in the neighborhood (Poplar Grove) and  would welcome the Village here. After 22 years away from Salt Lake City, I moved back from Denver, Colorado. I was  shocked and disheartened to see the number of unhoused residents in the parkways and side streets on the near West  side. In my neighborhood, I see many camped by the Jordan Parkway.      I knew that Salt Lake City had received a "Housing First" grant a few years ago, as I had been involved with applying for a  similar grant application in Denver. I really hoped that the housing situation in Salt Lake City had improved. I do  appreciate the efforts of the city and the Mayor's office have made to reach out, educate the public, provide on site  services, and work to provide shelter. Our city can and must do better.      The Other Side Village is an essential, effective, and dignified approach. A similar tiny home project has been highly  successful in Denver and other cities. Let's show our creativity, compassion, and flexibility to make Salt Lake City a model  for providing cutting edge services to our unsheltered neighbors.      Please adjust zoning to accommodate this project.    Respectfully,  Dr. Deborah Esquibel Hunt  Poplar Grove resident  1 Gellner, David From:christopher dunn <> Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 7:18 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) The other side village I ask that you not change the zoning of this property. As a resident in close proximity I feel like the use that is being  proposed would create a decrease in property value and I would feel unsafe in my neighborhood.  1 Gellner, David From:Deborah Beninati > Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 7:20 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Dear Commissioners:    I am writing in support of zoning for The Other Side Village. The Other Side Village is an Integrated Community for  people coming out of chronic homelessness. I have spent the past 18 months working directly with people facing  homelessness in the Salt Lake City area. The Other Side Village offers the best possible solution to the overwhelming and  complicated issues surrounding homelessness. This carefully planned community will provide access to social and  medical services, including support for addiction recovery and employment opportunity. The ultimate goal of the  community is to reach self‐sufficiency to cover operational expenses generated through social and business enterprises.  I urge to support the zoning of this unique opportunity to assist our fellow citizens experiencing homelessness.     Respectfully,  Deborah Beninati  1 Gellner, David From:central9thcc@gmail.com Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 11:22 PM To:Gellner, David; Planning Public Comments; Faris, Dennis; Representative Angela Romero; Mano, Darin; Valdemoros, Ana Cc:Zoning; Lopez, Eva; Clark, Weston; ; Central 9th 1; ; 'Jesse Hulse'; Ballpark; Senator Derek Kitchen; Cleveland, Ashley; 'Scott Howell'; Subject:(EXTERNAL) Zoning Map Amendment Proposal (PLNPCM2021-00787) FB‐UN2 Zoning Concerns – Zoning Map Amendment – 1850 W Indiana Avenue & 1965 West 500 South    Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2021‐00787    Though we are supportive of The Other Side Academy and their Other Side Village proposal, we urge caution with  regards to rezoning to FB‐UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District). FB‐UN2 started as an experiment in what is  now the Central 9th neighborhood of Salt Lake City, it dominates our zoning, and has proven to be flawed and unhealthy  for the vibrant community we strive to achieve in Central 9th. As with any experiment at some point you must evaluate  the results, fix problems, and address unintended consequences which become recognizable over time. Both our  community and the city have recognized the problems created by FB‐UN2 for several years but seem unable to motivate  the Planning Division or Administration to take necessary actions and correct the flaws in this zoning. Below are some of  our main concerns and fears we have for this rezone proposal. We want to be certain the neighbors and community  surrounding this location are aware of what FB‐UN2 may bring.    1.            FB‐UN2 offers very generous use by right, 4 or 5 stories depending on location, minimal setbacks from  neighboring properties, no greenspace, no parking, no ground level engagement, nor aesthetic requirements, removing  the community from most planning discussion or participation. It is wonderful zoning for developers or planning  department staff trying to reduce workloads, it is horrible from a neighborhood perspective. At 950 South Washington  Street a developer was able to remove 3 single family homes and is replacing them with 200 microunits, no parking, no  ground level community engagement, no greenspace benefitting the neighborhood, or any other feature improving  community quality of life. Because they are building by right, based on FB‐UN2, the developer has not had to engage the  community at all. Though Central 9th has reached out multiple times, we have been rebuffed by what this zoning allows.  200 microunits will forever alter the neighborhood, but we, the community, have no voice due to FB‐UN2.    2.            FB‐UN2 discourages greenspace, and builders have found its flaws, constructing numerous poorly built multi  story walk up units which already appear to be aging badly. Simply look at the microunits at 850 South West Temple to  see what a 4th floor walkup with no elevators, parking, common space for residents, ground level engagement, or any  greenspace can look like. What of the needs for accessible challenged individuals, let alone someone who would like to  age in place or retire, FB‐UN2 offers them no refuge. If this is the future of zoning for Salt Lake, we are all in trouble.     3.            Another major concern with regards to FB‐UN2 is the planning division's proposed Affordable Housing Overlay,  which hardly touches much of the city but penalizes those of us already hosting density. The proposed overlay would  allow up to 3 additional stories, meaning an 8‐story building could be built by right in FB‐UN2 zoned areas.    There are simple fixes to what ails FB‐UN2. The zoning could be altered to say if a multi‐unit housing project is proposed  for more than 20 units it should be required to go through design review, green space and ground level engagement  should be mandatory, rooftop greenspace encouraged, and FB‐UN2 where it borders FB‐UN1 should not allow  2 additional height under the proposed housing overlay. We do not ever want to see an 8‐story building in FB‐UN2  bordering a maximum 30’ height home in FB‐UN1 but that is what is being proposed.    We simply request Salt Lake City follow the Plan Salt Lake master plans as adopted by the city when it comes to zoning  and its effects on our neighborhood and others where form‐based zoning is proposed.  http://www.slcdocs.com/Planning/MasterPlansMaps/Downtown.pdf (Central 9th begins on page 130 at this link)    With regards,  Paul Johnson  Chair, Central 9th Community Council    1 Gellner, David From:Adam Breen > Sent:Friday, October 22, 2021 1:12 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) 10/27 - Other Side Village's rezoning City Commissioners,     I am typing this email as positive support for the application and rezone of the Other Side Village.     As you are aware, our nation, our state, our city and our community continue to enlarge the gap between the upper  class and the lower class due to economic pressures, growth and unforeseen disruption. Our forefathers vision of the  American Dream is quickly becoming unreachable for many americans. The term "Attainable Housing" has slipped away  and affordable housing (Government or deeds restricted) is becoming the only option for many individuals and families.    Years of government leadership have believed urban sprawl and low density would keep home ownership alive and give  people a healthy and happy life. This perceived notion of suburbia did appear to fulfill its purpose for about 30 years  however we are now seeing this concept as one of many contributing factors to the large separation between  socioeconomic classes.     I have to praise Salt Lake City for your leadership and recognition in these issues. Salt Lake City currently is considering  affordability and availability major issues and progressively acting by approving increased height, density, and growth  through the city master plan and other individual application requests.     The Other Side Village is a conceptual project that addresses these similar issues from the so‐called battle field. The  Academy's vision of revitalizing individuals that have been priced out of society and have lost hope is a large step of re‐ inviting individuals to properly participate in our society. Giving these people a chance, whether it be a first or second or  so on, will prove, with the right influence and help, that people are inherently good in nature and want to be a part of  something larger.     The Other Side Village will give these people without a place in life a place they can call home and restart a life they are  proud of.     I am not currently involved in this project or within the Other Side Academy with the exception of personally following  this project due to my interest in the growth and positive changes in our community.     I look forward to seeing this project gain steam and conceptualize into an amazing Village!     Thank you for taking the time to read this and consider the positive impacts this project will make on our community  and residents.     ‐‐   Breen Homes  Adam Breen          1 Gellner, David From: Sent:Monday, October 25, 2021 8:43 AM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Rezoning I support the rezoning request for The Other Side Village and full implementation of the program for these reasons: - It serves a worthy social purpose, providing safe, secure shelter for fellow human beings who at least temporarily are unable to do so for themselves. - The Other Side Academy (TOSA) has an excellent track record as a therapeutic community in helping troubled individuals become functioning, positive members of society., and has a clear, logical process for adapting its approach to the needs of homeless individuals. - TOSA has shown itself to be a self sustaining contributor to Salt Lake City, through its business entities and civic involvement. - TOSA's alumni, board, and supporters, represent tremendous intellectual, and economic resources, and include some of the finest business minds, social entrepreneurs, and philanthropists in the world. - The Other Side Village will consist of "tiny homes", a highly affordable and innovative approach to creating safe, secure, and comfortable housing that minimizes negative environmental impacts, and is sustainable. - I live in the Atlanta metro area and have worked as an urban planner and project director under Mayors Maynard Jackson, Shirley Franklin, and Kasim Reed, as well as The Martin Luther King Center, The, National Conference of Black Mayors, and the NAACP. Atlanta and every major American city can adapt The Other Side Village as a model to address our own growing and .seemingly intractable problems of homelessness and wasted human potential. Respectfully Submitted, Arthur Cole 1 Gellner, David From:David Dixon < Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 8:51 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) TOSV The City owns the property so the rezone and uses are very much controlled by the City until the development  agreement is achieved. We are working with the DEQ on the environmental questions.  Thanks,  Dave Dixon architect for the Village.    Sent from my iPhone  1 Gellner, David From: Sent:Thursday, October 21, 2021 12:55 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:FW: (EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Proposal           ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: David Dixon    Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021 12:22 PM  To: Planning Public Comments <planning.comments@slcgov.com>  Cc: Tim Stay   Subject: (EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Proposal    Dear Planning Commissioners and staff,  As an owner/partner of an architectural firm here in Salt Lake City, I have had interactions with homeless people for  years around our building at 833 South 200 East. For the most part, they are passive people with mental health issues  that live on our streets. I have spoken with many of them and found them to suffer from a chronic loss of family and  connection with others, coupled with substance abuse issues for many that are not addressed. As you know,  homelessness is a complex problem with no easy solutions.      I became involved with the Other Side Academy a few years ago on some design options they were considering for their  facilities downtown and they reached out to me a few months ago for design help on the proposed Other Side Village  here in Salt Lake. I know of their tremendous success at TOSA dealing with former inmates and I believe that they can  produce similar results with those selected to live in TOSV. As the managing architect for the Village design, I am serving  without compensation and working with several architectural and land planning firms to master plan the Village and  produce construction drawings. I agree that the Form Based Zoning is the proper designation for the Village in that it  provides for the mixed uses contemplated and the housing types proposed. It promises to be a safe, inviting, community  that will provide the services needed by the residents to improve their standard of living and address their underlying  issues.        I have read about and visited other similar villages across the country and have observed their successes and drawbacks.  I know that TOSV's approach will lead to similar successes and avoid the pitfalls of other Villages by becoming self‐ sustaining, supportive, and better managed with a higher level of design and greater community services.  Knowing what  I know about this population and the design and management proposed for the Indiana Avenue site, I want to let you  know of my support for the project as a trendsetting solution for a significant segment of our homeless community.    I'm sure there will be those in surrounding communities that will be skeptical of what is being proposed with fears of  increased crime rates, less safe neighborhoods, and a negative impact on property values. I have served as a planning  commission chairman and a city council member in my hometown of Farmington. I know of the concerns of neighbors  when changes or developments are proposed.  I can say that in my visits to other Villages in Austin, Texas, and Kansas  City, safety concerns were not observed there and TOSV will be even better managed. I would not hesitate to allow  2 TOSV to be constructed near my neighborhood and believe it to be one thing we can do right for the individuals selected  to make it their permanent homes.    Thank you,  Dave      David J. Dixon, AIA     Partner     .                               1 Gellner, David From:Deborah Hunt < Sent:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 5:25 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) Link for October 27 meeting Hello,  I would like to speak at the meeting in favor of the Other Side Village. I live in the neighborhood (Poplar Grove) and  would welcome the Village here. After 22 years away from Salt Lake City, I moved back from Denver, Colorado. I was  shocked and disheartened to see the number of unhoused residents in the parkways and side streets on the near West  side. In my neighborhood, I see many camped by the Jordan Parkway.     I knew that Salt Lake City had received a "Housing First" grant a few years ago, as I had been involved with applying for a  similar grant application in Denver. I really hoped that the housing situation in Salt Lake City had improved. I do  appreciate the efforts of the city and the Mayor's office have made to reach out, educate the public, provide on site  services, and work to provide shelter. Our city can and must do better.     The Other Side Village is an essential, effective, and dignified approach. A similar tiny home project has been highly  successful in Denver and other cities. Let's show our creativity, compassion, and flexibility to make Salt Lake City a model  for providing cutting edge services to our unsheltered neighbors.     Please adjust zoning to accommodate this project.    Dr. Deborah Esquibel Hunt  1 Gellner, David From:Fraser Nelson > Sent:Saturday, October 23, 2021 9:23 AM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) Support for the OtherSide Village Dear members,    Please accept this letter of support for the Village rezoning request.    I have long been involved in homelessness services though my work as Director of Data and Innovation for Mayor Ben  McAdams, while a Managing Director of the Sorenson Impact Center and while leading the Community Foundation of  Utah and the Disability Law Center.  As a long time resident of downtown and now the Ballpark neighborhood I have  talked with my unhoused neighbors about their struggles and hopes for a place they can be safe and regain lives that  feel lost. I have also been engaged with The Other Side Academy since its inception and just this week used their moving  services.     All this is to say that I have great faith in their organization and truly hope that this innovative model can be brought to  our community.     Thank you,    Fraser Nelson    Salt Lake City UT 84101                    1 Gellner, David From:Heidi Willis > Sent:Thursday, October 21, 2021 10:45 AM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) Support for Rezoning for Other Side Village As a long‐term Utah resident interested in strengthening and improving our community, I’m writing to express my  enthusiastic support of the rezoning request for the Other Side Village which will be discussed in the 5:30 meeting on  Oct 27.    Thanks so much,  Heidi Bennion Willis      Sent from my iPhone  1 Gellner, David From:Jordan Frandsen <> Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 7:54 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) PLNPCM2021-00787: Zoning Map Amendment Comments I support the rezoning and development of the proposed locations on behalf of the Other Side Academy. The proposals,  the outreach, and the presentations have convinced me that this will be a benefit both to my community (I live down  the 9‐Line from this project) and to the whole city and state.   I thank the commission again for hearing and approving my proposal (Alley Vacation) and support this proposal as well.  Jordan Frandsen, Property Owner   Salt Lake City, UT 84104  1 Gellner, David From:Kathy Smith Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 2:16 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Academy Village rezone request Dear Commissioners, I've had the privilege of visiting The Other Side Academy twice and would be honored to have such a community in my neighborhood. I urge you to visit TOSA if you haven't already and to approve the rezone request for the property that the city already owns. This is a proven program for dramatically reducing recidivism and creating a social fabric for those who have suffered chronic homelessness or incarceration. I worked for the State of Utah when the state's 10-year plan for ending chronic homelessness was launched in the early 2000's. I was the director of the Commission on Volunteers. I can see opportunities for service that would be life-changing at TOSA; I've experienced it myself. I have also served as a planning commissioner and as a city council woman in northern Utah and thank you for your diligent and sometimes thankless service. Truly, Kathy Smith         1 Gellner, David From:Laurie Hopkins <> Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 3:29 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) 10/28 Planning Commission Meeting - The Other Side Village Dear Planning Commission,  I am unable to attend the Public Hearing portion of the meeting, so am taking the opportunity to provide a general  comment regarding the development of the tiny home village by The Other Side Academy.  I understand there is an  environmental evaluation being conducted at the proposed site and likely other issues that need to be and should be  addressed for the project to be appropriately moved forward and viable.  That said, I am in support of a projects that will  add deeply affordable housing to the community, and that will specifically serve individuals that are experiencing  homelessness find accessible and stable housing. Thank you for your time.     Sincerely,     Laurie G. Hopkins  Executive Director | Shelter the Homeless           1 Gellner, David From:Leslie Montgomery < Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 10:49 AM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Hello,  I write to share my support of the proposed Other Side Village project.  As a mortgage professional for the past 35 years,  I have seen homelessness grow beyond the “hobos” I saw on the streets of Seattle growing up.  Over the last several  years, Seattle has faced significant housing issues with unwanted tent camps and lack of understanding or social services  to address the issues facing the city.  A solution like The Other Side Village is an innovative and empowering answer to  our challenges.  There are individuals with mental challenges whether born with disabilities or locked in the grip of the  addiction disease.  The village will offer a community of support where the residents help one another and help the  community sustain itself.    As a founding board member for HomeAid Utah, I have learned the devastation that homelessness puts of families  which is well beyond the myth of who we typically see on the streets.  I am proud to be part of this organization helping  the homeless population service providers with their facilities and projects.  We have become a viable organization for  good in the Salt Lake valley.  We listened to a presentation earlier this year about The Other Side Village and  unanimously agreed that it is a spectacular opportunity to make sustainable change within our community.    I am also the President of Soroptimist International of Ogden, the largest and oldest women’s rights organization in the  world.  We celebrated our 100 ‐year anniversary on 10/3/2021.  The pandemic has affected women in an extremely  negative way, setting our progress back 30 years (my adult life) which is incredibly discouraging.  Housing is one of these  areas affected.  If a woman must take care of the children and is the sole provider, she is in a no‐win situation when it  comes to her ability to provide housing.  These are real issues in our community which need to be solved.  We, as human  beings, must help care for those who cannot care for themselves.    With gratitude,                                                         !  1 Gellner, David From:Ronda Landa <> Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 4:27 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Hi    I wanted to reach out to comment on my support of the rezoning for The Other Side Village.  As a downtown employee  and as an individual that utilizes the vendors of downtown, I see this as a separate user within the city.  Any city growing  like our city is, what is critical is ‘smart’ planning.  Bringing the community together that would live within this  community is ‘smart’ planning. We need to plan for all types of housing within our city limits. Thank you.     Regards, Ronda    UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, please do not overnight or deliver any documents to our office. If original documents need to  be delivered to First American, please advise and an alternate address will be provided. We appreciate your                                 Should we receive emailed wire instructions, please understand that we will need to telephone a trusted individual to confirm the  authenticity of the instructions prior to releasing the wire.   The safety of your funds is important to us, and with wire fraud on the  rise, we want to add a layer of protection.            ******************************************************************************************  This message may contain confidential or proprietary information intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named  above or may contain information that is legally privileged.   If you are not the intended addressee, or the person responsible for delivering it to the intended addressee, you are  hereby notified that reading, disseminating, distributing or copying this message is strictly prohibited.   If you have received this message by mistake, please immediately notify us by replying to the message and delete the  1 Gellner, David From:Scott Sloan Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 11:17 AM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village--request to approve rezoning Dear Planning Commission,    I’m writing in support of the other side village, which has the potential to provide life‐changing housing for many.  I  understand that in order to move forward on this project the Council needs to approve a zoning change, which I fully  support.  Please join in supporting this change so that the work can continue.    Sincerely,      Scott Sloan  CEO  BaseCamp Franchising, LLC    1 Gellner, David From:Soren Simonsen > Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 8:27 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) Comments regarding The Other Side Village I have provided oral comments in support of The Other Side Village. I wish to also provide some written comments that  don’t apply so much to The Other Side Village as to the community more broadly.      Currently, almost the entirety of Redwood Road is zoned Commercial Corridor (CC). This corridor could be a wonderful  gathering place for the community of residents and businesses, and that vision is clearly articulated in the West Salt Lake  Master Plan, but it will not happen under the current CC zone.     I urge the Planning Commission to not only rezone the parcels for The Other Side Village, but to consider applying the  FB‐UN‐2 or another appropriate form based zone to all of the currently CC zoned properties and make meaningful  transformation of this corridor to benefit the entire west side of Salt Lake City.    Thank you ‐      Søren Simonsen |           1 Gellner, David From:Susan Klinker Sent:Tuesday, October 26, 2021 10:05 AM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) in support of The Other Side Village rezoning request Dear Planning Commission Members,   I am writing in support of the Other Side Village's request for rezoning.    I've been following the development of this project since it was first announced and have been very impressed with the  project's leadership. The Other Side team has unique experience, and an amazing track record of helping people turn  their lives around, one relationship at a time. They really care, and  have quickly organized the resources and  professional support to make an ambitious project like this happen. I believe they have the passion and skill at all levels,  to create a caring & engaged community developed in partnership with the City.     I am proud to live in a City that is leading the way in developing workable solutions to the problem of homelessness. "Be  it ever so humble, there's no place like home."  Thanks for your support of this important project,  Susan Klinker    ‐‐         1 Gellner, David From:Anne Charles < Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 6:26 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) 1850 W Indiana Ave & 1965 W 500 S Comment Hello,    Please read this within your public comment hearing. I am opposed to the amendment to this rezone.    Firstly, I do not support this organization and their practices. I am Anne Charles, a clinical director at a substance use  treatment center that works with previously incarcerated folks to prevent relapse and recidivism. I do not believe in the  lack of resources provided by the Other Side academy, specifically  in regards to the physical and mental health of their  students. They do not have doctors or mental health clinicians provided for clients. If we are to create a supportive  housing community I want to know that those living there will genuinely have support.    Secondly, I do not believe the land itself should be used. This is said to be a space of those who are chronically homeless  and part of the parcel is a former landfill. This is not only insulting, but also unsafe. A 2017 Department of Environmental  Quality study found elevated levels of metals like, lead, mercury, copper, and nickle. There has been no further study  since because there was no population or residences on the land and deemed unnecessary.     The otherside village has said they are "very aggressive in their environmental testing." This proves to be untrue because  we have seen the studies and know further testing should be done. I do not see the results of environmental testing in  this proposal and would need to see this before feeling comfortable having folks live there.    The argument I heard when these views have been expressed is "that only part of the parcel includes the formerlandfull  and that part of the land will be developed with gardens and green space." People will still be in these gardens and  green space and presumably consume the food and be exposed to the soils of this space. This is not an adequate  solution and shows the lack of investment in ensuring the safety of those who have few options.    Please ensure the safety of out community.     Thank you,    ‐‐   Anne Charles Clinical Director, LCSW Odyssey House of Utah, Meadowbrook 1 Gellner, David From:Carter McDaniels <> Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 11:45 AM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) Approve the Otherside Village David,       Hopefully this email finds you well. My name is Carter McDaniels. I am an entrepreneurship and strategy major at the University of Utah. The Otherside village should be approved and the development of this village will be of paramount importance when it comes to combating Salt Lake’s ongoing homeless crisis. Something needs to be done to combat the current state of Utah's Homeless epidemic and while providing a solution to this issue is a daunting task to say the least, there is no better organization better suited to take on this challenge than the Otherside Academy.      Best,       Carter McDaniels    1 Gellner, David From:Courtney Giles <> Sent:Thursday, October 21, 2021 10:15 AM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Support To Whom it May Concern,  Planning Commission   I am writing this letter in support of The Other Side Village. I have actively worked with the homeless population in Salt  Lake City for going on 15 years now. The issue has become unprecedented when it comes to safe, reliable and long‐term  solutions for this demographic. The Other Side Village will offer a place of Community, family, solace, self sufficiency and  above all a place to call home. The city has gone about affordable housing and options for our unsheltered community in  some of the worst ways possible. We need a solid solution to address the real need for housing for the chronically  homeless members of our community. It is vital and for some at this point life or death. Please consider this plea from a  person who spends countless hours weekly with these people. Knowing that this project is underway is the only relief of  helplessness I have felt in some time for our unsheltered family! I and many others support The Other Side Village.     Thank you kindly,  Be blessed   Courtney Giles         1 Gellner, David From:Turner Bitton <> Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 3:26 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) The Other Side Village Support Hello,    I am a resident of Glendale and serve as the Chair of the Glendale Community Council. I’m writing today in my personal  capacity to express my support for locating The Other Side Village in my neighborhood. Glendale has long been a  gateway to welcoming for many people. I bought my home in Glendale because it was affordable and rich in heritage. I  love this neighborhood and believe The Other Side Village is a way to invest in Glendale’s legacy.     Glendale is home to the International Peace Gardens and the Jordan River Peace Labyrinth, both of which are symbols of  Glendale’s status as a gateway of welcoming. The Other Side Village will bring many needed amenities and development  to an area of the neighborhood that is disconnected from the neighborhood. The increased transit resources that the  village is working to secure along Indiana Avenue would benefit residents and bring new east‐west connections across  the neighborhood.     As I’ve spoken with my neighbors, I’ve learned that the vast majority of my neighbors support this innovative project.  The addition of new residents seeking another chance is exciting and should be supported by the planning commission.    Thanks,  Turner C. Bitton      1 Gellner, David From:Richard Stowell <> Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 7:26 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) Comment on Rezoning application Though there is currently no development plan associated with this rezoning application, it is plain that the applicant has plans for a homeless village.     This is troubling. The westside is becoming the part of the city where leaders can put their problems.    It’s a dangerous trend. If such a large proportion of the county’s homeless population is coming into our neighborhood for services, whether or not they get them, it will result in families moving out. Businesses not moving in. It runs the risk of becoming a vicious cycle.     Don’t let the state and county manipulate you into thinking our neighborhood is the only viable option for projects like this.    RDA designations should come into play. According to the city website, the Redevelopment Agency is supposed to promote revenue-generating activity: “Our RDA encourages new development that will create jobs and generate tax revenue for the community to help revitalize the City.”    This project would be at the lowest end of the revenue generation scale, and is much more likely to draw city revenue.     This commission should only vote to rezone the property in extraordinary circumstances. Such circumstances should be limited to development that would clearly and unambiguously revitalize the west side. The applicant simply does not meet that threshold.     Thank you.     1 Gellner, David From:Deborah Williams <> Sent:Wednesday, October 27, 2021 7:12 PM To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) Rezoning property on Indiana Ave for the tiny village I have lived on Indiana Ave just a couple of blocks from the proposed site for over 30 years. I have grand children that  visit frequently. Please do not allow this. I want to be able to feel safe in my own home. Thank you for your  consideration     Sent from my iPhone  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 Office Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 19, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) __________________________ SUBJECT: Informal Public Benefits Analysis for a tiny home village with ~54 units of affordable housing in exchange for a below-market 40-year land lease of approximately 8 acres of vacant City property located at approximately 1850 West Indiana Avenue. STAFF CONTACT: Tammy Hunsaker, Deputy Director, Community and Neighborhoods 801-535-7244, tammy.hunsaker@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Consideration of the attached resolution allowing the City to enter into a 40-year below-market ground lease agreement with The Other Side Academy, a Utah nonprofit corporation, in order to facilitate the construction of a tiny home village with ~54 units of affordable housing. BUDGET IMPACT: N/A BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City and the State of Utah are experiencing a widening housing affordability gap, one of the fundamental causes of homelessness. Resources at the federal and state level have proven vastly inadequate in addressing the housing crisis. As such, cities are left to stretch local dollars, implement innovative policy tools, and think outside of the box with project typologies. Research and experience have overwhelmingly demonstrated that investment in permanent housing solutions is effective in reducing homelessness. Long-term housing solutions, particularly solutions that are co-located with supportive services, not only stabilize lives but have been proven to be more cost effective than emergency shelters and care facilities. 8/19/2022 8/19/2022 In 2020, the Administration began to explore new, innovative solutions to addressing the homelessness crisis. At this time, an exploratory partnership was formed between the City and The Other Side Academy (“TOSA”), a Utah 501(c)3 non-profit organization, to analyze the feasibility of a tiny home village that provides housing for chronically homeless individuals. TOSA brings unique experience with operation of “therapeutic communities” that help those with long histories of addiction and criminal behavior stabilize their lives. As a result of this exploratory partnership, a tiny home village for individuals experiencing homelessness has been conceptualized and is proposed to be located on approximately 40 acres of City-owned property located at 1850 W Indiana Avenue and 1965 West 500 South (the “Property”). The Other Side Village (“TOSV”) is proposed to be a “recovery housing” model that aligns with National Alliance for Recovery Residence standards and is contemplated to eventually encompass the Property. Currently, the Administration and TOSA have narrowed the scope to a pilot project limited to approximately 8 acres (the “Pilot Site”) to demonstrate the feasibility of the concept, refer to Exhibit A: Site Map. This initial phase of the project will include approximately 54 deed-restricted tiny homes, 6 tiny homes for staff, 25 tiny homes to be offered as nightly rentals, community space, commercial space for social enterprise endeavors, and space for on-site services (the “Pilot Project”). The Administration and TOSA have negotiated project terms that include a below-market land lease of $1.00 per year for 40 years to assist in the financial viability of the Pilot Project. Pursuant to State law, the City shall first hold a public hearing followed by authorization by the City Council in order to execute a below-market land lease. Highlights of the Pilot Project are as follows, with additional detail included in Exhibit B: Resolution and Term Sheet and Exhibit C: Informal Public Benefits Analysis. I.Project Overview The Pilot Project is proposed to include the following: •At least 60 tiny homes to be used as permanent housing §A minimum of 54 units, or 90% of the total permanent housing units, shall be deed-restricted as affordable §Up to 6 units, or 10% of the total permanent housing units, may be used as staff living quarters •Up to 25 additional tiny homes may be used as a Community Inn offered as nightly rentals to generate income for TOSV operations •A ~ 2,000 square foot Neighborhood Center to house clubhouse type uses for TOSV residents •A ~10,000 square foot Social Enterprise Building to house social enterprise endeavors that generate income for the TOSV operations •A ~12,000 square foot Community Center building to house multi-purpose space, and supportive services for TOSV residents including a medical clinic, a mental health clinic, a social services clinic, administrative offices, and a security office •Utility service and related infrastructure; roads and curb/gutter II.Recovery Housing Model Utilizing the recovery housing model, TOSA plans to target individuals who are considered chronically homeless, generally defined as individuals experiencing homelessness for at least a year, or repeatedly, and struggling with a disabling condition such as a serious mental illness, substance use disorder, or physical disability. Similar to permanent supportive housing, recovery housing values independent living and voluntary clinical services. Where they differ is that recovery housing requires an alcohol and drug- free living environment and may require residents to participate in recovery activities as a condition for residency. This social model of recovery helps individuals relearn how to organize their lives, interact with others, and participate in community-based recovery activities. III.Affordable Housing & Tenant Selection An overview of the affordable housing and tenant selection terms are as follows: •Units shall primarily be available to persons or families that meet HUD’s definition of chronically homeless. If there are units available and no applications from chronically homeless individuals, TOSA may lease units to vulnerable homeless individuals. •An admission preference may be established for individuals with a commitment to sobriety. •All applicants shall go through the coordinated entry process used by the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness. •Tenants may be required to have employment or another source of income, such as social security disability or a tenant-based voucher, to be able to afford to pay rent. •Maximum rents shall be set for individuals and households at 25% of the area median income (“AMI”), adjusted annually for household size. For a single person based on 2022 HUD income limits, this would equate to $448 maximum monthly rent including basic utilities. •Maximum incomes shall be set for individuals and households at 30% of the AMI and below. Tenants must meet this income threshold, in addition to meeting homelessness criteria, upon entering into a lease. This equates to a maximum annual income of $21,510 for a single person based on 2022 HUD income limits. Tenants will only be required to meet this income threshold upon entering into a lease and may increasing their income subsequently. •TOSA intents to provide leases on a month-to-month basis, however, tenants may live in their homes as long as they meet the basic obligations of tenancy without a time limitation. IV.Supportive Services & Programming The Pilot Project will include supportive services to assist homeless persons in transitioning from homelessness, and to enable tenants to live as independently as possible. The scope and scale of on-site health and case-management services is yet to be finalized, as TOSA is working on building partnerships with service providers - refer to Exhibit D: Service Providers Letters of Interest for additional information. In addition to on-site services, TOSA plans to coordinate access to off-site specialty services that are tailored to unique needs that residents may have. In addition to health-related services, the Pilot Project will include programming to develop social and life-skills. Employment training will be available through the on-site social enterprise businesses. V.Site & Zoning The Property is currently zoned PL - Public Lands. The applicant is requesting to change the zoning of the Property to FB-UN2 (Form Based Urban Neighborhood District). The Salt Lake City Planning Commission recommended approval of the zoning change on October 27, 2021, with the request currently being considered by the City Council through a transmittal from the Planning Division. The Property is vacant and will require significant infrastructure and site improvements to facilitate the Pilot Project. VI.Environmental Remediation Parts of the Property were previously used as a landfill. Environmental testing indicates that various levels of mitigation efforts need to occur in order for the Property to be safe for residential development. The extent of mitigation will depend on the placement of land uses and the utilization of environmental controls. The Department of Sustainability is involved with the identification, sampling, and site investigation process and will work with State and other cognizant agencies to ensure that requirements are met for site clean- up, remediation, and mitigation. VII.Development Viability TOSA estimates that the Pilot Project will cost an estimated $13.8 million, excluding land costs, as follows: TOSV PILOT PHASE - CAPITAL COSTS Environmental Remediation $232,500 Permit / Fees $400,000 Civil Work $1,045,440 Tiny Home Construction $4,350,000 Welcome Neighborhood Homes $875,000 Neighborhood Center $441,000 Community Center / Clinic $3,146,400 Social Enterprise Building $2,300,000 Landscaping $320,000 Architectural Fees $666,744 Total $13,777,084 Source: TOSA, dated 4/29/22 as provided to City staff on 6/24/22 Note: Excludes land costs The majority of costs will be covered by in-kind work and donations. According to TOSA, the fund-raising status is as follows as of July 6, 2022: •Almost $2.2 million in cash has been committed and received •Another $3.1 in cash has been pledged •The remaining balance is either committed or expected to be received through in- kind assets and services - Refer to Exhibit E: In Kind Letters for additional information The Administration will ensure that TOSA has adequate funds to move the project forward prior to closing on the land lease. If fundraising does not meet expectations or there are gaps in the receipt of charitable funds, Joseph Grenny, TOSA’s Chairman of the Board, and his wife have made a personal commitment of up to $5,000,000 to cover shortfalls - refer to Exhibit F: Construction Commitment Letter for additional information. VIII.Operating Viability & Social Enterprises Rent revenues are only estimated to cover about 10% of the annual operating costs – refer to Exhibit G: Pro Forma. The remaining revenue required to successfully operate the Pilot Project will be generated by social enterprise businesses that will be located on-site. These businesses are anticipated to be a motel (Community Inn), thrift store, and cookie- manufacturing enterprise. In addition to generating revenue to cover operating costs, these businesses will provide critical job training opportunities for residents. The Community Inn will include 25 stand-alone tiny homes offered as nightly rentals for the general public, thereby providing lodging opportunities for Pilot Project visitors and volunteers. While these businesses are yet to be established, TOSA has considerable experience with social enterprise businesses and has partnered with the founder of Lofthouse Cookies to advise on the cookie manufacturing business. If revues fall short, TOSA has committed to covering up to $1,000,000 annually to cover operating expenses –refer to Exhibit H: Operating Commitment Letter. PUBLIC PROCESS: Under Utah law, after first holding a public hearing, a municipality may “authorize municipal services or other nonmonetary assistance to be provided to a nonprofit entity, whether or not the municipality receives consideration in return.” Utah Code §10-8- 2(1)(a)(v). Because TOSA is a nonprofit entity, the City may waive the fair-market rental rates it would ordinarily be required to receive for use of City-owned property so long as the municipal legislative body first holds a public hearing regarding the waiver and authorizes the Administration to enter into the land lease for the below-market lease rates. While a formal public benefits analysis is not required pursuant to Utah law, an informal public benefits analysis is provided as Exhibit C: Informal Public Benefits Analysis to provide an analysis of the public benefits to be received in exchange for a waiver of the fair-market rents for a land lease. EXHIBITS: A.Site Map B.Resolution and Term Sheet C.Informal Public Benefits Analysis D.Service Provider Letters of Interest E.In Kind Letters F.Construction Commitment Letter G.Pro Forma H.Operating Commitment Letter EXHIBIT A: SITE MAP Note: Pilot Site is defined by the smaller blue boundary. Site plan is subject to change. RESOLUTION NO. _____ OF 2022 (Authorizing the Lease Rate and Term for The Other Side Village Pilot Project located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Salt Lake City) WHEREAS, The Other Side Academy (“TOSA”), a Utah nonprofit corporation, desires to develop a community of small homes, community space, support services, and commercial uses to provide affordable housing and life skill development for the City’s unsheltered population, to be known as The Other Side Village (the “Project”); and WHEREAS, the first phase of the Project (the “Pilot Project”) will include affordable housing, supportive services, community space, social enterprise buildings, and additional tiny homes to be offered as nightly rentals, as further described on the attached term sheet (the “Term Sheet”); and WHEREAS, TOSA and the City desire to locate the Pilot Project on approximately 8 acres of the real property owned by the City and located at 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Salt Lake City (the “Pilot Site”); WHEREAS, the primary beneficiaries of the construction of the Pilot Project will be individuals experiencing chronic homelessness who are transitioning into housing as part of the City, County, and State’s efforts to address the homelessness and housing crisis in Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, a below-market ground lease to TOSA will facilitate the development of the Pilot Project, which would otherwise be financially unfeasible; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to provide assistance to TOSA in the form of a ground lease rate for the Pilot Site in the amount of $1.00 per year for a term of 40 years, so long as the conditions of the ground lease between City and TOSA, or another nonprofit approved by City, are met (the “Lease Fee Waiver”); and EXHIBIT B: RESOLUTION & TERM SHEET 2 WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 10-8-2(1)(a)(i) allows public entities to provide nonmonetary assistance and waive fees to and for nonprofit entities after a public hearing; and WHEREAS, though Utah Code Section 10-8-2 does not require a study for such waiver or assistance, in this case the Administration voluntarily performed an analysis of the nonmonetary assistance to the nonprofit corporation (the “Analysis”); and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a public hearing relating to the foregoing, in satisfaction of the requirements of Utah Code Section 10-8-2; and WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the Analysis, and has fully considered the conclusions set forth therein, and all comments made during the public hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1.The City Council hereby adopts the conclusions set forth in the Analysis, and hereby finds and determines that, for all the reasons set forth in the Analysis, the Lease Fee Waiver is appropriate under these circumstances. 2.The terms outlined on the Term Sheet represent the approved terms for the Pilot Project, and the City Council hereby authorizes the City administration to negotiate the final terms consistent with the Term Sheet or more beneficial to the City, and execute the ground lease and any other relevant documents consistent with this Resolution and incorporating such other terms and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, on _________, 2022. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: ______________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ____________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office By: ___________________________ Kimberly Chytraus, Senior City Attorney EXHIBIT TO RESOLUTION The Other Side Village Pilot Project Term Sheet AFFORDABLE HOUSING I.Unit Requirements TOSA shall develop and maintain the Pilot Site to include a minimum of 60 tiny home units. Of the total units: 1.Up to 10% may be unrestricted in rent and occupancy for utilization by staff. 2.A minimum of 90% shall be available and affordable to individuals or families meeting the HUD-adopted definition of chronically homeless and homeless, with a priority on chronically homeless. These units shall be designated as the “Affordable Units”. II.Occupancy Requirements TOSA must place into the Affordable Units individuals and families that meet the HUD-adopted definition of chronically homeless and homeless, prioritized as follows: 1.TOSA shall first make the units available to persons or families that meet HUD’s definition of chronically homeless as defined in section 401(2)(A) of the McKinney- Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(9)). In general, to meet this definition, a chronically homeless person or family’s head of household must be sleeping in a place not meant for human habitation or living in a homeless emergency shelter or safe haven, have a disabling condition, as defined in section 401(9) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(9)), and i.be continuously homeless for a year or more, OR ii.have had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years as long as the combined occasions equal at least 12 months. 2.If there are units available and no applications from chronically homeless individuals, TOSA may lease units to vulnerable homeless individuals, as “homeless” is then- currently defined by HUD, provided that applicants who have been homeless for the longest periods of time immediately preceding their application are given priority over applicants who have been homeless for lesser periods of time. III.Tenant Eligibility To determine whether a tenant is eligible, TOSA must verify that the prospective tenant meets HUD’s definition of chronically homeless or homeless and whose incomes have an aggregate annual income for all occupants that is 30% and below of the area median income for Salt Lake City Utah, HUD Metro FMR Area as adjusted for household size. IV.Tenant Selection 1.The Affordable Units shall be made available pursuant to federal and state fair housing laws and HUD guidance, including the following: i.TOSA may establish admission preferences, including a preference for individuals with a commitment to sobriety, but may not deny housing to protected classes pursuant to federal and state fair housing laws. ii.TOSA may regulate the occupancy of units based on unit size but may not unreasonably limit the ability of families with children to obtain housing. 2.TOSA must develop and make public written tenant selection policies and procedures that include descriptions of the eligibility requirements. The Tenant Selection Plan must include evidence of a contractual partnership with service provider(s) and whether there is a restriction or preference in the admission of tenants. The restriction or preference must cite the supporting documentation to ensure inclusion and nondiscrimination in the selection of tenants. 3. TOSA will ensure that all applicants for housing in the project will go through the coordinated entry process used by the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness to ensure coordination and efficiency with the current homelessness services system. 4. TOSA also will enter any new resident into the Homeless Management Information System (“HMIS”) coordinated entry system. 5. Preference will be given to Salt Lake City residents for placement into the development. V. Maximum Rents 1. The annualized rent (which includes all required housing costs such as utilities and other charges uniformly assessed to all Affordable Units, other than charges for optional services) per unit shall be set forth in a written lease and shall not exceed, for the term of the lease, 30% of the annual income limit for individuals and households with a maximum AMI of 25% AMI for the applicable Unit Type (i.e. studio or bedroom number). VI. Tenant Lease Requirements 1. Leases may be provided on a month-to-month basis, with the intent that tenants may live in their homes as long as they meet the basic obligations of tenancy without a time limitation. 2. TOSA shall comply with local, state, and federal laws, including the federal fair housing act, when approving applicants as tenants, evicting, terminating a lease, or providing a notice to quit. 3. TOSA must incorporate specific provisions into the lease agreement for each eligible tenant of the Affordable Units that establish the tenant's obligation to provide accurate information regarding household income and composition. VII. Record-Keeping and Reporting Requirements 1. Upon execution of a lease, TOSA must verify and document the tenant’s annual (gross) income. 2. TOSA must re-examine the income and household composition of tenants on an annual basis. 3. TOSA must submit annual compliance reports to the City. These reports shall document the occupancy and show whether TOSA is in compliance with tenant eligibility requirements. 4. TOSA must provide the City a written certification of compliance when the project reaches initial compliance and then with each annual report. SUPPORTIVE SERVICES The pilot project will include supportive services to assist homeless persons in transitioning from homelessness, and to promote the provision of supportive housing to enable homeless persons to live as independently as possible. Supportive services will include on-site case coordination or management that ensures tenants’ access to a wide variety of services and on-site location of services provided by professional service providers as evidenced through an agreement. Services shall be made available on a flexible and voluntary basis and may address the following: mental health, substance and alcohol use, health, case management, independent living skills, employment, peer support, and community involvement and support. Physical and mental health providers shall have the appropriate licenses, which other services may be provided by those with appropriate training and following industry best practices. PROGRAMMING The pilot project will include programming that includes peer mentoring and the life skill development. This will include opportunities for residents to obtain employment experience by working in a social enterprise to the best of their ability. While participation in these employment activities shall be encouraged, it is not a condition of living in the pilot project. TERM The term of the lease will be forty (40) years with an option to renew the lease within the last year of the lease subject to approval by the Salt Lake City Council for the reduced lease rate. LEASE RATE The lease rate for the property will be $1 per year for the term of the lease. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: City Council Members SUBJECT: Informal Analysis of Public Benefits Provided by The Other Side Village’s Small Home Project in Exchange for a Below-market Ground Lease of Property INTRODUCTION Salt Lake City (the “City”) owns real property located at approximately 1850 West Indiana Avenue, Salt Lake City, consisting of approximately 45 acres (the “City Property”). The Other Side Academy, a Utah nonprofit corporation (“TOSA”) desires to develop a community of small homes, community space, support services, and commercial uses to provide affordable housing and life skill development for the City’s unsheltered population (the “Project”). This informal public benefits analysis is only for the first phase of the Project (the “Pilot Project”), which is intended to be a lease of approximately 8 acres of the City Property (the “Pilot Site”) and development of approximately of 54 tiny homes that shall be deed restricted as affordable and co-located with supportive services and social enterprise uses. While the City’s primary interest in development of the Pilot Site is affordable housing and supportive services, TOSA intends to develop other uses including community space, social enterprise buildings, and additional tiny homes to be offered as nightly rentals. Prior to development, the Pilot Site may require environmental remediation and/or mitigation to allow for residential uses. TOSA has agreed to pay for all costs to remediate the Pilot Site and to develop and operate the Pilot Project. Any request to lease the remainder of the City Property for less than fair market value will be submitted to the City Council at a later time for a supplemental public benefit analysis. In exchange for the remediation, operation, and management of the Pilot Project, TOSA is seeking a discounted lease rate for a 40-year ground lease of the Pilot Site (the “Ground Lease”). Though a formal analysis of the benefits to be received by the City in exchange for the benefit provided to TOSA is not required under Utah Code ⸹10-8-2, this informal analysis has been prepared to help assist the City Council’s evaluation of the recommended action. LEGAL FRAMEWORK Under Utah law, after first holding a public hearing, a municipality may “authorize municipal services or other nonmonetary assistance to be provided to a nonprofit entity, whether or not the municipality receives consideration in return.” Utah Code §10-8-2(1)(a)(v). Because TOSA is a nonprofit entity, the City may waive the fair-market rental rates it would ordinarily be required to receive for use of the City Property so long as the municipal legislative body first holds a public hearing regarding the waiver and authorizes the Administration to enter into the Ground Lease at the below-market lease rate. Utah Code §10-8-2(3) outlines the purposes for which a municipal body may appropriate funds as “for any purpose that, in the judgment of the municipal legislative body, provides for the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort, or convenience of the EXHIBIT C: INFORMAL PUBLIC BENEFITS ANALYSIS 2 inhabitants of the municipality.” The factors that must be considered in determining the propriety of such an appropriation or waiver if made to any type of entity or individual other than a nonprofit entity as set forth under Utah Code §10-8-2(3)(e). Here, it may be helpful to consider the same factors: (1)The specific benefits (including intangible benefits) to be received by the City in return for the arrangement; (2)The City’s purpose in making the appropriation, including an analysis of how the safety, health, prosperity, moral well-being, peace, order, comfort or convenience of the residents of Salt Lake City will be enhanced; and (3)Whether the appropriation is “necessary and appropriate” to accomplish the reasonable goals and objectives of the City in the area of economic development, job creation, affordable housing, blight elimination, resource center development, job preservation, the preservation of historic structures and property, and any other public purpose. BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT AND CITY PROPERTY As an overview of the entire Project, to be named The Other Side Village, TOSA anticipates developing a community that will be a secure and self-reliant neighborhood designed to serve the most vulnerable of the City’s unsheltered individuals, particularly those that meet the definition of chronically homeless. The home sizes may range from approximately 280-400 square feet. The Pilot Project is anticipated to have onsite services similar to those provided with permanent supportive housing, such as onsite medical, dental, and mental health services. In addition, TOSA is proposing that the community will have a garden and gathering spaces to serve residents. TOSA plans to implement social enterprises so that the Project can support itself financially and allow residents to gain employment experience. TOSA’s purpose for the Project is to create a community for unsheltered residents of Salt Lake City following the recovery housing model. Similar to permanent supportive housing, recovery housing values independent living and voluntary clinical services. Where they differ is that recovery housing requires an alcohol and drug-free living environment and may require residents to participate in recovery activities as a condition for residency. TOSA’s intent is to instill a peer accountability model to keep the community safe, clean, and orderly, to run social enterprises within the non-profit so that the organization can eventually be operationally self-sufficient and not be dependent on the government or donors. The Administration worked with TOSA to identify a parcel suitable for development of the Project, which ideally requires at least 30 acres, access to public transportation, and reasonable proximity to services. There are very few parcels of sufficient size and geography available within Salt Lake City boundaries. The City Property was identified as one that will allow the community to be established and potentially expand as a diverse type of deeply affordable housing and accessible services. 3 The City Property was historically used as a landfill between 1923 and 1962. It is currently vacant property and requires significant environmental remediation/mitigation and cleanup of refuse prior to development of residential uses. TOSA is working with the City’s Sustainability Department and the State of Utah to determine the scope and scale of the efforts, and TOSA has agreed to pay for the entire cost and to accept full liability for the costs and claims related to the remediation/mitigation. Before committing to lease the entire City Property to TOSA for the Project, the City and TOSA agreed to phase the Project, starting with the Pilot Project using the Pilot Site for the development of a minimum of 60 tiny homes to be utilized as housing (the “Housing Units”). Of the anticipated 60 Housing Units, a minimum of 54, or 90% of the total Housing Units, will be available and affordable to individuals and/or households that align with fair housing occupancy standards who have experienced homelessness and have incomes at or below 30% of Salt Lake County’s average median income (“AMI”), the (“Affordable Units”). The remaining 6, or up to 10% of the total Housing Units, will be available for Pilot Project staff to live on-site to help provide 24-hour staff coverage. In addition to the Housing Units, TOSA plans to construct and utilize up to 25 tiny homes as nightly rentals (the “Community Inn”). The Community Inn will also function as a social enterprise to provide job training and revenue for TOSV operations. TOSA shall construct and operate supportive services for the residents to assist homeless persons in transitioning from homelessness, and to enable tenants to live as independently as possible. Finally, TOSA intends to construct community space and social enterprise buildings to provide job training and revenue for the Pilot Project’s operations. The Ground Lease will include the affordability requirements for the Pilot Project, as well as other requirements. The Pilot Project is anticipated to include development of the buildings, Housing Units, related infrastructure (curb and gutter), and will also include the related amenities. TOSA desires to eventually develop the entire City Property for the Project and anticipates submitting a separate request to lease the additional City Property after meeting certain metrics, including occupancy and confirmation that the Pilot Project does not have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. If TOSA requests to lease the remaining City Property, it will accept full responsibility for the costs and liability to remediate and/or mitigate the additional City Property to standards for residential development. TOSA is requesting that the City approve the Ground Lease of the Pilot Site in exchange for the public benefits TOSA will be providing with the homeless services, environmental remediation, development, and operation of the Pilot Project. The Council has been asked to consider a zoning amendment for the City Property concurrent with consideration of the proposed below- market lease rate to allow development of the Pilot Project. TOSA intends to construct and operate the Pilot Project through donations from foundations, corporations, and private citizens. Eventually, TOSA hopes to obtain self-sufficiency through revenues generated from social enterprises, including the Community Inn. 4 TERMS OF THE GROUND LEASE AND PUBLIC BENEFITS PROVIDED I.Terms of Ground Lease; Costs to the City Under the proposed Ground Lease between the City and TOSA, the City will maintain ownership of the Pilot Site and the Pilot Project will be owned and developed by TOSA, or a non-profit entity approved by the City. The Ground Lease will be structured to require a $1.00 dollar per year payment over the 40-year lease term. The Ground Lease will require that the Pilot Site will be used solely for the development and operation of the small home community. The 2022 assessed value of the City Property is approximately $4.20 per square foot, which equates to about $8,230,000 for the City Property or $1,460,000 for the Pilot Site property, excluding remediation, mitigation, and cleanup costs. Remediation and mitigation of the Pilot Site acres of City Property will allow it to be utilized for residential purposes. The below-market lease terms are being offered as the City’s contribution to providing solutions for homeless services. The City will not have any responsibility for environmental remediation, construction, operation, or maintenance of the Pilot Site and Pilot Project. II.Public Benefits Provided by the Pilot Project. The Pilot Project as planned provides numerous benefits to the City and promotes the City’s reasonable goals of objectives to increase the availability of affordable housing, job training, and supporting the City’s unsheltered population on a path to secure housing. A wide array of affordable housing options is needed to create a path from shelter to housing. By the City maintaining ownership of the Pilot Site but leasing it to TOSA, the City will facilitate the development of housing and services for underserved populations in our City that need it most. Residents of the Pilot Project will have the opportunity to work with case managers and may receive support in the following areas: sober living; tenant responsibilities and housing stability; access to benefits and entitlements; access to healthcare providers; access to behavioral health services; access to education and employment supports; access to mental health services and medications; information and referral to community resources (including but not limited to food pantries, legal services, faith-based organizations, additional housing options); and other relevant services and supports. Regular engagement in case management services will assist tenants in developing and fine-tuning life skills. Further, the on-site social enterprise endeavors will provide job skill development for residents of the Pilot Project. The Pilot Project will help lower the cost of public care of unsheltered individuals by providing housing for people who likely have a history of utilizing emergency services within Salt Lake City. Once housed, residents will free up shelter beds and services for others in the community to access and help alleviate capacity restraints at the homeless resource centers. In addition, accessible housing may alleviate encampments within the city that require tremendous City and County resources to maintain the health and safety of the unsheltered individuals and the public. Some residences will be earmarked as deeply affordable recovery housing to provide needed assistance to the most vulnerable population in our community. These are greatly needed community benefits. 5 The unsheltered population typically have limited access to healthcare and may rely on emergency services for care. Connecting residents to accessible medical, dental, and mental health care within the community will allow for preventative care, reducing the need for emergency room visits and hopefully providing better health outcomes. Alleviating the current burden on emergency medical services and hospitals to provide continuing care for unsheltered individuals will benefit both the individual users and the public. III.Salt Lake City’s Purposes and Enhancing the Quality of Life for Residents. Through the services mentioned above, the Pilot Project aims to serve formerly unsheltered individuals through housing, healthcare, social enterprise, and community. By helping serve the needs of these individuals, it is anticipated that the impact to the City can be measured through improvement of life skills and health outcomes, reduction in area criminal activity, and new or increased employment of clients served by the Pilot Project. The neighborhood surrounding the Pilot Project may also benefit by activation of the currently vacant and former landfill space. Increasing the number of residences in the area may encourage additional investments in the neighborhood such as grocery and other retail stores, recreation, and transit. In addition, TOSA is committed to ensuring that the Pilot Project does not become a strain on the City’s public safety infrastructure and does not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhoods. IV.Accomplishing Salt Lake City’s Goals. The construction and operation of the Pilot Project is in line with the City’s Housing Plan, Growing SLC: a Five Year Housing Plan, 2018-2022. Growing SLC includes solutions to address housing for incomes below 40% AMI providing housing and services to the City’s most vulnerable populations. Growing SLC strongly encourages supporting residents living in poverty and making $20,000 per year or less. To do that, the plan sets the following actions items for the City: (1)Lead in the development of new affordable housing types, as well as construction methods that incorporate innovative solutions to issues of form, function, and maintenance. (2)Offer incentives to developers of affordable housing such as land discounts and primary financing options. (3)Work with housing partners and government entities to continue supporting and enhancing service models that meet the needs of the City’s most vulnerable households. The plan also adopts the City Council’s 2017 guiding principles for evaluating and appropriating City funds for housing. The priorities relevant to the Pilot Project are as follows: (1)Create a net increase in affordable housing units while: (i) Avoiding displacement of existing affordable housing to the extent possible, and (ii) Retaining and expanding the diversity of AMI and innovative housing types. (2)Create a spectrum of housing options for people of all backgrounds and incomes. 6 (3)Include collaboration with community and private sector partners to enable opportunities for in kind contributions, creative financing, and service delivery models. (4)Utilize city-owned land whenever possible. (5)Enable residents’ success to maintain housing through partnerships with providers of supportive services. (6)Identify tools to increase and diversify the total housing supply including housing types that the private market does not sufficiently provide such as … innovative housing types. The Pilot Project accomplishes several of the City’s goals and priorities by providing predictable, affordable housing and supports needs of its residents. CONCLUSION The development of the Pilot Project by TOSA will be a benefit to residents of the City. Providing a below-market Ground Lease for the Pilot Site is an appropriate use of City resources to achieve the City’s “reasonable goals and objectives of the City in the area of economic development, job creation, affordable housing, blight elimination, resource center development, job preservation, the preservation of historic structures and property.” Further, the Pilot Project helps to achieve the City’s goals by creating a net increase in affordable housing stock while providing long-term housing services for very low-income residents who have experienced homelessness. 4460 S Highland Dr. Salt Lake City, UT 84124 888.949.4864 ValleyCares.com July 1, 2022 The Other Side Village 667 East 100 South Salt Lake City, UT 84102 To Whom it May Concern: It is my pleasure to provide this letter of support on behalf of Valley Behavioral Health, Inc (Valley). Valley has worked closely with The Other Side Village leadership team to create the Welcome Neighborhood which will temporarily house and prepare individuals experiencing chronic homelessness to transition from the street to Village life and connect them to resources and services needed, including mental health treatment, supportive housing, medication management, and targeted case management. Valley collaborates on the Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness and the Housing Core Function Group. In addition, Valley’s homeless outreach program, Storefront, works closely with the three Homeless Resource Centers and the Midvale Family Shelter by providing regular outreach and connecting those staying at these centers to various community housing programs. We support The Other Side Village initiative and plan to provide onsite mental health services to the residents of the Village on a regular basis when it is operational. We look forward to continuing our combined efforts to make homelessness rare, brief, and non- recurring in our capital city by lifting individuals out of chronic homelessness through community and connection. Sincerely, Preston L. Cochrane Valley Behavioral Health, Inc Vice President of Housing & Support Services EXHIBIT D: SERVICE PROVIDERS LETTERS OF INTEREST June 17, 2022 Mr. Tim Stay The Other Side Village Executive Director Dear Mr. Stay, On behalf of Fourth Street Clinic, I am pleased to provide this letter of interest for The Other Side Village, a.k.a Tiny Village, as you move forward in your planning and approval phase to begin construction. Fourth Street Clinic is committed to providing high quality integrated health care services to those in our community experiencing homelessness. We believe that housing is a critical component of achieving and maintaining good health, and we are pleased to be included in the conversation on how we can partner to support those experiencing homelessness as they transition into housing. We look forward to continuing conversations as you embark on the planning process to discuss expand funding opportunities, defining and understanding the scope and timelines of the project, and engaging with additional partners to support our work. As community partners, we are keenly aware that partnerships are essential to extend and strengthen vital programs that ensure the health and well-being of those experiencing homelessness. Located in downtown Salt Lake City since 1988, Fourth Street Clinic has been the primary provider of health care services in Salt Lake County and its surrounding area. In 2021, 4,672 individuals received care at our downtown clinic as well as through our Medical Street Team and our Mobile Clinic. Fourth Street Clinic stands ready to look at ways in which our organizations can work collaboratively to maximize resources and to improve the health care for our homeless community. Fourth Street Clinic values the partnership of our organizations and applauds the work of The Other Side Village to address the many challenges of homelessness. I look forward to ongoing discussions and clarity on the Tiny Village project as plans are solidified. I can be reached directly at 801-364-0058 ext 1383 or janida@fourthstreetclinic.org. Sincerely, Janida Emerson CEO July 3, 2022 Salt Lake City Council Attn: Tim Stay 667 E 100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84120 RE: THE OTHER SIDE VILLAGE Dear City Council: The purpose of this letter is to document the commitment of Sego Homes to help with the funding and construction of the The Other Side Village. Sego Homes, along with their vendors and trade partners, has provided support to several charitable organizations over the past few years such as Operation Underground Railroad to whom we donated $121,000 and Hopes for Hope to whom we donated $101,000. We anticipate providing a similar level of support to The Other Side Village by building and donating several of the tiny homes proposed for this community. We respectfully request that the City Council approve this proposed community and facilitate the successful development of this innovative and much needed community. Sincerely, SEGO HOMES Wayne H. Corbridge CEO wayne@segohomes.com (801) 362-6228 EXHIBIT E: IN KIND LETTERS June 24, 2022 ATTN: Mr. Tim Stay The Other Side Academy 667 E 100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Dear Tim, As you know, HomeAid is a 501(c)3 organization with 32 years experience in partnering with the homebuilding industry to provide discounted and in-kind construction and renovation services to organizations serving people experiencing homelessness. The HomeAid Utah affiliate has been in operation over 3 years and has enjoyed tremendous support in our fight to help alleviate human suffering within our community. We are supported by some of the largest homebuilders and industry associates locally, regionally and nationally. We are aware of and eager to participate in your new tiny home community project in Salt Lake City, The Other Side Village. Our sister affiliate, HomeAid Austin, has been very successful in their efforts at the Community First Village in Austin, Texas and will have completed 36 tiny-homes by the end of 2023. HomeAid Utah anticipates we can facilitate the construction of approximately 15-20 tiny homes, possibly an entire sub-village within the initial phase of the community. It is our goal that once completed and additional phases become available, we can be an ongoing contributor over the duration of the total project buildout facilitating the construction of several more homes. We are very much looking forward to participating with you on this worthy initiative. Sincerely, Don Adamson Executive Director, HomeAid Utah Cc: Nate Shipp, Affiliate President, HomeAid Utah t 801.595.6400 e4harchitecture.com |833 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 July 1, 2022 The Other Side Village Attn: Tim Stay 667 E 100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Re: Support for the Other Side Village Project Dear Tim, At your request, I am writing to summarize our support to date for the Other Side Village project. Our architectural firm, E4H Environments for Health Architecture, is dedicated to improving the wellness of our communities including physical health, mental health, equality, and basic human needs. The charitable wing of our organization, E4Hcares, has been providing full architectural services for the Other Side Village project for well over a year. Our Salt Lake firm partner, David Dixon, has orchestrated the development of the site plan, buildings, and homes by leading a host of other design professionals, schools, and individuals in the planning of the Village while he fills in the gaps. To date, David has contributed well over 400 hours to this effort. At our standard billing rate of $250/hour for our firm partners, this would equate to a donation of over $100,000 in design services. We would estimate he and others in our firm will spend another equal amount of time seeing the project through to completion. We firmly believe the Other Side Village will be the best program anywhere for caring for our homeless neighbors and helping them to lead more productive lives. The leaders of the Village effort have a proven track record with the Other Side Academy and we hope the City will continue to offer their full support to bring this to fruition as quickly as possible. Best regards, David J. Dixon, AIA EXHIBIT F: CONSTRUCTION COMMITMENT LETTER 45 OPERATIONAL 15-YEAR PROFORMA FOR VILLAGE PILOT PHASE EXHIBIT G: PROFORMA 667 E 100 S Salt Lake City, UT 84102 TheOtherSideAcademy.com July 1, 2022 To Whom it May Concern : The board of The Other Side Academy has agreed to cover any operational shortfalls in funding from the operations of The Other Side Village in an amount up to $1 million per year. I also confirm that The Other Side Academy has the financial means to provide these funds if needed. Respectfully, Tim Stay CEO The Other Side Academy tim@theothersideacademy.com 801-362-8998 EXHIBIT H: OPERATING COMMITMENT LETTER Item C1 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:September 20, 2022 RE: 1330 South 700 West Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2021-00257 MOTION 1 (adopt) I move that the Council adopt the ordinance MOTION 2 (reject) I move that the Council reject the ordinance. 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 ________________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date Received: 7/12/2022 Date sent to Council: 7/12/2022 ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: July 12, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 1330 South 700 West (Petition Number PLNPCM2021-00257) STAFF CONTACT: Eric Daems, Senior Planner eric.daems@slcgov.com or (801)-535-7236 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation from the Planning Commission and approve the requested zoning map amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This is a request by Marco Geronimo, property owner, to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map from R-1-7000 Single-Family Residential to CB Community Business at approximately 1330 South 700 West. Although a specific development has not been proposed, the rezone is in anticipation of future neighborhood scale mixed-use development. If the amendment is approved the applicant could develop the site in accordance with the CB zoning standards. In accordance with the submitted Housing Loss Mitigation Plan and accompanying Development Agreement, at least one dwelling unit will need to be built if future development results in the loss of the existing dwelling unit on the property. The request did not require a master plan amendment. The Planning Commission reviewed the request at a public hearing on December 15, 2021. The Commission determined the CB Zoning District to be consistent with the neighborhood master plan and an appropriate zoning designation for the subject property. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council to amend the zoning map for the property from R-1-7000 to CB, with the Transitional Overlay remaining in place. Proposed Rezone 1330 S 700 West ~ Transitio nal Overlay Zoning Districts M-1 SR-3 Light Manufacturing Special Development Pattern Residential R-1I 7,000 Single-Family Residential R-1I5,000 Single-Family Residential PL Public Lands • N Salt Lake City Planni ng Divisi on 10/14/2021 PUBLIC PROCESS: • May 19, 2021 – Notice of the project and request for comments were sent to the Glendale Community Council and other recognized community organizations. • May 21, 2021- An early notification of the project was sent to all residents and property owners located within 300 feet of the subject property. • July 5, 2021- The 45-day recognized organization comment period expired with no comments being received from residents or the community council. • December 15, 2021 - The Planning Commission held a public hearing and forwarded a positive recommendation to amend the zoning map for the subject property from R-1- 7000 to CB to the City Council for their review and decision. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of December 15, 2021 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of December 15, 2021 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of December 15, 2021 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Ordinance Amending Zoning Map 2) Development Agreement 3) Project Chronology 4) Notice of City Council Hearing 5) Notice Letter to Recognized Community Organizations 6) Notice Letter to Neighbors 7) Original Petition 8) Mailing List 1. Ordinance Amending Zoning Map 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2022 (Amending the zoning map pertaining to a parcel of property located at 1330 South 700 West Street to rezone the parcel from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to CB Community Business District) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to a parcel of property located at 1330 South 700 West Street to rezone the parcel from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to CB Community Business District pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2021-00257. WHEREAS, Marco Geronimo submitted an application to rezone a parcel of property located at 1330 South 700 West Street (the “Property” from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to CB Community Business District pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2021-00257; and WHEREAS, the Property is also within the T Transitional Overlay District, which overlay designation would remain as part of this petition; and WHEREAS, there is a single-family residential dwelling on the Property that the Property owner intends to demolish in order to develop a mixed-used project; and WHEREAS, at its December 15, 2021 meeting, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on the application, subject to the Property owner entering into a development agreement to ensure that at least one residential dwelling unit is constructed on the Property to mitigate the loss of the existing residential dwelling to be demolished; and ---- 2 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 parcel located at 1330 South 700 West Street (Tax ID No. 15-11-480-027-0000, more particularly described on Exhibit “A” attached hereto, is rezoned from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to CB Community Business District. The Property shall remain within the T Transition Overlay District. SECTION 2. Condition. This proposed zoning map amendment is conditioned upon the Property owner entering into a development agreement with Salt Lake City that requires the owner to construct at least one residential dwelling unit on the Property to replace the single- family structure that the owner intends to demolish. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the condition identified above is satisfied as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director or his designee. SECTION 4. 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. 3 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: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: _________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney June 28, 2022 4 Exhibit “A” Legal description of the property Tax ID No. 15-11-480-027-0000 0123 BEG AT SE COR OF LOT 1, MELLEN SUB; S 119.2 FT; W 258 FT; N 119.2 FT; E 258 FT TO BEG. ALSO ALL OF LOT 41, DOTSON SUB. 0.79 AC. 5933-1247 5808-0340 5122-1014 6183-1710 8363-6758 2. Development Agreement WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO: Salt Lake City Corporation Attn: Planning Director 451 S. State Street, Suite 406 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is made and entered into by and between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a political subdivision of the State of Utah (“City”) and Marco and Melynda Geronimo (“Developers”). City and Developers may be referred to herein collectively as “Parties.” RECITALS A. Developers are the owner of approximately .79 acres of land located at 1330 South 700 West Street in Salt Lake City (the “Property”), which land is more particularly described on the attached Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference. B. Developers submitted an application to amend the zoning map with respect to the Property to change the zoning from R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District to CB Community Business District (Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00257). C. Developers intend to replace the existing single-family dwelling on the Property with a mixed-use development. D. The Salt Lake City Planning Commission heard this matter on December 15, 2021, at which the commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation on the petition to the Salt Lake City Council. E. In order to address concerns identified in Salt Lake City Code Chapter 18.97 when zoning is changed from a district that allows only residential uses to one that would allow a nonresidential use that would result in loss of housing units, the planning commission’s positive recommendation included a recommendation that the city council require the Developers enter into a development agreement requiring Developers to construct at least one replacement dwelling unit on the Property. F. The Salt Lake City Council held a public hearing on this petition on _____________, 2022 and at its _______________, 2022 meeting voted to approve Ordinance ___of 2022, which approved Developers’ petition to rezone the Property, subject to Developers entering into a development agreement with the City to ensure replacement of the existing 2 single-family dwelling with at least one residential dwelling unit as part of the development of the Property. This Agreement satisfies that the condition of that ordinance. G. City, acting pursuant to its authority under the Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act, Utah Code §§ 10-9a-101, -803, as amended, and in furtherance of its land use policies, goals, objectives, ordinances, and regulations of Salt Lake City, in the exercise of its legislative discretion, has elected to approve and enter into this Agreement. For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, and in reliance on the foregoing recitals, City and Developer agree as follows: 1. Incorporations of Recitals. The Parties hereby incorporate the foregoing recitals into this Agreement. 2. Obligations of the Parties. a. Developers’ Obligations: In the event that Developers cause the single- family dwelling located on the Property to be demolished or no longer used as a residential dwelling, Developers are hereby required construct at least one residential dwelling unit as part of any future development of the Property. Developers shall not obtain a building permit for a principal use on the Property that does not include at least one residential dwelling unit and the City will not issue a certificate of occupancy for any such principal use unless it includes at least one residential dwelling unit. As noted in Paragraph 7 below, Developers shall record this Agreement against the Property with the Salt Lake County Recorder and shall provide the Salt Lake City Recorder with proof that the Agreement has been recorded. b. City’s Obligations: Following recording of this Agreement against the Property, the City shall cause Ordinance ____of 2022 to be published within 14 days of Developers providing proof to the City that the Agreement has been recorded. The City is further obligated to issue all necessary permits and certificates of occupancy for development of the Property that meet all requirements of law and satisfy Developers’ obligations under this Agreement. 3. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement, or the application of any term or provision of this Agreement to a particular situation, is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement, or the application of this Agreement to other situations, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the Parties. 4. Other Necessary Acts. Each Party shall execute and deliver to the other any further instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the objectives and intent of this Agreement. 3 5. Construction/Interpretation. Developers have been informed that it is customary to consult legal counsel in the preparation and negotiation of the terms of development agreements. Developers have either done so or chosen not to. Should litigation arise from any breach of this Agreement, the Parties agree that no presumption or rule that ambiguities shall be construed against the drafting Party shall apply to the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement. 6. Other Miscellaneous Terms. The singular shall include the plural; the masculine gender shall include the feminine; “shall” is mandatory; “may” is permissive. 7. Covenants Running with the Land. The provisions of this Agreement shall constitute real covenants, contract and property rights, and equitable servitudes, which shall run with the land subject to this Agreement. The burdens and benefits of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of each of the Parties, and to their respective successors, heirs, assigns, and transferees. Developers shall record this Agreement against the Property with the Salt Lake County Recorder. 8. Term. This Agreement shall terminate upon the City’s issuance of a certificate of occupancy for development on the Property that includes at least one residential dwelling unit after required inspections confirm that all requirements of law and this Agreement have been met. 9. Waiver. No action taken by any Party shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of compliance by such Party with respect to any representation, warranty, or condition contained in this Agreement. 10. Remedies. Either Party may, in addition to any other rights or remedies, institute an equitable action to cure, correct, or remedy any default, enforce any covenant or agreement herein, enjoin any threatened or attempted violation thereof, enforce by specific performance the obligations and rights of the Parties hereto, or to obtain any remedies consistent with the foregoing and the purpose of this Agreement. 11. Utah Law. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Utah. 12. Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. Each Party shall use its best efforts and take and employ all necessary actions in good faith consistent with this Agreement to ensure that the rights secured by the other Party through this Agreement can be enjoyed. 13. No Third-Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is between the City and Developers. No other party shall be deemed a third-party beneficiary or have any rights under this Agreement. 14. Force Majeure. No liability or breach of this Agreement shall result from delay in performance or nonperformance caused, directly or indirectly, by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the Party affected (“Force Majeure”), including, but not limited to, fire, extreme weather, terrorism, explosion, flood, war, power interruptions, the act of other 4 governmental bodies, accident, labor trouble or the shortage or inability to obtain material, service, personnel, equipment or transportation, failure of performance by a common carrier, failure of performance by a public utility, or vandalism. 15. Entire Agreement, Counterparts and Exhibit. Unless otherwise noted herein, this Agreement is the final and exclusive understanding and agreement of the Parties and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the Parties with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of City and Developers. 16. REPRESENTATION REGARDING ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AND FORMER CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES. Developers represent that they have not: (1) provided an illegal gift or payoff to a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee, or his or her relative or business entity; (2) retained any person to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, or brokerage or contingent fee, other than bona fide employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business; (3) knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code; or (4) knowingly influenced, and hereby promises that it will not knowingly influence, a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code. 17. GOVERNMENT RECORDS ACCESS AND MANAGEMENT ACT. City is subject to the requirements of the Government Records Access and Management Act, Chapter 2, Title 63G, Utah Code Annotated or its successor (“GRAMA”). All materials submitted by Developers pursuant to this Agreement are subject to disclosure unless such materials are exempt from disclosure pursuant to GRAMA. The burden of claiming an exemption from disclosure shall rest solely with Developers. Any materials for which Developers claim a privilege from disclosure shall be submitted marked as “Business Confidential” and accompanied by a concise statement of reasons supporting Developers’ claim of business confidentiality. City will make reasonable efforts to notify Developers of any requests made for disclosure of documents submitted under a claim of business confidentiality. Developers may, at Developers’ sole expense, take any appropriate actions to prevent disclosure of such material. Developers specifically waive any claims against City related to disclosure of any materials required by GRAMA. [Signature Page to Follow] 5 EFFECTIVE as of the _____ day of , 2022. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office _________________________________ Paul Nielson, Senior City Attorney CITY: SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a Utah municipal corporation _____________________________________ Erin Mendenhall, Mayor ATTEST: Salt Lake City Recorder’s Office _________________________________ City Recorder STATE OF UTAH ) :ss COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) This instrument was acknowledged before me this ____________, 2022, by Erin Mendenhall, Mayor of Salt Lake City Corporation, a Utah municipal corporation. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ___________________________ Notary Public 6 DEVELOPERS: Marco Geronimo Melynda Geronimo STATE OF ___________ § § COUNTY OF _________ § This instrument was acknowledged before me on the ___ day of ___________, 2022, by Marco Geronimo and Melynda Geronimo, as individuals. WITNESS my hand and official seal. ___________________________ Notary Public 7 EXHIBIT “A” Legal description of Developer’s Property located at 1330 S 700 W: Tax ID No. 15-11-480-027-0000 BEG AT SE COR OF LOT 1, MELLON SUB; S 119.2 FT; W 258 FT; N 119.2 FT; E 258 FT TO BEG. ALSO ALL OF LOT 41, DOTSON SUB. 0.79 AC. 5933-1247 5808-0340 5122-1014 6183-1710 8363-6758 09676-9176 3. Project Chronology PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PETITION: PLNPCM2021-00257 – 1330 S 700 W Zoning Map Amendment March 19, 2021 Petition for the zoning map amendment received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division May 19, 2021 Petition assigned to Eric Daems, Senior Planner, for staff analysis and processing May 19, 2021 Information about the proposal was sent to the Chair of the Glendale Community Council in order to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. May 21, 2021 Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. July 5, 2021 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. No formal comments were submitted to staff by the recognized organizations to date related to this proposal. July- December 2021 Staff review as well as awaiting information on Housing Loss Mitigation Plan December 1, 2022 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. December 2, 2021 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of December 15, 2021. Public hearing notice mailed. December 15, 2021 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing December 15, 2021. By a majority vote of 7-0, the Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to City Council for the proposed zoning map change. December 2021- Applicant and Attorney worked to prepare Development Agreement May 2022 4. Notice of City Council Hearing NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2021-00257 – Marco Geronimo, property owner, is petitioning to amend the zoning map for the property located at approximately 1330 South 700 West from R-1-7,000 (Single-Family Residential), to CB- (Community Business). The Transitional Overlay would remain in place. The subject property is .79 acres. Although a specific development is not being proposed at this time, the rezone is in anticipation of future neighborhood-scale mixed-use development. The property is located within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. (Staff contact: Eric Daems at 801-535-7236 or eric.daems@slcgov.com). Case number: PLNPCM2021-00257 As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TIME: 7:00 pm PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Eric Daems at 801-535-7236 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at eric.daems@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2021-00257. 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. 5. Notice Letter to Recognized Community Organizations 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/PLANNING PO BOX 145480, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 Recognized Organization Input Notification Proposed Zoning Map Amendment TO: Turner Bitton, Chair, Glendale Community Council FROM: Eric Daems, AICP, Senior Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division (eric.daems@slcgov.com or 801-535-7236) DATE: May 19, 2021 RE: PLNPCM2021-00257 700 West Zone Amendment The Planning Division has received the below request and is notifying your organization to s olicit comments on the proposal: Request Type: Zoning Map Amendment Location: 1330 S 700 West Current Zone: R-1-7,000 Single-Family Residential Proposed Zone: CB Community Business Request Description: Marco Geronimo, property owner, has submitted a petition for a Zoning Amendment for the property located at 1330 South 700 West. The property is currently zoned R-1-7,000 which is a single-family residential zone and has been requested to be rezoned as CB- Commercial Business zone. Although no development proposal has been included with the petition, the applicant has indicated that they foresee a future mix of apartments and commercial use for the property. I have attached information submitted by the applicant relating to the project to facilitate your review as well as an information sheet that outlines the project area clearly. Request for Input from Your Recognized Organization As part of this process, the applicant is required to solicit comments from Recognized Organizations. The purpose of the Recognized Organization review is to inform the community of t he project and solicit comments/concerns they have with the project. The Recognized Organization may also take a vote to determine whether there is support for the project, but this is not required. Per City Code 2.60.050 - The recognized community organization chair(s) have forty five (45) days to provide comments, from the date the notice was sent. A public hearing will not be held, nor will a final decision be made about the project within the forty five (45) day notice period. This notice period ends on the following day: July 5, 2021 Please contact me to let me know if you would like the applicant to attend and present their proposal at one of your meetings within this 45 day period. Please indicate the day and time of your meeting and staff will coordinate with the applicant to attend your meeting. Planning staff will be available at the meeting to answer any questions related to decision standards or the decision making process. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/PLANNING PO BOX 145480, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 Comment Guidance Public comments will be received up to the date of the Planning Commission public hearing. However, you should submit your organization’s comments within 45 days of receiving this notice in order for those comments to be included in the staff report. As a Recognized Organization, we ask that you address the following questions in your comments: • What issues were raised at the meeting and whether any suggestions were made to address the issues. • The number of persons that attended the meeting (not including those with the applicant or City Staff). • Whether a vote was taken on the matter and if so, what the vote tally was. Approval Criteria for the Zoning Map Amendment Request For your reference, the following are criteria that the Planning Commission and City Council will use to make its decision. The City’s technical staff will review the project to ensure it complies with adopted policies and regulations. Input from your organization may be more general in nature but we recommend that you also consider the below approval criteria: 1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents; 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and 5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection Comment Submission Address You may submit your written comments via e-mail to eric.daems@slcgov.com or mail them to: ATTN Eric Daems Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S State St Rm 406 PO Box 145480 Salt Lake City UT 84114-5480 If you have any questions, please call me at (801) 535-7236 or contact me via e-mail. 6. Notice Letter to Neighbors Notice of a Project in your Area: 1330 South 700 West ZONING AMENDMENT Department of Community and Neighborhoods Planning Division Marco Geronimo, property owner, has submitted a petition for a Zoning Amendment for the property located at 1330 South 700 West. The property is currently zoned R-1-7,000 which is a single-family residential zone and has been requested to be rezoned as CB- Commercial Business zone. An explanation for the proposed rezone, which has been provided by the applicant has been included on the back of this sheet. The proposal will be reviewed by various City departments and will be compared to the goals and purposes stated in the City Zoning Ordinance and the various Master Plans of the City. This project is required to receive a recommendation from the Planning Commission, which is then forwarded to the City Council for final approval. Notice of any public hearing meetings with either the Planning Commission or City Council will be sent to you as they are scheduled. If you have any questions or comments, please contact Eric Daems at 535-7236 or eric.daems@slcgov.com. Proposal Summary Address: 1330 South 700 West Existing Use: Single-family Existing Zone: R-1-7000- Single Family Residential Proposed Zone: CB- Community Business Lot Size: .73 acres Proposed Rezone 1330 S 700 West ZoningOistricts Lightl.Januf~/u,inr; SR•3 Special Development Pett em Residentief R-1/7,000 Slnrlie--FllmJfy ~sidentilll I R-1 15,000 Sing/e-F11mi/y Re-sK11mtiel PL Public Lands Salt Lake City Planning Division 5/18/2021 7. Original Petition Updated 11/20/2020 Zoning Amendment  Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance  Amend the Zoning Map OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project #: Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): Name of Applicant: Phone: Address of Applicant: E-mail of Applicant:Cell/Fax: Applicant’s Interest in Subject Property:  Owner  Contractor  Architect  Other: Name of Property Owner (if different from applicant): E-mail of Property Owner:Phone: Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings, for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City Planning Counter at zoning@slcgov.com prior to submitting the application. REQUIRED FEE Map Amendment: filing fee of $1,058 plus $121 per acre in excess of one acre Text Amendment: filing fee of $1,058, plus fees for newspaper notice. Plus, additional fee for mailed public notices. Noticing fees will be assessed after the application is submitted. SIGNATURE If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: SA L T L A K E C I T Y P L A N N I N G I I Marco Geronimo 801-972-1456 geronimo0204@yahoo.com Marco Geronimo 3/19/2021 4 1320 S 700 W 1035 S 900 W 4 Applicant Provided Explanation for Zone Amendment 1. A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment: The purpose of the amendment is to convert an underutilized lot, that currently sits in a residential/industrial area, to a zoning type that would allow for a small mixed use development. This development will include apartments and commercial units that will clean up the lot, provide a product that will better serve the community, and support the current Master Plan for the Glendale area. It is our hope that by so doing we can support our neighbors with some type of businesses that would meet some of their needs and also support future growth and overall development of the area. The zoning we would like to pursue is Commercial Business (CB). 2. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned: The lot is .8 acres and currently holds a large garage and a very old home. The parcel number is 15114800270000. The plan would be to demolish the current house and construct a small 12-16 unit apartment building in the southeast section. In addition, the garage running along the west side of the property would be converted into a more effective office/retail space. Having a small mixed use development will soften the transition from residential to the north to industrial on the south and east sides. 3. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area: Having a .8 acre lot with an R(1)7000 zoning, makes the site too large for the small home that currently sits there, and building a large home would be out of place with the businesses surrounding the lot, which includes Napa Auto Parts to the East, smaller industrial shops running along the south, and an open field on the west that I understand may eventually be developed as a continuation of the Sorenson Community Center. Updated 11/20/2020 St a f f R e v i e w SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1.Project Description (please electronically attach additional sheets. See Section 21A.50 for the Amendments ordinance.) A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal. There is a step-by-step guide to learn how to submit online. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED ______ I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. □□ □□ DD DD □□ MG 4 4 4 4 Zoning Amendment Application Explanation 1. A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment: The purpose of the amendment is to convert an underutilized lot, that currently sits in a residential/industrial area, to a zoning type that would allow for a small mixed use development. This development will include apartments and commercial units that will clean up the lot, provide a product that will better serve the community, and support the current Master Plan for the Glendale area. It is our hope that by so doing we can support our neighbors with some type of businesses that would meet some of their needs and also support future growth and overall development of the area. The zoning we would like to pursue is Commercial Business (CB). 2. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned: The lot is .8 acres and currently holds a large garage and a very old home. The parcel number is 15114800270000. The plan would be to demolish the current house and construct a small 12-16 unit apartment building in the southeast section. In addition, the garage running along the west side of the property would be converted into a more effective office/retail space. Having a small mixed use development will soften the transition from residential to the north to industrial on the south and east sides. 3. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area: Having a .8 acre lot with an R(1)7000 zoning, makes the site too large for the small home that currently sits there, and building a large home would be out of place with the businesses surrounding the lot, which includes Napa Auto Parts to the East, smaller industrial shops running along the south, and an open field on the west that I understand may eventually be developed as a continuation of the Sorenson Community Center. 8. Mailing List NAME ADDRESS UNIT CITY STATE ZIP CODE EMGI LLC 1035 S 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 ARC TECH, LLC 1076 S LAKE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 Current Occupant 1245 S 700 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1277 S JUSTIN KAY CT Salt Lake City UT 84104 MAGDALENA SANDAR WIN; POLYCARP THANG PALSUK (JT)1280 S JUSTIN KAY CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 ANGELICA M TAN; WENDELYN U KILAT; ARJEE U MATA (JT)1290 S JUSTIN KAY CT SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 Current Occupant 1317 S 700 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1325 S 800 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1327 S 800 W #NFF1 Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1330 S 700 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1350 S 700 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1362 S 700 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1367 S 700 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1370 S 700 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 1376 S 700 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 MOWABB LC 1400 S FOOTHILL DR # 34 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 Current Occupant 1415 S 700 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 FLYING COLORS GROUP LP 1506 WHEELBARROW CREEK RD STEVENSVILLE MT 59870 DANIEL R MELLEN; MURIEL L MELLEN (JT)1842 W SPRINGFIELD RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 UTAH NON PROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION 233 W 700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 270 S 1000 E BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY 2999 WILDWOOD PARKWAY ATLANTA GA 30339 S & B ASSOCIATES LLC 4177 S JOHN WY WEST VALLEY UT 84120 JASON M MARTINSON-SAWYER 549 N CORTEZ ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 DUAL PROPERTIES LLC 574 E BRYAN RD ERDA UT 84074 RAYMOND HEDBERG; JOYCE L HEDBERG (JT)5882 S MEADOW CREST DR MURRAY UT 84107 EUGENIO MONTELONGO 710 W 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 KMW TRUST 09/14/2020 713 W 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 Current Occupant 719 W 1355 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 723 W 1300 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 724 W 1390 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 728 W 1355 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 731 W 1300 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 JAY COOPER 732 W 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 Current Occupant 734 W 1355 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 735 W 1355 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 736 W 1390 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 JUSTIN KAY COURT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 737 W 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 Current Occupant 739 W 1300 S #NFF1 Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 741 W 1300 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 MATTHEW NIELSEN 742 W 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 Current Occupant 743 W 1300 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 745 W 1355 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 747 W 1300 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 EDWARD & NEDRA PARROTT FAMILY TRUST 06/20/2019 753 W 1355 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 TERRY INGERSOLL; LEANNE INGERSOLL (JT)754 W 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 TRACY BUTTERFIELD 754 W 1355 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 JOSE A REYNAGA; ELBA S REYNAGA (JT)757 W 1300 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 Current Occupant 761 W 1355 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 762 W 1355 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 765 W 1300 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 BRIAN H GETZELMAN; SARAH E GETZELMAN (JT)772 W 1355 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 Current Occupant 773 W 1300 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 VICENTE CHAIREZ; ROSELIA CHAIREZ (JT)878 S 1400 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 BRIAN D INGERSOLL 951 W CALIFORNIA AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 G & S PROPERTIES, LLC PO BOX 9069 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor Lisa Shaffer Chief Administrative Officer PO BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM FAX 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL __________________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council:______________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 26, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Lisa Shaffer ________________________ SUBJECT: Appointment Recommendation: Mark Stephens as the City Engineer STAFF CONTACT: Lisa Shaffer, lisa.shaffer@slcgov.com Jorge Chamorro, jorge.chamorro@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Appointment RECOMMENDATION: Following advice and consent, appoint; Mark Stephens – City Engineer BUDGET IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Brief Biography: Currently, Mark is filling the position of City Engineer, in an acting capacity, demonstrating the competence and set of skills needed to successfully carry his job duties. Mark is a Professional Engineer with over 18 years of combined experience in municipal and private entities, with proven commitment to serve internal and external stakeholders at the highest quality level. We are delighted to include Mark’s resume for your consent to install him as the City Engineer. ATTACHMENTS: A. Mark Stephens’ Resume B. Mark Stephens Professional Engineer Active License 9/1/2022 9/1/2022 Lisa Shaffer (Sep 1, 2022 11:26 PDT) X Item F1 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: Allison Rowland Budget and Policy Analyst DATE:September 20, 2022 RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND TO KAHVE CAFE, AT 57 SOUTH 600 EAST MOTION 1 – ADOPT ORDINANCE I move that the Council adopt the ordinance approving a $50,000 loan for Kahve Cafe, from the Economic Development Loan Fund. MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT I move that the Council not adopt the ordinance, and to proceed to the next agenda item. DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ERIN MENDENHALL MAYOR LORENA RIFFO-JENSON INTERIM DIRECTOR CITYCOUNCIL TRANSMITTAL _______________________ Date Received: ___________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________ __________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 9, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Interim Director, Department of Economic Development Lorena.riffojenson@slcgov.com SUBJECT: Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund (EDLF) – Kahve Cafe STAFF CONTACTS: Roberta Reichgelt, Business Development Director, Roberta.reichgelt@slcgov.com William Wright, Project Manager, William.wright@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Loan Approval RECOMMENDATION: The EDLF Loan Committee recommends approval of a $50,000 loan to Khave Cafe. BUDGET IMPACT: $50,000 from the Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On August 4, 2022, a loan request from Kahve Cafe was presented to the EDLF Loan Committee for review and discussion. Kahve Cafe is a Turkish style café and wholesaler of baklavas and Mediterranean dips. Basic Loan request Business Name: Kahve Cafe Address: 57 S 600 E Loan Amount Requested: $50,000 Loan Term: 7 years Interest Rate: 7.25% Use of Funds: Working Capital, Staffing Loan Type: Start-up Department of Economic Development staff recommend approval of Kahve Cafe’s request for a $50,000 loan. Applicants of The Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) Program go through a thorough application process consisting of a pre-screening, underwriting analysis, and economic impact 8/11/2022 8/11/2022 Lisa Shaffer (Aug 11, 2022 07:27 MDT) statement. Only after the loan applicant goes through these processes is the loan recommended to be reviewed by the Loan Committee members. Upon thorough review by the Loan Committee members, a recommendation is made before the loan request is transmitted by the Mayor for Council to receive the recommendation for final approval. Because the Loan Committee review process must adhere to the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act, DED’s staff has worked closely with the City Attorney’s Office to ensure that applicants’ information is protected and at the same time a public and transparent process is followed. EDLF loans must meet the goals of the Economic Development Loan Fund as stated in the EDLF program guidelines. This loan meets the EDLF program guidelines in the following areas: Increase employment opportunities Stimulate business development and expansion Encourage private investment Promote economic development Enhance neighborhood vitality Boost commercial enterprise This loan will assist in the creation of 6 new jobs in the next year and retention of 6 current jobs. DED staff brings these loans to the EDLF Committee to provide a recommendation. This loan was recommended by the EDLF Committee to the City Council for approval. EDLF Loan Balances 1. As reported from The Finance Department on June 30, 2022, the EDLF cash balance is: $9,173,985 2. The outstanding loan balance for the EDLF fund as of July 22, 2022: $3,201,344.94 EDLF Loan Committee There is a total of nine (9) EDLF Committee members. City Employees: Community and Neighborhood Finance Mayor’s Office Employee at Large Housing Stability Economic Development Community Volunteers: Business Advisory Board (BAB) member Banker Community Lender Business Mentor Attachments: Terms Sheet and Ordinance LOAN TERM SHEET Applicant: Kahve Cafe, LLC Address: 57 S 600 E Proposed Loan Terms Loan Amount: $50,000 Loan Terms: 7 Years Interest Rate Calculation: Prime Interest Rate: 3.25% (at time of application) EDLF Charge: 8% Less Discount: 4% Woman Owned Final Interest Rate: 7.25% Use of Funds: Working Capital, Staffing, Payroll Business Type: Start-up Collateral and Guarantees: Real Estate, Vehicles, Equipment, Inventory Personal Guarantees: Elif Ekin Conditions for Closing: Obtain all City approvals, execute all loan documents as deemed necessary by City legal counsel and DED staff, such other terms as recommended by City legal counsel and DED staff SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2022 (Ordinance approving a $50,000 loan for Kahve Café, LLC from the Economic Development Loan Fund) WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation’s (“City”) Economic Development Loan Fund (“EDLF) is a program to stimulate local business development, encourage private investment, enhance neighborhood vitality, and boost commercial enterprise in Salt Lake City. WHEREAS, the EDLF is administered by the Department of Economic Development (“DED”); loan applications are first prescreened by DED staff, and then reviewed by the EDLF Loan Committee. WHEREAS, the EDLF Loan Committee and DED staff recommend the approval of the attached loan term sheet for a $50,000 loan to Kahve Café, LLC, a limited liability company and a local business located at 57 South 600 East, Salt Lake City, Utah. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, that: SECTION 1. Loan Approval. The City Council approves the loan outlined in the Term Sheet attached hereto, subject to revisions that do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City hereunder. The City Council authorizes the Mayor to negotiate and execute the loan agreement and any other relevant documents consistent with the Term Sheet, and incorporating such other terms and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of _____________________, 2022. Dan Dugan, Council Chair ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2022. Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: Sara Montoya, City Attorney August 9, 2022 Item F2 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: Executive Director DATE: September 20, 2022 RE: RESOLUTION: Sustainability holding account, Community Food Assessment MOTION 1 (adopt); Please also look to MOTION 1A I move the Council adopt a resolution approving the satisfaction of the conditions on the $125,000 in the Department of Sustainability’s budget so that it may be used to conduct a proposed Community Food Assessment, with the following legislative intents. The legislative intents are not conditions of the funds being released. 1. The department reports to the Council on collaboration opportunities with other entities doing or charged with doing food security or food equity work, such as the Utah State University Extension Service; and 2. The department works actively with those entities to determine and report whether future data gathering, analysis, benchmarking and other outcomes and guideposts of projects like the Community Food Assessment could instead be performed by entities other than the City in order to both continue to build on the foundation that the City has established and relieve the City taxpayers of funding what is currently a regionally beneficial service. MOTION 1A (adopt) Potential additional motion, based on Council comments during work session: I move that the Council express its intent to review the findings of the Sustainability Department on the potential for collaboration with other governmental entities, prior to the Council voting to fund additional food security staffing and projects in the City General Fund Budget, with an eye toward future reliance on the levels of government that are officially charged with and funded to accomplish food-security and food equity work. The Council encourages the Administration to proactively work with the State as the 2022 Legislation and on- going funding framework for food security and food equity is implemented, to increase the likelihood that the State structure: -Will be equipped to provide information, data, analysis and potential strategy support that is relevant and useful locally, as well as State-wide; -Will maximize the effective investment of Federal, State and County tax dollars to directly enhance the ability of organizations to provide food and services to the public in need of those services; -Will incorporate important local issues in the established formal reporting to the State Legislature. -That City taxpayers receive maximum benefit from the Federal, State and County taxes they pay. The Council recognizes that the collaboration will not be successful for Salt Lake City Taxpayers if the provision of localized data is not an established part of the system. MOTION 2 (reject) Do not release $125,000 for the food equity data project and express the intent to formally address the funding in an upcoming budget amendment. RESOLUTION NO. __ OF 2022 (A Resolution Declaring Satisfaction of Budget Contingency for the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Budget Relating to the Department of Sustainability) WHEREAS, on June 14, 2022, the Salt Lake City Council adopted Ordinance No. 32 of 2022, adopting the City budget, excluding the Library Fund, and adopting the employment staffing document, for fiscal year 2022-2023 (the “Budget Ordinance”); and WHEREAS, the Budget Ordinance specified a contingency applying to, among other departments, the Department of Sustainability (the “Department”); and WHEREAS, the budget contingency related to the Department’s fiscal year 2022-2023 budget specified that the Department must provide certain information to City Council and comply with Resolution 14 of 2020 in adopting any policy document or multi-year funding plan, when relevant (the “Budget Contingency”); and WHEREAS, the City desires to support a local food system in Salt Lake City that facilitates equitable access to healthy, affordable, and culturally relevant food for all residents, improves public health, creates economic opportunity, and fosters a culture of inclusivity and belonging; and WHEREAS, the Department seeks to engage a consultant to complete a community food assessment (“Community Food Assessment”) to increase the City’s understanding of the current state of the Salt Lake City local and regional food system; help inform future food projects, programs, and plans; build a more robust community food system network; and raise public awareness about local food equity, resilience, and sustainability issues; and WHEREAS, the Department has provided to City Council the information requested to satisfy the Budget Contingency. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. The City Council has determined the Department has met the Budget Contingency and hereby declares the Budget Contingency is satisfied with respect to the funding allocated in the Budget Ordinance for the Community Food Assessment. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of ___________________, 2022. 2 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: ______________________________ Dan Dugan, Chair, Salt Lake City Council Attest: ___________________________ City Recorder Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved as to Form: ___________________________ Senior City Attorney Date: September 12, 2022 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:September 13, 2022 RE: RESOLUTION: ADOPTING BALLPARK STATION AREA PLAN ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will consider adoption of the Administration’s updated version of the Ballpark Station Area Plan. The updated draft Plan is designed to create a safe and welcoming neighborhood, capitalizing on existing assets to guide development and redevelopment, and ensuring the neighborhood remains the home of baseball in Utah. It focuses on the area between 900 South and 1700 South, and between State Street and the I-15 freeway, specifically the vicinity of Smith’s Ballpark and the Ballpark TRAX Station. The proposed Plan recommends specific infrastructure improvements in the area to create a “heart of the neighborhood,” facilitate transit connections, and support “livability” and growth in residential, office, restaurant, and retail properties. The draft Plan is premised in large part on continued use of the City-owned Ballpark facility by a privately- owned sports franchise. The Council and Administration have emphasized the importance of this private franchise continuing to operate in the City as a centerpiece to future planning and investment, and to the neighborhood as a whole. Six “Big Moves” are recommended in the proposed Plan: -Create and apply a Ballpark neighborhood specific Transit Supportive Zone; -Reconfigure the Ballpark TRAX station; -Improve 1300 South for pedestrians; -Create a sense of place at and around the Ballpark; -Repurpose parking lots and underutilized properties to add activity to the Heart of the Neighborhood; -Invest in community amenities and green space to balance density with livability factors. The Administration provides more detail on these “Big Moves” in their transmittal, along with information on their public process, a chronology of their work, the draft Plan itself, and the public comments that were received by the date of the transmittal. Item Schedule: Briefing: September 13, 2022 Set Date: September 20 Public Hearing: October 4 Potential Action: TBD Page | 2 2 1 7 4 8 In July, the Council received a mid-process check-in briefing on the progress of the new Ballpark Station Area Plan, which the Department of Community and Neighborhood Development (CAN) has been working on since October 2020. The Planning Commission considered the draft plan on July 27 and forwarded a unanimous recommendation of approval to the Council, with an added condition that the Administration look at increasing density on Main Street. CAN reports that it changed the document in the following ways since that time as a result of the Planning Commission and public hearings: •Planning staff amended page 12 of the draft Plan to include more direct language on what is needed to create a bike route on 1300 South. This update is located in the implementation plan. •The “raised crosswalk” reference on page 20 of the draft Plan was modified to improve pedestrian crossings and “highlight the pedestrian and calm traffic.” •Planning staff added Jefferson Street to the language of the Future Land Use Map’s Jefferson Park Mixed-Use Area designation. Jefferson street is proposed to have the same building scale as the avenue streets now. •As recommend by the Planning Commission, the Future Land Use Map’s Main Street designation was updated to allow greater density and different building scales along certain sections of Main Street. Goal of the briefing: Receive updates on changes to the draft Ballpark Station Area Plan, and consider adopting an ordinance that adopts the Plan. POLICY QUESTIONS A. The public investments proposed in the draft Ballpark Station Area Plan are substantial. The Council may wish to consider questions related to potential funding and timing of these investments, including the following: 1. In addition to funding this plan, the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) was a member of the “Project Management Team,” along with members of the Utah Transit Authority. Would the Council like to request additional information on the ways these two entities have and will continue to participate in planning efforts? For example, will WFRC and UTA continue to provide technical and financial support in the implementation stages of this plan? 2. The draft plan’s section on case studies from other cities concludes that, “While a ballpark can help spur initial development and investment in an area, development or redevelopment efforts will often require additional supportive policies, financing, programs, and initiatives in order to truly maximize the investment in the Ballpark itself.” Would the Council like to request more details on how the Administration would ensure these additional resources are available? 3. The draft plan indicates that residents of the Ballpark Station Area are disproportionately white compared to other areas of the City, but their socio-economic profile is notably disadvantaged compared to the broader City and County. For example, the home ownership rate is 15% compared to 43% for the City as a whole. Median Household Income is just over $26,000 for the Ballpark Station Area, versus nearly three times that ($76,000) County-wide. Given the interest in equitable distribution of City funds, the Council may wish to ask the Administration how it views investments in this area compared to other neighborhoods in the City that have not received a proportionate share of public investment in the past. Page | 3 2 1 7 4 8 B. The Ballpark itself has long been an RDA project area, albeit a “non-collection” area (meaning no tax increment is collected within those boundaries, and property taxes are collected and accrue to the general fund in the same way as in the rest of the City). Would the Council like to inquire about whether the Administration envisions a change to this status, and what that might entail? C. The plan refers to a potential branch of the Salt Lake City Library system in the general Ballpark area. The FY23 adopted budget for the City Library includes a tax increase in part to pay for staffing and operations of a very small “storefront” type library, but not a full branch. The Council may wish to ask the Administration how they are coordinating with the Library Board (the policy-making body for the Library system) to ensure consistency in future budget and staffing proposals. D. Some of the public comments on the draft plan ask why it does not include the area from 1700 South to the I-80 freeway. Would the Council like to ask the Administration’s view on the advantages and disadvantages of focusing this plan only on the immediate area around the Ballpark TRAX stop and stadium? E. The draft plan mentions the potential of “Implement[ing] a district-parking strategy that utilizes unused area parking and parking garages for game days to minimize the need for parking fields in the area.” Would the Council like to ask for more information on this approach, and how it would work in practice? Are there examples to point to? F. The draft plan refers to several recent or ongoing City studies and policies that are issues of special Council interest, including housing affordability and involuntary displacement, transit, and public green spaces. Would the Council like to ask the Administration how coordination among departments and divisions is being handled to ensure that all parties have access to the most up-to-date information, and that new findings and policies are built into this plan? Erin Mendenhall Mayor DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 145460, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5460 WWW.SLC.GOV 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: PLNPCM2022-00323 – Ballpark Station Area Plan STAFF CONTACT: Nannette Larsen, Senior Planner, nannette.larsen@slcgov.com 801-535-7645 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the Ballpark Station Area Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Ballpark Station Area Plan is intended to capitalize on the community assets and set a framework to help guide growth related issues and pressures and to keep the neighborhood as the home of baseball in Utah. The Station Area Plan will provide guidance on how the community grows and changes, with a focus on creating a safe and welcoming neighborhood. As demand for redevelopment in the neighborhood has grown so too has the need for a small area plan specific to the Ballpark Neighborhood. The Ballpark Station Area Plan will encompass the area that runs roughly between 900 South to 1700 South, and State Street to I-15. The small area plan’s boundaries are within both the Central Community Master Plan and the Downtown Master Plan. 8/15/2022 8/15/2022 The Ballpark Station Area Plan draft recommends “Big Moves” that will help transform the Ballpark Neighborhood and guide growth in the area. These goals include: •Create and apply a Ballpark neighborhood specific Transit Supportive Zone. •Reconfigure the Ballpark TRAX station • Improve 1300 South for pedestrians • Create a sense of place at and around the Ballpark •Repurpose parking lots and underutilized properties to add activity to the Heart of the Neighborhood •Invest in community amenities and green space to balance density with livability factors. The small area plan would establish goals and strategies to enhance the livability of the area. The goals here are broad in nature and direct future development in the community. The strategies, scaled toward application, describe ways to implement the larger picture goal. Actions describe specific ways to implement the goal as development or redevelopment occur over a longer time frame. The key strategies describe strategies to improve the ballpark station community and projects that would directly affect the community to bring about a positive change. The key strategies would focus on connectivity, a safer bike and pedestrian network, parking needs in the community, alleyway safety, greenspace in the community, providing housing options and mitigate displacement, and improving safety and security in the community. Included within the Ballpark Station Area Plan is also a proposed Future Land Use Map. This proposed future land use map and accompanying land use designation describe the appropriate development pattern of the area where density, building height, land use, emphasized transportation modes, and catalyst areas are attributes. The zoning map will be amended at a future date following the adoption of this plan to better conform to needs in the neighborhood and meet the land use designations recommended in the Future Land Use Map. PUBLIC PROCESS: The Salt Lake City’s Transportation Division received a Transportation and Land Use Connection grant from the Wasatch Front Regional Council, this Transportation and Land Use Connection grant allowed for the creation of the plan starting in December 2020. A consultant was chosen, GSBS, who worked closely with City Staff and spent 9-months identifying goals and meeting with community members and stakeholders. During this time numerous presentations to the community were made during the initial phase of the project. An online survey was available to inform the creation of the plan. This survey was published in March 2020 and notices of this survey were sent to the entire ballpark community. As the draft Image 1: vicinity map of the Ballpark Station Area Plan plan was formed a steering committee, comprising of members of the Ballpark Community was established. The steering committee met throughout 2021 to discuss and make recommendations. Towards the end of November 2021, a draft of the proposed plan was finalized, and City Staff began the official public notification process. A project webpage was created with information on the draft plan and guidance on how to leave comments, City Staff also attended multiple Community Council hearings to answer questions and solicit comments. Several public comments have been received and are included in Exhibit 5. The Planning Commission met to review the small area plan first through a work session on June 8th, the Commission met again July 27th, 2022 for a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Ballpark Station Area Plan. Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous recommendation of approval to City Council with an added condition that Staff look at increasing density on Main Street. Prior to this meeting the final draft, with additional modifications, was posted to the project webpage. Notification of the public hearing was sent through listserv to all those who signed up for updates on the project webpage. Modifications have been made to the draft Ballpark Plan in response to public comments received in throughout 2022 and during both the Planning Commission’s work session and public hearing meetings. Planning Commission (PC) Records a)PC Agenda for June 8, 2022 (Click to Access) b)PC Minutes for June 8, 2022 (Click to Access) c)PC Memo for June 8, 2022 (Click to Access) d)PC Agenda for July 27, 2022 (Click to Access) e)PC Minutes for July 27, 2022 will be Published August 11, 2022 (Click to Access Meeting Information Webpage) f)PC Staff Report for July 27, 2022 (Click to Access) EXHIBITS: 1)Chronology 2)City Council Public Hearing Notice 3)Petition Initiation Memo 4)Ballpark Station Area Plan Draft 5)Ordinance 6)Public Comments Received 1. CHRONOLOGY Ballpark Station Area Plan Project Chronology PLNPCM2022-00323 December, 2020 Consultant and City Staff identify goals and meet with community members and stakeholders. December, 2020 Consultant team’s presentation to the Ballpark Community Council February, 2021 Consultant distributed to every address within the project area a post card with information on the Ballpark project and an accompanying survey February 4, 2021 Steering Committee met to discuss goals, case studies, neighborhood needs, and draft plan. March, 2020 Month long, bilingual, online Ballpark survey conducted. Over 530 responses received. March, 2020 Consultant published online the Ballpark Station Area plan information and interactive map. March 11, 2021 Steering committee met to discuss plan. March 20, 2021 A community event was held through Zoom by the consultant team. April 8, 2021 Steering Committee met to discuss plan. May 13, 2021 Steering Committee met to discuss plan. May 22, 2021 Second community even held at Smith’s Ballpark and Watchtower Coffee and Comics by consultant team. November 23, 2021 Public comment received through email. Regarding zoning, future land use map. November 24, 2021 Salt Lake City’s Ballpark Station Area Plan webpage published. November 24, 2021 Open House posted online with information regarding the small area plan November 24, 2021 Public comment received through email. Regarding bike lanes. November 24, 2021 Ballpark, Central 9th, and Liberty Wells Community Councils officially notified of the small area plan. November 29, 2021 Public comment received through email. Regarding future land use map updates. November 29, 2021 Public comment received through email. Regarding character areas, future land use map. December 2, 2021 Public comment received through email. Regarding proposed density and main street. December 6, 2021 Public comment received through email. Regarding historic character of neighborhood. December 6, 2021 Ballpark, Central 9th, and Liberty Wells met on the Ballpark Plan. GSBS presents the draft plan, public comments recorded. December 7, 2021 Public comment received through email. Regarding concerns over building heights, housing, crime, traffic, and parking. December 9, 2021 Public comment received through email. Regarding zoning updates and extension of the South Street Overlay District. December 20, 2021 Public comment received through email. Regarding additional density and activation of neighborhood. December 31, 2021 Public comment received through email. Regarding lighting, walkability, and concern over 1300 S. December 31, 2021 Public comment received through email. Regarding walkability, vacant parking lots, mid-block walkways, viewsheds and building heights, and sidewalks. February 4, 2022 Public comment received through email. Regarding the festival street, truly active ground floor uses, and parking. February 16, 2022 1st Modifications sent to consultant April 5, 2022 Public comment received through email. Regarding South State Street Corridor Overlay District. April 8, 2022 Ballpark Plan briefing transmitted to City Council. April 12, 2022 1st Completed modifications received from consultant. May 5, 2022 Planning staff attended Ballpark Community Council to review draft plan modifications and next steps. May 26, 2022 Public comment received through email. Regarding future land use map and South Jefferson Street. June 8, 2022 Planning Commission work session held to review and discuss draft plan. July 20, 2022 2nd Modifications made to draft plan. July 12, 2022 City Council mid-point briefing and discussion. July 12, 2022 Public comment received from Ballpark Community Council Chair. Regarding visual accessibility of the plan. July 13, 2022 July 27th Planning Commission agenda emailed to those who signed up for email updates on the project webpage. July 21, 2022 Ballpark Community Council response to the draft plan received. July 22, 2022 Planning Commission staff report published online. July 27, 2022 Public comment received through email. Regarding scope and size of the plan. July 27, 2022 Public comment received through email. Regarding future land use map. July 27, 2022 Planning Commission public hearing. 2. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2022-00323 – Ballpark Station Area Plan – A request by Mayor Erin Mendenhall to create a station area plan in the Ballpark Neighborhood. The Ballpark’s Station Area Plan is intended to capitalize on the community assets and set a framework to help guide growth related issues and pressures and to keep the neighborhood as the home of baseball in Utah. The Ballpark Station Area Plan will encompass the area that runs roughly between 900 South to 1700 South, and State Street to I-15. The small area plan's boundaries are within both the Central Community and the Downtown Master Plans. Information on the proposal can found on the City’s webpage for the proposal at the following link: https://www.slc.gov/planning/master-plans/ballparkplan/ As part of their review, 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: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Nannette Larsen at 801-535-7645 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at nannette.larsen@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/ , by selecting the “Planning” tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2022-00323. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. (P 19-19) 3. PETITION INITIATION MEMO SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLC.GOV PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-535-7757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Erin Mendenhall Cc: Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer; Blake Thomas, Department of Community and Neighborhoods Director; Michaela Oktay, Deputy Planning Director From: Nick Norris, Planning Director Date: October 27, 2021 Re: Initiating a petition to adopt the Ballpark Station Area Plan and associate zoning changes recommended by the plan.. The Planning Division would like to request that that a petition be initiated to adopt the Ballpark Station Area Plan and zoning changes recommended in the plan. Initiating the petition will start the adoption process for the station area plan, which has been drafted by a consultant and created through a partnership with the stakeholders in the community. Creating the Ballpark Station Area Plan has included public engagement and participation managed through a Transportation/Land Use Connection Grant awarded to the City from the Wasatch Front Regional Council. The adoption process will provide an opportunity to ensure that the community and stakeholders support the proposed plan during a 45-day engagement period with the local recognized organizations, a briefing and public hearing with the Planning Commission and a transmittal to the City Council for adoption. It is not anticipated that significant changes will be made to the proposed plan. During this 45-day period the Planning Division and Ballpark Station Area Plan team will verify support for the zoning changes recommend by the plan. The proposed zoning changes recommend by the plan will also go through a public review period. That process is anticipated to start after the level of support for the proposed plan can be determined. Ideally the proposed zoning changes will mostly consist of zoning map changes utilizing existing zoning districts. However, the Planning Division will be prepared to potentially make minor changes to the existing zoning districts to address known issues with the zoning district, which may include vague standards, missing standards necessary to fulfill the purpose of the zoning district, and to ensure that the district(s) are consistent with adopted city policies and plans found in citywide planning documents. It is anticipated that this project will be processed by the “Growth” team in the Planning Division. This memo includes a signature block to initiate the petition if that is the decided course of action. If the decided course of action is to not initiate the application, the signature block can remain blank. Please notify the Planning Division when the memo is signed or if the decision is made to not initiate the petition. Please contact me at ext. 6173 or nick.norris@slcgov.com if you have any questions. Thank you. Concurrence to initiate the zoning text amendment petition as noted above. l Page 2 _____________________________________ ______________ Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Date October 28, 2021 4. BALLPARK STATION AREA PLAN DRAFT Prepared by Salt Lake City in partnership with Wasatch Front Regional Council and the Utah Transit Authority ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS STEERING COMMITTEE Amy Hawkins, Resident, Ballpark Community Council Bryan Kinneburg, Salt Lake Bees Ciara Combs, Resident Dave Morris, Business Owner, Piper Down Pub Dennis Faris, Volunteers of America Jennifer Luft, Resident Jonathan Foulk, Utah Pride Center Marc Amicone, Salt Lake Bees Maurice “Mo” Smith, Urban Indian Center Mike Tuiasoa, Business Owner, Watchtower Coffee & Comics Paul Johnson, Resident, Central 9th Community Council Rob Dutton, Business Owner, Lucky 13 Bar & Grill Robert Loftus, Resident Ryan O’Mahoney, Resident Sach Combs, Resident Shelley Bodily, Resident Terrell Bodily, Resident, Ballpark Community Council TECHNICAL TEAM Susan Lundmark, Project Manager, Salt Lake City Transportation Division * Megan Townsend, Wasatch Front Regional Council * Jordan Swain, Utah Transit Authority, Real Estate and TOD * Kevin Leo, former UTA Real Estate and TOD * Jeff Gulden, Salt Lake City Transportation Division John Anderson, Salt Lake City Planning Division Sean Fyfe, Salt Lake City Engineering Division Corey Rushton, Salt Lake City Public Services Department Corinne Piazza, Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency Julianne Sabula, Salt Lake City Transportation Division Jennifer Schumann, Salt Lake City Housing Stability Division Tony Milner, Salt Lake City Housing Stability Division Dillon Hase, Salt Lake City Housing Stability Division Paul Drake, UTA Real Estate and TOD Laura Hanson, former UTA Director of Planning Manjeet Ranu, former UTA Director of Capital Projects Eric Callison, UTA Manager of Service Planning Kayla Kinkead, UTA Strategic Planning Lauren Victor, Wasatch Front Regional Council * Project Management Team CONSULTING TEAM Christine C. Richman, AICP, GSBS Consulting Annaka Egan, AICP, GSBS Consulting Jason Claunch, Catalyst Commercial Reid Cleeter, Catalyst Commercial Jacob Farnsworth, P.E., RSP1 , Kimley-Horn Steven Chester, AICP, Kimley-Horn TABLE OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 The Station Area, Ballpark Community Council and Heart of the Neighborhood Boundaries .....1 Figure 1.2: Building Age Map ...............................................................................................................................................2 Figure 2.1: Aerial View of “Heart of the Neighborhood” Concept .....................................................................6 Figure 2.2: East Side Platform Access - North Concept ........................................................................................7 Figure 2.3: West Side Platform Access - North Concept ......................................................................................8 Figure 2.4: 1300 South Improved Pedestrian Realm ...............................................................................................9 Figure 2.5: Festival Street Concept ................................................................................................................................10 Figure 2.6: Ballpark Character Areas..............................................................................................................................13 Figure 2.7: Connectivity Map .............................................................................................................................................14 Figure 2.8: Connectivity Map-Regional Context .....................................................................................................16 Figure 2.9: Future Land Use Map .....................................................................................................................................17 Figure 2.10: Existing 1300 South Street Section for the Heart of the Neighborhood .......................................20 Figure 2.11: Proposed 1300 South Street Section for the Heart of the Neighborhood ......................................20 Figure 2.12: Ten “Big Ideas” for the Future of Green Space In SLC .................................................................23 Figure 2.13: Community Services and Non-Profit Organizations Map .........................................................24 Figure 3.1: Ballpark Regional Context Map ................................................................................................................26 Figure 3.2: Catalytic Project: Connecting Central Ninth to Ballpark .............................................................28 Figure 3.3: State Street Project Area Map .................................................................................................................29 Figure 3.4: Sidewalk and Transit Map .............................................................................................................................31 Figure 3.5: Information Page on the Project Website and Interactive Map ...............................................39 Figure 3.6: Project Post Card ...........................................................................................................................................40 Figure 3.7: Survey Results Showing What the Ballpark Community Likes in their Neighborhood .............................................................................................41 TABLE OF TABLES Table 1.1: Household Demographics for the Ballpark Station Area and Surrounding Region ..............3 Table 1.2: 2019 Estimated Annual Income for the Ballpark Station Area .......................................................3 Table 3.1: Race and Ethnicity in the Ballpark Station Area and Salt Lake City ..........................................27 Table 3.2: Ownership and Rentership Rates in the Ballpark Station Area and Surrounding Region ...................................................................27 Table 3.3: Income in the Ballpark Station Area and Surrounding Region ...................................................27 Table 3.4: Summary of Ballpark Case Studies .........................................................................................................33 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................i 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................1 2. The Plan ....................................................................................................................................................................................5 3. Community Exploration & Analysis .......................................................................................................................25 4. Implementation Plan .......................................................................................................................................................43 Appendix A. Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................................................................48 B. Highest & Best Analysis ........................................................................................................................................XX C. Transportation Analysis ........................................................................................................................................XX D. Moderate Income Housing Plan ........................................................................................................................XX E. Case Study Analysis ................................................................................................................................................XX F. Community Engagement Materials .................................................................................................................XX EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Salt Lake City’s Ballpark Neighborhood is home to several community assets including the Smith’s Ballpark, home to the Los Angeles Angels AAA ballclub – the Salt Lake Bees, the Ballpark light rail station, several social service agencies, and the nearby Salt Lake Community College downtown campus. Throughout its history, the neighborhood has been home to the Ballpark at the corner of Main Street and 1300 South. Baseball has been a cornerstone for this area for more than 100 years. In 1993, Salt Lake City partnered with Salt Lake County and private entities to construct a new field and ballpark stadium to replace the structure that was originally built in 1915 and reconstructed in 1947 after a fire. The 1993 rebuild provided a state-of-the-art minor league stadium. A refresh and update of the stadium to current standards is now required. The Ballpark Neighborhood is adjacent to downtown, diverse, and growing. The area, which until recent years, was characterized by older, affordable single-family neighborhoods, light industrial uses, and big box stores is experiencing considerable development pressure. The pressure is expected to increase as Salt Lake City’s population and employment base continue to grow. The neighborhood includes several major transportation, transit, and emerging trail corridors that connect the area to downtown, the rest of the city, and the region. The area benefits from proximity to downtown. Because of development pressure and the presence of regionally significant transportation infrastructure, Salt Lake City’s Transportation Division sought and received a Transportation and Land Use Connection grant from the Wasatch Front Regional Council in partnership with Utah Transit Authority, to complete this station area plan. The planning area, referred to throughout the plan as the “Station Area,” is between 900 South and 1700 South and State Street and I-15. The purpose of the plan is to explore options to further integrate the Ballpark with the neighborhood, evaluate the transportation network and identify opportunities to improve transportation choices for the community, and take advantage of existing amenities and current development pressure to position the neighborhood for the future. Improved transportation choices include improved bus operations and circulation at and near the Ballpark TRAX station. The plan also recommends improved pedestrian and bicycle connections near the TRAX station, the Ballpark, and throughout the surrounding neighborhood to further improve the transportation network, better integrate the Ballpark and station into the neighborhood, and enhance livability as new development occurs. Plan goals, strategies and recommended actions were identified through a nine-month process that began in December 2020 with the launch of a website and interactive map in English and Spanish to generate input and ideas from the neighborhood and other stakeholders. Community engagement was ongoing throughout the planning process and included in-person, small group, and stakeholder meetings. The process also included the following studies: • Existing conditions analysis • Highest & best use analysis • Case study analysis The planning team and steering committee identified several key areas of focus for the plan. GROWTH & TRANSFORMATION New residential development in the Station Area has increased significantly and is occurring throughout the area. Former industrial, commercial, or low-density residential parcels are quickly becoming mid- to high-density residential developments. This new development has increased the density of the area and added hundreds of new housing units without adding additional services and amenities to the neighborhood. This is particularly pronounced west of the TRAX line where previous land uses – light industrial, flex uses, and big box retail did not attract investment in sidewalks, trails, or neighborhood level retail and services. This is also true along 1300 South where auto-oriented uses are transitioning to higher density uses to take advantage of the TRAX station and easy connections to West Temple and major arterials. These areas are difficult to navigate without a car and provide little pedestrian-level interest or comfort. This creates a disconnection between the existing neighborhood and new development. CONNECTIVITY & PEDESTRIAN/BIKING ENVIRONMENT The neighborhood has significant transportation infrastructure – a TRAX stop, two I-15 offramps (1300 South and 900 South), and several major and minor arterials. There are also offramps directly to the north and south of the project area on 2100 South and 600 South. These same transportation facilities create a challenging active transportation environment. The quickly redeveloping area west of the TRAX lines has limited access across the TRAX line to access the station, neighborhood amenities and services east of the rail line. PARKS, GREENSPACE & COMMUNITY FACILITIES Salt Lake City Public Services launched Reimagine Nature SLC Public Lands Master Plan process in April 2019 with the publication of the Salt Lake City Public Lands Needs Assessment. The assessment evaluated the level of parks, open space, and trails service in each of the city’s planning areas. The Station Area is in the Central City planning area. According to the 2019 assessment, Central City’s level of service is 2.8 park acres per 1,000 population, as compared to a city-wide level of service of 3.5 city-owned and managed park acres per 1,000 population. Much of the Station Area is identified as a High Need area according to the Needs Assessment. This means that additional park acres are needed in the neighborhood to serve current and future residents and visitors. The need for community amenities including parks, open space, and other community facilities such as a library or community center was identified during the community engagement process. The community also identified a lack of service and proper maintenance in current parks, such as missing trash receptacles and benches. They indicated that expanding park amenities and maintenance is a priority for creating clean and welcoming green spaces in the neighborhood. SAFETY & SECURITY Although addressing policing and safety is not part of the scope of this plan, the success of many of the recommendations in this plan depend on perceived and actual safety of pedestrian and bicycle connections, public open space and plazas, and community events and activities. Many of the recommendations to improve connectivity and pedestrian and biking safety can also improve overall perceived and actual safety in the Station Area through improved streetscapes and placemaking. The plan recommends goals and strategies to address the key areas identified in the planning process. The recommendations are summarized as six Big Moves. • Create and apply a Ballpark Station Area Transit Station Area zone in the area identified as the “Heart of the Neighborhood” • Reconfigure the Ballpark TRAX Station to improve access from the west • Improve 1300 South for pedestrians by creating new crossing and expanding and upgrading the pedestrian realm • Create a sense of place at and around the stadium • Repurpose parking lots and underutilized properties to add activity to the Heart of the Neighborhood • Invest in community amenities and green space to balance density with livability factors The plan identifies several tools to implement the recommendations. These tools include zoning changes and infrastructure and amenity investments. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYi ii View of the Smith’s Ballpark / Google Maps EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION This plan focuses on the Ballpark Station Area, defined as the area between 900 South and 1700 South and State Street and I-15. The Station Area is part of the Ballpark Community Council area, and part of Salt Lake’s Central City planning area. Figure 1.1 is a map of the Station Area within the Ballpark Community Council. In addition, the plan identifies opportunities and recommendations for the area immediately around the station and stadium. This is an area identified by the community as the “Heart of the Neighborhood” and is a ¼ mile radius around the Ballpark TRAX Station. BALLPARK AREA 1 I-80 I-15 I-15 I-80 Salt Lake City, UTSalt Lake City, UT Ballpark Regional Extent 0 10.5 Miles ballpark station 900 S 1700 S ST A T E S T 1300 S 2100 S I-80 I-15 I-15 I-80 Salt Lake City, UTSalt Lake City, UT Ballpark Regional Extent 0 10.5 Miles ballpark station 900 S 1700 S S T A T E S T 1300 S 2100 S Heart of the Neighborhood Ballpark Station Area Ballpark Neighborhood Boundary LEGEND FIGURE 1.1: THE STATION AREA, BALLPARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL AND HEART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES 0 600 1,200300Feet I-15 T E E R T S E TAT S 900 SOUTH 1700 SOUTH I-15 Legend Building Age Null pre 1950 1951-1960 1961-1970 1970-1980 1981-present FIGURE 1.2: BUILDING AGE MAP INTRODUCTION 2 The neighborhood is characterized by older buildings – both residential and commercial structures built before 1970 – and is unique in its composition of small businesses and residents of all backgrounds. Nearly 77 percent of structures in the Station Area are 50 years or older at the time of this plan. Figure 1.2, illustrates the age and lot size for the Station Area. Older structures – pink, yellow, and light green – are generally on small lots. Newer structures – medium and darker green – are on larger lots, generally consolidated from original small lots or on former rail-served industrial properties. In the single-family residential areas, the homes open onto the street and include front yards and stoops. In the 300 West area, newer commercial structures are primarily big box retail stores with large parking lots. Some of the newer development in the Station Area include higher density residential and office uses. This transition to higher density housing and office is expected to continue. INTRODUCTION 3 The Station Area has a higher rate of renter occupied units than Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County and the State of Utah, Table 1.1. The Station Area has, historically, been one of the more affordable neighborhoods in the city. As a result, current households reflect diverse backgrounds and a range of incomes. The median income for the Station Area is significantly lower than median income for the city and surrounding region as seen in Table 1.2. Continued affordability in the neighborhood is a challenge as new development occurs in this rapidly transitioning area. photo credit / caption Ballpark station Area Salt Lake City Salt Lake County Utah Total Households 1,854 82,259 397,918 1,050,542 Owner Households 15.3%41.3%61.8%63.1% Renter Households 78.6%51.7%33.2%27.0% Vacant Households 6.1%7.0%5.0%9.9% Families*768 41,258 277,473 781,973 Household Size 2.20 2.41 2.99 3.13 Source: ESRI TABLE 1.1: HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS FOR THE BALLPARK STATION AREA AND SURROUNDING REGION Ballpark station Area Salt Lake County Salt Lake MSA*Utah Median Household Income $26,047 $76,410 $76,256 $73,015 Average Household Income $44,498 $99,988 $99,114 $92,612 Per Capita Income $19,992 $33,095 $32,666 $29,227 Source: ESRI *Metropolitan Statistical Area TABLE 1.2: 2019 ESTIMATED ANNUAL INCOME FOR THE BALLPARK STATION AREA *The U.S. Census Bureau defines family is a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together. INTRODUCTION This plan is organized to focus on the recommended goals, strategies, and actions in Section I – The Plan with supporting analysis and information in Section II – Community Exploration & Analysis. Section II includes summaries of the public engagement process and Existing Conditions and Case Study Analyses completed as part of the planning process. Section III – Implementation Plan consolidates all goals, strategies, and actions identified in the plan with implementation time frame. A complete set of survey responses and public comments as well as the complete Existing Conditions, Case Study, and Highest and Best Use analyses, Transportation Analysis and other documents used to complete this plan are found in the Appendix. SECTION I THE PLAN IDENTIFIES: • The Big Moves contemplated in the plan • Goals, Strategies and Actions to implement the plan • A Future Land Use Map for the Station Area • Key Strategies & Projects to: +Improve the pedestrian experience +Address transit and transportation needs including »Connectivity »Transit »Parking strategy +Safety and security including »Street and pedestrian-level lighting »Building design »Landscape design +Enhancing neighborhood greenspace +Maximizing housing opportunity and mitigating displacement SECTION II COMMUNITY EXPLORATION AND ANALYSIS INCLUDES: • Overview of the planning process • Study area demographics • Summary of existing conditions including +Prior planning efforts +Connectivity and the pedestrian and biking environment • Summary of Station Area Case Studies including +Ballparks studied +Key Takeaways • Summary of public engagement SECTION III IMPLEMENTATION PLAN • Appendix +Existing Conditions +Highest and Best Analysis +Transportation Analysis +Moderate Income Housing Plan +Case Study Analysis +Community Engagement Materials 4 People’s Freeway Park / Google Maps 5 THE PLAN The Ballpark neighborhood is the home of the Salt Lake Bees, the Los Angeles Angels AAA club. The Bees and their home field are a community-wide asset that attracts visitors from throughout the state to attend annual home games. The Ballpark and neighborhood are supported by the Ballpark TRAX Station, and a regional transportation system. The area directly around the Ballpark includes, a plaza at the corner of 1300 South and West Temple, Fire Station 8, and parking fields on Salt Lake City-, and privately-owned lots on and around 1300 South and Main Street. The Plan recommends additional investment in the immediate Ballpark area and supporting infrastructure to create a “Heart of the Neighborhood,” increase livability factors, and support continued growth in residential, office, restaurant, and retail uses. The neighborhood is in transition from a downtown “support” neighborhood, providing housing and services outside of the core, to a more distinct urban center. The area has undergone several transformations in its history and the latest has the potential to be the most dramatic yet.. Recent development projects have added new multi- family housing in the area with densities ranging from 15 units to 60 units per acre. The neighborhood is expected to continue to play a role in meeting Salt Lake City’s demand for new housing. Preserving neighborhood livability becomes increasingly important as density and development occur. Livability factors identified by the neighborhood during the planning process include access to services and retail, walkability and connectivity, safety and security, and open space and community amenities. This Plan recommends policies, projects, and improvements to: • Accommodate growth, • Expand on current community investments and assets, and • Enhance livability throughout the neighborhood. THE PLAN THE PLAN FIGURE 2.1: AERIAL VIEW OF “HEART OF NEIGHBORHOOD” CONCEPT THE BIG MOVES The plan contemplates several “Big Moves” that will help transform the neighborhood. These include: Create and apply a Ballpark neighborhood specific Transit Supportive Zone to the area around the Ballpark TRAX station along 1300 South from Main Street to 300 West that allows heights up to 8-10 stories with required enhancements to the public realm. Eligible enhancements may include pedestrian street lighting, street trees and public ground level uses such as restaurants or grocery space, retail or services. Figure 2.1 illustrates the opportunity to add density to the Ballpark site as well as the blocks to the north and west of the Ballpark. The concept also illustrates the importance of improvements, such as street lighting and wide sidewalks, to the public realm as density is added to the neighborhood. Current UTA parking lot at the Ballpark TRAX station / GSBS Consulting 6 THE PLAN7 Reconfigure the Ballpark TRAX station from a “suburban” park and ride to an “urban” neighborhood integrated format. This requires a new pedestrian/transit rider connection from the platform to 200 West/Lucy Avenue on the north end of the platform and loading areas on both the east and west side of the rail line allowing for an opportunity to increase passenger access. Figure 2.2 illustrates improved platform connectivity to the west. FIGURE 2.2: EAST SIDE PLATFORM ACCESS - NORTH CONCEPT Current view of west-side access to the TRAX platform / GSBS Consulting THE PLAN Improve 1300 South for pedestrians by creating new pedestrian crossings across 1300 South in addition to expanding and upgrading pedestrian ways to create a safe and comfortable walking environment. Figure 2.3 shows the potential for pedestrian crossings across 1300 South. Figure 2.4 shows improving sidewalks, street furniture, trees. In addition to improving sidewalks and adding pedestrian level lighting, the plan recommends the addition of street furniture, and trees. The concept contemplates the return of buses to 1300 South in accordance with the City’s Transit Master Plan. The plan recommends the 1300 South bus provide service to the Ballpark Station through an “in-line” bus stop. This means that riders making the transfer to or from the bus to TRAX would embark and disembark at stops on 1300 South and then access the platform either directly from the sidewalk for westbound buses or by crossing 1300 South for eastbound buses. Accommodating in-line bus service for riders of all abilities through a pedestrian crossing adjacent to the rail crossing arms likely requires some reconstruction on 1300 South to create a curb-less environment at the crossing. FIGURE 2.3: WEST SIDE PLATFORM ACCESS - SOUTH CONCEPT Current north access to the Ballpark TRAX Station / GSBS Consulting 8 THE PLAN9 Create a sense of place at and around the Ballpark. Create a sense of place through investment in community gathering spaces, streetscapes, and uses that encourage activity and interaction. The Ballpark is surrounded by wide sidewalks and an entry plaza. As any upcoming renovation and upgrades take place, the Ballpark itself could be reconfigured with active uses on the plaza and 1300 South frontage if possible. In addition, the plan recommends extending the opportunity for events on the sidewalk area on the west side of the Ballpark, along West Temple by investing in a “Festival Street” on West Temple from 1300 South to approximately Albermarle Avenue on the south. Figure 2.5 is a detail of the festival street concept. The festival street could be closed for special events, redirecting the traffic around the neighborhood. Such a festival street should embrace the Ballpark’s history though community art, historical interpretive fixtures, and programming. FIGURE 2.4: 1300 SOUTH IMPROVED PEDESTRIAN REALM Current east-facing view of 1300 South / GSBS Consulting THE PLAN FIGURE 2.5: FESTIVAL STREET CONCEPT Repurpose parking lots and underutilized properties to add activity to the Heart of the Neighborhood. Salt Lake City and UTA own large properties on the north side of 1300 South between Main Street and the TRAX line, currently used for surface parking, which are ideally located for redevelopment into dense housing, a community amenity or service, or office space with ground floor activating uses and an improved public realm. Buildings with up to 10 stories will create an urban context for 1300 South adjacent to the TRAX station and ballpark. The 1300 South, Main Street and West Temple street frontages should be activated with uses such as restaurants, bars, coffee shops, and similar uses that build on the success of existing businesses that currently call the neighborhood home. In addition to the City- and UTA- owned lots there are underutilized parcels in the immediate vicinity of the Ballpark and station that are appropriate for higher density development and enhancement of the public realm. The newly identified State Street Project Area , created by the Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City (RDA), has tools to help create the level of investment contemplated for the neighborhood. Invest in community amenities and green space to balance density with livability factors. The Ballpark neighborhood has limited green spaces and community amenities within its boundaries. As the neighborhood grows, additional parks and open spaces are needed to serve both current and future residents and employees in the area. In addition, the neighborhood lacks community spaces for indoor and outdoor community gatherings. The Ballpark plaza and festival street can address the need for outdoor community gatherings, but space for indoor community gatherings is needed. The Station Area is undeserved for community facilities such as a library or community center. As redevelopment occurs in the Heart of the Neighborhood and at the current Public Utilities facility, a location for parks, open space, a library, community center, or combined facility should be identified and pursued. Proposed festival street location on West Temple / GSBS Consulting 10 THE PLAN | GOALS, STRATEGIES & ACTIONS11 GOALS, STRATEGIES & ACTIONS Members of the Ballpark Station Area have participated in several planning projects over the last several years that included neighborhood-wide conversations about goals for the future of the area. The goals and ideas identified in the prior planning processes were confirmed during this Ballpark Neighborhood Station Area planning process. The neighborhood identified the following goals to enhance livability and accommodate anticipated growth. GOAL: Take advantage of current development opportunities, existing services, and amenities to enhance neighborhood livability. The Ballpark and its supporting infrastructure are at the geographic and emotional “heart” of the neighborhood. The neighborhood accommodates and enjoys the vibrancy of game days and would like to see game day vibrancy on more days of the calendar and in all seasons. Several strategies are recommended to enhance vibrancy and leverage the community’s investment in the neighborhood. STRATEGIES: • Implement the goals and strategies identified in: »Life on State Implementation Plan (not adopted) »Central 9th Chapter of the Downtown Master Plan »300 West Reconstruction »Homeless Resource Centers Neighborhood Action Strategies »State Street Project Area Plan »Salt Lake City Moderate Income Housing Plan »Salt Lake City Parks & Public Lands Needs Assessment »Citywide Gentrification Assessment & Displacement Mitigation Plan »Growing SLC »The Salt Lake City Street Lighting Master Plan • Update the city’s zoning code and map, as appropriate to implement the provisions of this plan: ACTIONS: +Amend Section 21A.26.078: TSA Transit Station Area District of the Salt Lake City Municipal Code to include the Ballpark Station Area as one of the existing TSA districts or create a new one if needed. • Require activation of the 1300 South frontage with restaurants, shops, street furniture and trees. • Implement streetscape improvements to accommodate pedestrian volumes. • Allow heights comparable to heights in other Urban Station Areas. • Protect the viewshed of the Wasatch Range from inside Smith’s Ballpark. +Evaluate and amend the City’s zoning code and map, as appropriate to include the urban design considerations identified in each of the character areas in this plan. +Evaluate and amend the City’s zoning code and map, as appropriate, to ensure compatible building scale and configuration on the east and west sides of Main Street. +Evaluate and amend the City’s zoning code and map, as appropriate to implement the following priorities for the 300 West Character Areas: • Ensure that amenities, connections, and services needed to support higher density development are included in development plans for the area. • Require development proposals to include mid-block and other connections to break down current large commercial blocks into smaller, more walkable blocks. • Where appropriate, development proposals incorporate access to existing and planned TRAX crossings. • Identify opportunities to provide community amenities, shops, and services within the heart for year-round activation. • Provide enhanced street and pedestrian lighting to improve safety and visibility. GOAL: Create a dense urban environment and entertainment zone around the Ballpark. STRATEGIES: • Invest in the station area and around the Ballpark to improve the overall neighborhood and enhance the opportunities in the Heart of the Ballpark. ACTIONS: +Improve east-west connectivity across TRAX to the north and the south of 1300 South. At a minimum, pedestrian/bicycle crossings should be identified to allow pedestrians and cyclists to move east to west without having to go to 1300 or 1700 South. +Install side-loading platforms at the Ballpark TRAX Station. +Consider redeveloping the TRAX station parking lot and bus turnaround for higher density uses and to provide neighborhood amenities. +Install pedestrian crossings east and west of TRAX on 1300 South on either side of the UTA crossing barrier. +Consider redevelopment opportunities for the City-owned parking lot at 1300 South and West Temple, while still allowing public parking land uses in the vicinity, to potentially increase density and improve the urban environment. +Install a festival street on West Temple and plazas adjacent to the stadium. +Invest in a public library within the station area that can serve as a neighborhood anchor and public amenity space. +Integrate greenspace and “green” elements into the urban landscape. • Enhance public space surrounding the Ballpark and include public art and references to historical elements. THE PLAN | GOALS, STRATEGIES & ACTIONS • Designate West Temple between 1300 South and Albemarle Avenue as a Festival Street for non-gameday and gameday activation including: • Farmers Markets • Community Celebrations • Food Truck festivals • Neighborhood Concerts • Implement a district-parking strategy that utilizes unused area parking and parking garages for game days to minimize the need for parking fields in the area. • Enhance the Ballpark’s relationship with the neighborhood by identifying opportunities to activate the West Temple and 1300 South facades of the stadium on non-game days and incorporate public green space, non- motorized connections, plazas, and similar public spaces around the stadium. • If feasible, identify a strategy to bury power lines as development in the Ballpark Neighborhood occurs. GOAL: Increase connectivity in the station area. The neighborhood is well-connected to the regional transportation and transit networks; however, the infrastructure for that regional network also acts as a barrier to internal connectivity, which limit easy multi-modal access to the Ballpark TRAX Station, schools, and parks, and separates newly developing residential uses west of the TRAX line from the rest of the neighborhood. Strategies recommended to improve connectivity within the neighborhood and the pedestrian and biking environment are listed below. Opportunities to improve connectivity include new connections, improvement of existing connections and reconfiguration of the TRAX station platform. Figure 2.7 is a map of opportunities to create new connections within the neighborhood. As of the writing of this Plan the new connection across the TRAX rails to the north of the Ballpark Station platform at Paxton Avenue is planned for near-term construction by UTA. The concept includes improved connection from the existing TRAX platform to the west to improve connectivity to the new residential developments along the 300 West corridor. STRATEGIES • Improve overall connectivity and walkability in the area. ACTIONS: +Study the potential future lane reconfiguration of 1300 South to eliminate or narrow traffic lanes and expand and improve the sidewalk. +Utilize existing alleyways, midblock, and truncated connections to create a system of bike and pedestrian pathways through the neighborhood. +Implement the planned TRAX line pedestrian crossings to the north of the current Ballpark Station. +Widen and enhance sidewalks to improve pedestrian comfort through the addition of street furnishings, pedestrian lighting and a buffer from moving traffic. +Implement pedestrian level lighting to improve safety and visibility. +Establish specific bicycle routes through the neighborhood according to the Salt Lake City Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan. +Reconfigure Ballpark TRAX Station to change from a suburban-style station that has northern platform access only from the east parking lot into an urban-style station that allows access from both the east and west sides of the station. This would include new access at the north end of the platform from Lucy Avenue/200 West on the west side of the TRAX rails +Redevelop part of the current surface parking lots to transit supportive uses that include retail, shops, and service near the Ballpark Station platform. +Establish a pedestrian crossing to the east and west of the UTA crossing barrier across 1300 South. +Study future crossings south of the 1300 South crossing at the TRAX line. GOAL: Increase urban design quality. Neighborhood identity refers to the ability of residents and visitors to distinguish a place by unique and distinct characteristics. Supporting the neighborhood as a distinguishable place involves consideration for creating a balanced mix of uses, ensuring architectural and landscape character, embracing historic character and elements, spotlighting neighborhood, and regional amenities, and considering the surrounding land use and transportation context of the area. The Ballpark Station Area is made up of several distinct areas that have their own character as expressed by building massing, use, streetscape elements and overall design. This plan supports the distinctly different areas within the neighborhood through recommendations to preserve some elements and enhance others. The character areas are illustrated in Figure 2.6. Photo: GSBS Consulting 12 THE PLAN | GOALS, STRATEGIES & ACTIONS13 0 600 1,200300Feet 3 0 0 W E S T 900 S 1300 S 1700 S S T A T E S T M A I N S T Main street character area 300 West transitional area central ninth corridor plan life on state street improvements west temple character area “heart” of the neighborhood FIGURE 2.6: BALLPARK CHARACTER AREAS Main Street Character Area The Main Street Character Area is defined by the presence of small local businesses, a generally pleasant pedestrian and bike environment, and medium-density residential buildings. New development should focus on maintaining the scale, walkability, and bikability of the neighborhood. West Temple Character Area The West Temple Character Area has a mix of residential and small businesses along the corridor. It is also home to the Public Utilities facility, the Ballpark Neighborhood park, and Jefferson Park. New development should maintain the current character and scale of the area. New development adjacent to the stadium should support the installation festival street improvements adjacent to the Ballpark from 1300 South to Albemarle Avenue. This can help expand the existing plaza area, create new plaza areas, and allow for temporary closure for community and gameday events, while also providing opportunities for art and historical elements. New development should also enhance the biking and walking environment on West Temple and consider traffic calming measures in the more residential sections. State Street Character Area The State Street Character Area is defined primarily by small businesses running the length of the station area. This area is undergoing several changes guided by the Salt Lake City Transportation Division’s Life on State Bikeway Implementation project and the RDA State Street Project Area Plan. Central Ninth Character Area The Central Ninth Character Area is defined by several small businesses and larger multifamily structures. This area is transitioning into a node with various entertainment options and services. New development in the area should maintain the current scale and massing of new development along the 900 South Corridor and implement the recommendations and strategies identified in the Downtown Master Plan – Central 9th Chapter including the 9th South Viaduct Catalytic Project. 300 West Character Areas The entire corridor is transitioning from an industrial/major commercial to higher density mixed use. However, there are several sub areas with the 300 West corridor that are transitioning at different rates. East of 300 West and North of 1300 South This area is historically characterized by smaller industrial and residential uses. Property consolidation has occurred and will continue to occur as demand for housing continues. There are large multifamily developments proposed or recently approved for the area. This area also includes an unused rail spur that is proposed for a light rail extension into the Granary District and the possibility of an adjacent trail, which is also being evaluated. Connectivity within this area and to the south to the Ballpark TRAX Station is a key consideration for this area. In addition, opportunities to add open space, public amenities, and neighborhood serving commercial should be pursued. West of 300 West and North of 1300 South This area currently has a mix of big box commercial, and newer office and residential uses. The transition of smaller parcels to low- and mid- density office and higher density residential is expected to continue as is the continuation of existing big box uses. East of 300 West and South of 1300 South This area is experiencing transition around several large scale, long-term uses. Lowes Home Improvement, the Gail Miller Homeless Resource Center, and the Utah State Liquor Store are expected to remain as the area transitions to include several new multi-family developments. As with the area north of 1300 South connectivity within the area and to the east across the TRAX line is a key consideration. Public amenities and neighborhood serving commercial should also be added to this area. West of 300 West and South of 1300 South The Walmart big box store is in this area as well as small lot light industrial and warehouse uses. This area is expected to transition in the future. The considerations identified for the areas already transitioning should inform zoning and development considerations in this area. “Heart” of the Neighborhood This area is characterized by its proximity to the Ballpark Station, Smith’s Ballpark, and several community organizations and businesses. This is the central hub of the neighborhood which will continue to densify as mixed- use development occurs. This area is appropriate for the highest densities allowed in Urban Station Areas. This level of density must be balanced with improvements to the public realm including an expanded sidewalk, pedestrian-focused amenities, plazas, street lighting, and street trees. A high level of visual interest and design quality is needed to balance the increased density in the area and require street activating uses on the ground floor. Illustrated in Figure 2.4. BALLPARK CHARACTER AREA DESCRIPTIONS Character areas are descriptions of existing conditions within each area. Character areas are generally defined by existing land uses, built scale, street corridors, density, and transit. proposed future connections *Potential Public Space at Ballpark Proposed Bike Routes *Multi-Modal Access Proposed Crossings Festival Street Proposed Future TRAX with Possible Adjacent Trail TRAX Line *Pedestrian Connection Through Future Development *Dependent on owner agreement Green Space TRAX Line Bikeway Festival Street Connection through Future Development 1300 SOUTH 3 0 0 W E S T W E S T T E M P L E M A I N S T R E E T S T A T E S T R E E T 0 100 200 400 FEET PAXTON AVE LUCY AVE 1400 SOUTH 1 2 A b c d FIGURE 2.7: CONNECTIVITY MAP RECOMMENDED CONNECTIONS IN THE “HEART” OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD Festival Street This street will allow temporary closure to vehicle traffic and host neighborhood and ballpark events. Proposed Bike Routes Several bike routes are in various stages of implementation through the heart of the neighborhood at the time of this document’s adoption. • The 300 West Reconstruction is funded and undergoing construction from 900 South to 2100 South with expected completion in 2022. • The existing designated bikeway on Main Street is undergoing an evaluation as part of the Salt Lake City Transportation Division’s Life on State Bikeway Implementation project. • The Paxton bikeway will connect State Street to 300 West. Multimodal Access This opportunity is recommended to connect the bikeway on Main Street to the TRAX Platform on Lucy Avenue. Pedestrian Connection Through Future Development This recommendation occurs in two locations: 1. This recommendation links the 1300 South station to the Ballpark and moves pedestrians through a private pedestrian-oriented development directly onto the proposed festival street on West Temple. 2. This recommendation connects West Temple to 300 West. This connection is dependent on a future agreement with UTA to provide a TRAX crossing on or near 1400 South. Potential for Future Public Space at Ballpark Additional public space through the addition of a ballpark perimeter trail, additional plazas, and activating public uses are recommended for this area. This recommendation would help connect the greater neighborhood to the Ballpark, but should not interfere with its daily operation and events. Proposed Crossings Additional crossings are recommended: a. directly east and west of the UTA crossings barriers on 1300 South. b. directly north of the 1300 South TRAX platform onto Lucy Avenue c. across the TRAX line at Paxton Avenue and the existing rail spur. d. An additional future crossing is recommended at or near 1400 South and should be evaluated for future opportunities in partnership with UTA. An enhanced crossing is also recommended at the intersection of 1300 South and West Temple. This crossing should show clear delineation, possibly through community art or a painted crossing. Proposed Future TRAX with Adjacent Trail This area is being evaluated by UTA for operating TRAX service with a possible adjacent trail. Opportunities for additional green spaces and greenery should be considered as this area is developed. 14 THE PLAN | GOALS, STRATEGIES & ACTIONS15 GOAL: Improve safety. Throughout the planning process safety was consistently identified as a current concern and goal for the future. This plan focuses on measures taken in the built environment to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety. STRATEGIES • Improve pedestrian experience and safety. ACTIONS: +Install pedestrian-level street lighting. +Require ground level uses in new buildings to incorporate pedestrian-level strategies. +Ensure adequate sidewalk width and park strips on primary walk routes, particularly around the TRAX station. +Improve ADA accessibility though sidewalk repair and removal of obstacles. +Ensure ongoing maintenance of all facilities to repair uneven sidewalks, functioning signals and frequent trash receptacles. • Identify and implement best practices in urban design to improve neighborhood safety, including: ACTIONS: +Identify opportunities for interaction, +Elimination of “blind corners” or areas, +Appropriate lighting for safety GOAL: Enhance social vibrancy. STRATEGIES • Support events and placemaking efforts including community art, pop-up events, and temporary food vendors. • Find creative solutions to enhance greenspace in the neighborhood. ACTIONS: +Explore creative options for additional greenspace in the heart of the neighborhood in and around the Ballpark. +Evaluate the opportunity for future green space on the current Public Utilities site if and when Salt Lake Department of Public Utilities moves offices to a new location. +Enhance the urban tree canopy in underserved areas of the neighborhood and require additional street trees and urban greenery with new development. +Maintain all green spaces with: • Trash receptacles • Pedestrian lighting • Pedestrian furniture • Improve the quality of current and future greenspace. ACTIONS: +Ensure funding for additional maintenance and staffing as additional greenspace is added. GOAL: Increase affordability and attainability of housing for current and future residents. STRATEGIES • Provide a diversity of housing types and options for different incomes, familial status, age, and needs. ACTIONS: +Promote a diversity in the size of new units in the neighborhood to accommodate residents in different stages of life, including families with children. • Utilize the RDA State Street Project Area as a tool to capture reinvestment in the neighborhood and help encourage a diversity of housing types. • Increase opportunities for home ownership in the neighborhood. ACTIONS: +Explore alternative options for ownership strategies including land trusts and co-ops. +Provide down-payment assistance or other programs for qualifying residents • Mitigate the negative impacts of gentrification as development occurs. ACTIONS: +Continue to provide and market home repair programs for qualifying residents. +Provide education and renter legal assistance to help current renters stay in place. +Support development assistance and financing programs to maintain affordability. +Preserve existing social services and provide additional services as development occurs to support housing options and access to opportunity at a variety of income levels. proposed future connections *Potential Public Space at Ballpark Proposed Bike Routes *Multi-Modal Access Proposed Crossings Festival Street Proposed Future TRAX with Possible Adjacent Trail TRAX Line Proposed Future Alleyway Connections *Pedestrian Connection Through Future Development *Dependent on owner agreement Green Space TRAX Line Bikeway Festival Street Connection through Future Development proposed future connections *Potential Public Space at Ballpark Proposed Bike Routes *Multi-Modal Access Proposed Crossings Festival Street Proposed Future TRAX with Possible Adjacent Trail TRAX Line Proposed Future Alleyway Connections *Pedestrian Connection Through Future Development *Dependent on owner agreement Green Space TRAX Line Bikeway Festival Street Connection through Future Development 1700 SOUTH I-15 I-15 0 600 1,200300Feet 1300 SOUTH 3 0 0 W E S T W E S T T E M P L E M A I N S T R E E T S T A T E S T R E E T PAXTON AVE LUCY AVE 1400 SOUTH 900 SOUTH FIGURE 2.8: CONNECTIVITY MAP - REGIONAL CONTEXT THE PLAN | CONNECTIONS 16 RECOMMENDED PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES • Wide enough to provide 4 distinct zones: +THE EDGE ZONE separates the roadway from the sidewalk. +THE FURNISHINGS ZONE provides space for street furnishings and vertical elements such as trees, benches, etc. +THE THROUGHWAY ZONE provides a minimum of five – eight feet clear continuous pathway for ADA accessibility. +THE FRONTAGE ZONE provides a “shy distance” between the throughway zone and building frontage/property line and entrances. • ADA accessible • Street trees to provide a shaded pedestrian way • Human scaled building frontages • Pedestrian level street lighting • Store fronts, office windows, and windows on homes facing the street. • Encourage and allow outdoor retail displays while maintaining ADA compliant throughway zone. • Use of plazas, courtyards, and squares to provide pedestrian amenities.